Woman to Woman

By Denise Noe

October 3, 2005 07:25 AM | Link to this

As is usually true of discussions of this subject, the perspective of those who are supposed to make it possible for women to choose fulltime mothering, men, is completely ignored. It is treated as if it is a decision to be made solely at women’s discretion. However, the truth is that the impact on men of becoming their family’s sole breadwinner is profound. It can be positive for many men as they are assured that the children are not abused or neglected in child care, may enjoy a more well-rested and attentive wife, and may pride themselves in the ability to support a family. However, it can also be negative for men. As sole breadwinners, they are under more stress. They may feel obligated to spend more and more time at their jobs, even jobs of which they are not utterly enamored. This extra time spent at breadwinning can leave them alienated from the very people for whom they are working, their wives and children. Men who are sole breadwinners may end up having few emotional interactions with the young and pitifully little influence on them. The pressure of being a sole breadwinner may lead the man to become timid in the chances he takes at work or, even worse, lead him to cut ethical and even legal corners on the job. If a breadwinning man should commit crimes on the job, his wife and children may benefit financially from his ill-gotten gains but only he is liable to go to prison. A one-paycheck family is in a precarious position for in today’s ever-changing job market, it can easily become a no-paycheck family. Failing to thoroughly discuss the possible effects on men of being sole breadwinners is anti-male. Another point that should be mentioned is that it is odd that we’re discussing whether or not well educated women should be “leaders” at home or at work at the same time we’re replacing welfare with workfare and insisting that poor women leave the home and the children they may desperately wish to spend their days caring for in order to take ill-paid, entry level jobs as maids, clerks, telemarketers, and cashiers.

By taboga

October 3, 2005 07:28 AM | Link to this

How many different ways are there for “educated women” to keep asking the same question over and over again…?

By Ken

October 3, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this

Denise… I appreciate your concern for men when considering this issue. Many women would not.

However, it is not the men, or the women that should be the central point for this decision. That central point should be the child(ren).

Every situation is different, so the decision cannot be made like a cookie cutter. When women need to work to make ends meet, then it is obviously better for the children to have mom at work. When women are single mothers, it is obviously better for the children to have mom at work. Let’s toss those scenarios aside because I think everyone can agree on those.

That leaves you with the scenario where mom working provides a bigger house, nicer cars, longer vacations, etc. In other words, it provides things beyond the needs of the family. Recently, I was talking with my mother after a day of looking for baby furniture. My head was spinning with all of the choices, not to mention the cost, and my mother told me very simply that my baby would be happy sleeping in a drawer.

That really hit home. My baby doesn’t care about anything other than having me and my wife there to provide love and attention and guidance. If we as parents realize that and really take it to heart, I think many of us might find ourselves making different decisions aout our work and career.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

What a subject. The woman should do whatever she wants.

By FatMoose

October 3, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

Shaunti Feldhahn states: “When I told my assistant this week’s question, she laughed. “You mean, being a stay-at-home mom isn’t being a leader?â€? You see, my part-time assistant is sharp…”

Does anyone else find it exremely bothersome that a professional journalist would omit the limiting (and crucial point of the topic) phrase: “…in the workplace???”

Is this exactly what one is supposed to learn in your first composition class? What kind of idiot gets through even comps 101-203; much less j-school?

Must have a mail-order degree.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

Wait til Tim gets on and ask him about those Gators. Hehehe.

By Dusty

October 3, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

May I suggest a less boring subject?

DO WOMEN THINK THAT “EDUCATED MEN” SHOULD BECOME DIETITIANS,”NANNIES” OR BALLET DANCERS?

By Jack

October 3, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

We should hold the cans while the women take aim. LOL.

By Tim

October 3, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

Jack… I am in hiding this week… I may crawl out of my hole sometime next week lol… ain’t nothing to say about that game… Gators got SPANKED and got spanked BAAAAD… I said last week though… the silver lining… I sure wish my papa would have been alive to see it… I wouldn’t have gotten a phone call… but the next time I saw him he would have had a smirk on his face that said it all :)… I know he is somewhere smirkin :)

my opinion on the subject… I think will be most peoples… it depends on the woman and the situation… the woman needs to do what is best for her and her family… that is a decision only she (with the help of her family) can make… in my family (obviously not a conventional family though)… when the time comes that my partner and I have children I plan to stay home with them… until they are at least in school (and still will be home when they come home from school)… that is what I have decided… certainly isn’t what’s best for everyone but I hope it works for us

By Dusty

October 3, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Annie, get your gun. Jack is holding.

By E. Lewis

October 3, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Women should have the abiliuty to choose. For some that choice would be an education for others not. Some get married and other stay single. Some women feel the need to become mothers and others don’t. Some women with children choose to stay at home and others return to the workplace. Of course there are women for whom circumstance dictates what they must do. The whole point is that somewhere along our lives most women make these life altering decisions one way or the other and we should all support every woman’s right to make that choice and live with the consequences.

By whiley

October 3, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

LOL DUSTY !

By Raylene

October 3, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

Let women do whatever they feel like doing. If they are highly educated, I doubt that they went through all that schooling just to sit at home. Some do, I know, but it really depends on the person.

As much as I would love to be at home with my son more, it just isn’t an option right now.

Once the kids are in school though, what is the point in being home all day? maybe work part time so your home when the kids get out of school.

By mel

October 3, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

This is a stupid topic. If a woman decides to stay home, education or not, then that is her choice. Why should she put the collective needs of working women above her own children?

I have been at home with my daughter for almost 2 years. It gets boring at times, but I really enjoy being with her. This is time I can’t ever get back. My husband and I knew from the beginning that I would stay home for awhile, so we have sacrificed the bigger house and some of the little extras. It’s worth it, though.

I will say this: Depending on your field, it can be hard to get back into the work force.

By DeltaX

October 3, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

Opinions on this situation welcome:

I was dating a girl (serious, 3.5 year relationship) throughout college. We entered college together with the plan to get Marine Bio degrees and work together.

Halfway through our third (last) year; she dropped all her classes and changed to an art major (bc she could graduate in half a year with little loss of time - although she does have talent in that area too). She dropped that too; deciding she would rather be a stay at home partner (note not stay at home mom). We broke up shortly after she completely dropped out of school. She met and married a man 14yrs her senior, stays at home and makes crafts to sell.

Besides feeling slighted at the time (which I am open to opinions to); I really lost a lot of respect for her.

I have since felt as though there are a lot of freedoms she (women?) have that I sure as heck do not.

Comments?

By Just Being Me

October 3, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

FatMoose, I didn’t understand what you were saying… :-/

By Ken

October 3, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

Mel… This is not a stupid topic. This topic directly influences the future generations of our nation.

By Ben

October 3, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Ken - Does the topic directly influence future generations or does the example of the parents influence future generations?

By Archie

October 3, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

I tend to agree with Raylene because with the amount of money that one spends these days for an education I doubt that anyone would just want to stay home but my answer to the question is yes educated women should become leaders in the workplace but not instead of being a stay-at-home mom. Do what you and your spouse decide is best. This is a good topic just not one that requires a lot of back and forth.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Mel. She was looking for a meal ticket. You were doing good for a while til she found an older more affluent meal ticket allowing her to coast. She will probably have a child or two and divorce him and take half his stuff. You feel slighted and should, but it probably worked out better in the long run for you.

By Tim

October 3, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

amen Jack

By Just Being Me

October 3, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Archie - well put. It may be a good topic, but it’s not a good discussion topic, and I think that’s what Mel was getting at.

Most everyone will agree the answer is: do what works for your family.

By Ben

October 3, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

My wife can do whatever she wants as long as it doesn’t interfere with my dinner, clean clothes and Sunday tee time.

By Michael H.

October 3, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

The feminist movement, broadly conceived, surely had it excesses, as every new social movement does, and it does not seem to have adequately reconciled the difficulties, economic, social, personal, and political that are involved in women receiving considerable training and education and then setting much of it aside for family duties.

I think Ms. Glass overstates the case that the choice of a professional woman to remain home for a period of time, instead of pursuing a full-time career, adversely affects all or many women. This is a rather silly claim, some sort of perverse utilitarian calculus that it is “noble to care for a child but that is one little person compared to the lives of millions of women.� Apart from the presumption of motherhood being restricted to only one child, how does such a choice by a single individual affect the lives of “millions of women?� A few premises are missing in that argument.

Heaven forbid that I bring in the European experience but we could learn something from them. Maternity leave, paternity leave, more flexible jobs, federally mandated holidays of longer than two weeks, are some of the actions that could be taken to strengthen the roles of both parents in bringing up their children. (Compare these to paltry unpaid family leave for medical emergencies that took two acts of Congress to secure.)

However, in the United States, business and its partner the Republican Party rule supreme and the likelihood that these kinds of policies will be enacted are very slim at the moment.

On a different note, both Ms. Glass and Ms. Feldhahn focus too much on a relatively small per cent age of women who are professionals. Most women do not face such choices as hiring a well paid assistant or opting out of the workforce for some years to be with their children full time. They should both step outside their immediate circle and survey the sociological landscape which includes the experience of women quite different from their own.

Sandy/Sanhan, More Schadenfreude for liberals. Now we can add another virtuecrat to the list of conservatives who are currently in trouble in the amoral Ralph Reed, former director of the ‘Christian’ coalition. It seems that the web of deception woven by spider Reed has managed to ensnare him, something I’m sure he didn’t bet on (pun intended.) And while 45 million Americans struggle with no health insurance Senator majority leader Bill Frist is under investigation by the SEC for cashing out of his for profit family hospital chain just before the values dropped. Bubba Bush’s numbers are slightly up, but the faux cowboy is not eligible for another term, and the only legacy he is likely to leave is a massive deficit, a record of pork legislation, no vetoes, and an unjustified war in Iraq. In a few years “W� will mean little more than “Where were those weapons?�

And the yahoos who want to introduce “intelligent design,� into the public schools, (the latest incarnation of biblical creationism) as a scientific theory, are in court for Scopes II. They will soon come to know the meaning of intellectual humiliation as did William Jennings Bryan of Scopes I and this rear guard action against the fruits of the Enlightenment will be put back into the Sunday schools where it belongs.

Dusty, with respect to your last remarks, I am sure that you can make lots of “excuses� but offer little in the way of reasons for your claims. Your friend Tabasco (George Wallace reincarnated) has a humorous notion of what constitutes evidence for intelligence in a politician and little understanding of how people are actually elected within a largely political illiterate and indifferent political culture, especially when a politician’s, such as Bush, core constituency consists in ignorant rednecks (pardon the redundancy) led down the garden path by Bush’s architect Karl Rove.

By Ken

October 3, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

Ben… The answer to your question would be both.

This topic leads women in our society to choices and those choices create parental examples for our children. Those examples shape the value structures our children.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Yes Michael. And your candidate’s constituency was led down the garden path by Michael Moore and the immoral Hollywood ilk. (and you wonder why you lost)

By Venita

October 3, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

As broadminded as the AJC usually is, I’m disappointed that this conversation feels really ‘white collar’. In the face of two family displacing hurricanes, California fires and possible drought in the east, this a very boring conversation.

By Ken

October 3, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

Michael H… If we followed the European model, we would no longer be having babies. Our population would be sustained only through immigration rather than procreation.

In many Western European countries, the native population is dying off and being replaced by immigrant families. In many cases this is altering the very culture of those countries.

I would personally love to have more vacation time, a shorter work week, etc. However, I don’t know if I would trade what I do have for those things. I’ve had contact with many European colleagues over the years and NONE of my peers lived a lifestyle comparable to my own. I worked harder, but the fruits of my labor were/are definitely worth it.

By Ken

October 3, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

Sorry… I need to clarify peers. I am referring to folks at relative ages and relative places in our careers.

By mel

October 3, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Yes, that’s what I meant. Sorry for being snippy. Haven’t had my coffee!

By DeltaX

October 3, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

Jack,

I am figuring that you were repsonding to my post.

Yes, I feel fortunate that the relationship ended and I was not a ‘fit’ for the type of relationship she wanted.

Yet, it still leaves me reluctant to believe that I (a man) have fewer freedoms than her (a woman) when it comes to the grand scheme. Which, in turn, causes me to not really believe this ‘movement’ has a real purpose anymore - and if it make much progress, it will be unbalancing the genders.

It seems that for a guy to have as many freedoms as a female; they have to have money/power - which means either A) Hard Work or B) Luckily born into affluence.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

DeltaX. I agree. Very few men can marry into money as easily as women. One of the disadvantages of being a man.

By Sandy/Sanhan

October 3, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Once again, the flawed format of this forum makes us choose either/or, when we could be asked to express our opinions and describe our experiences regarding the topic, acknowledging favorable viewpoints all around, recognizing the value of thinking outside the box, compromise, and working toward realistic options and solutions. Instead, because of the dichotomous construct, we find ourselves entrenched in ideologies that are inconsistent with our own experiences, environments, and opportunities. Oh, and we tend not to be very nice to people with whom we probably have more in common than we realize.

That having been stated, Ken’s assessment that there is no cookie cutter solution is a given. Feminism has evolved to be about choices, as Diane states.

I’m assuming that Ken is new to parenting, and I would caution him and others that the difference between what we want for our children and what they need is easily blurred, especially when one discovers the fortitude needed to raise children in a consumer society. It’s hard to find the balance of not giving in to your kids’s every demand for material things, but equally true in indulging their demands on your attention. It has to be enough to keep them safe, but not too much so they never learn to amuse,occupy, and ultimately become responsible for themselves.

I live in an economically conservative city. There are not a lot of parttime options that pay a living wage, and fulltime options require daycare expenses. Although our medical center at the Univeristy of Rochester will pay full-time benefits for parttime employeees, this helps, but does not necessarily translate into a living wage. Creating and running one’s own business might be a solution, but it also has inherent risks, and may not be compatible with kids at home. Sometimes you gotta go with what’s available.

While I can sort of see Shaunti’s friend’s defensiveness, I can personally relate to feeling defensive at Ken’s assumption that educated women work for the bigger and better luxuries. I have to work for my family to survive. My husband works many hours at a fledgling business, and we share the work load at home, including kids and housework, etc. We don’t have many luxuries, and my kids have learned to do without amenities that many of their friends have. My work does not leave me with a lot of time to spend with my kids on a daily basis, both despite and because I work at home. But I can forego the daycare costs (now that they’re a little older), and we live in a safe area with exceptional schools. We do not own our own home. We own one car. We rarely go on vacation. My father was a factory worker, my father-in-law a teacher. Our mothers stayed home. Mine died young. Despite our own higher education, we have not been able to give our kids the higher standard of living that we had growing up, namely a parochial school education; we are struggling to hold on to the status quo. It has become more apparent to us that the loss of the middle class is translates to loss of democratic equality. Some of the reasons for this are personal, some are societal. It’s a complex issue that does not lend itself well in an either/or argument.

Not to sound pedantic, but choice itself is not a panacea; there have to be viable, workable options from which to choose, which is what modern feminism is about at its basic level.

By sean

October 3, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

Okay…here it is

By Ken

October 3, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Sandy/Sanhan… As I said before, there are no cookie cutter solutions. As I also said before, we need to toss any situation where the woman is working to provide necessities out from this equation.

That being said, the vast majority of women in the workforce that I know are either single, DINKS, empty nesters or working to have the 5 bedroom house when they could really make due with 3. The first three, like the previous statements, should not be considered in this discussion.

Whether someone is a new parent, or an experienced parent should not have any bearing on the conversation. Our consumer culture will impact our children as much as we allow it to, regardless of our parenting longevity. Seting an example of trading time with the family in order to work to have more material things simply makes materialism and consumerism the dominant ideal.

By Just Being Me

October 3, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

And, with that said… what other hot topics can we discuss this week?

By Dusty

October 3, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

Michael H., pompous bard of pseudo-intellectualism, I won’t bother to list your usual parade of inadequacies. You display them yourself so clearly. It is sad that you have an education but missed being an intellectual. Big difference! If you wish to call Taboga “names”, tell him. Not me.

My thoughts on most of these W/W blogs: Women must think clearly and independently whether married, single, childless, child-blessed, working, non-working, educated, not educated, or anything else you can imagine. But it must be with concern and love and hopefully—with good sense.

By Van

October 3, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

It still comes down to what a woman wants - a career or a family. The coices are limited, have a family and when they reach an age where mom isn’t needed, then start a career, or have a career and then have a family when the goal of being a “boss” has been achived

That is something a woman must decide on, and to keep it happy at home, she should involve her husband in that discussion.

By Michael H.

October 3, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

You won’t because you can’t. You are simply scared, for good reason, that I will kick the daylights out of you. (I won’t mention Tabasco, a total idiot of a human being.) In the words of your benighted president, “Bring it on.” But I can see you are all bluster and no balls.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Michael H. How condesending thou art. Bless your heart.

By Nikita

October 3, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Not to be snarky, but this is one of the more aggravating/pathetic arguments that i’ve seen W2W tackle lately. The premise it relies on — that women SHOULD do something in particular — is offensive to women. It’s a judgment that implies that either party knows what a woman should be doing with her life.

Women, in my opinion, should do whatever their skills best fit and whatever they can excel at and make a contribution to. For me, that’s not staying home. For some others, staying home and raising children may be the best way for them to make a contribution. But to imply that either choice is wrong is just plain garbage. Shame on you, AJC editors, for setting up such a patently offensive question.

By Michael H.

October 3, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Ken,

What constitutes a better “lifestyle” is a matter of values.

I prefer the European states, in general, because I think that they are more socially just. Most of them have lower poverty rates, higher educational levels, lower crime rates universal health care, high standards of living, much more time off from their labor, and a higher level of political participation. (Not to mention that they are more secular.)

The United Nations does a ranking of the “quality of life” of all the countries in the world utilizing the above criteria each year and the United States always finishes behind several European countries. The last index ranked Norway, Sweden, Canada, and Australia above the United States. I have lived in or visited each of those countries and I agree with their assessment. The conservative British magazine did their own ranking with a somewhat different criteria that stressed growth and a more capitalistic attitude and didn’t rank the United States in the top ten. I don’t agree with that assessment but the view that the U.S. is the best country in the world is certainly less than obvious to a reflective informed person (as you seem to be.)

You may think more goods and money in your own life in comparison with your peers is the best criterion for evaluating quality of life. I don’t agree. In the end it does come down to political values and I prefer those listed above. You probably don’t and most likely most Americans agree with you. That is in part why the United States is the way it is, though only in part.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Michael H. If you think it is soooo much better in Europe, please do us all a favor and get a one-way ticket and go there.

By RF

October 3, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Then here’s an honest question for you Michael, no malice or personal attack intended. Why stay here in the USA and criticize it if it so miserable by comparison to Europe? Why haven’t you moved?

By a. brown

October 3, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Thank you to feminism for giving me the opportunity to decide if I wanted to be a mom or not, a corporate executive or not, or maybe even an architect. Feminism is about controlling your own destiny through choice. I have chosen to be a stay at home mom. And I love it. There are a lot of women who aren’t cut out for it, and some who can’t afford it. We didn’t think we could afford it at first. We were raised to believe that after college you were guaranteed the nice house and car. We deserved it. But once my family seperated what we truly needed from what were in reality luxuries, we realized that with some planning, we could afford it,and what our family needed most was for our children to see us more than the daycare teacher. Our decision is not one that every family would make, but thanks to the women’s movement I get to make that decision. I applaud all the professional women who try to balance both roles, and I love the women who have chosen to stay at home.

By kimberly

October 3, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

You people who keep telling us to “move away” if we don’t like it here are COMPLETELY IGNORANT of the principles upon which this nation was founded in the first place. And I’m not talking about the principles by which our founding fathers actually lived, as they were slave owners, but the principles they held up and named when they broke from the English King. Among those were the right to criticize the government and the right of nonconformity with societal norms. The right to speak the truth, popular or not.

Why don’t YOU hit the road, JACK? To a place like Cuba, where nobody ever disagrees….

By Jack

October 3, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Kimberly. Go with him. Please.

By JLB

October 3, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Why does it always have to be the battle of the sexes??? Why can’t every one just do what is best for the child. I am a mother and I have been the stay-at-home and I have been the bread winner as well. Who cares. This is a stupid topic. More thought could have been taken in coming up with this one. It will be too soon when everyone picks a better topic.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Kimberly. I wasn’t questioning his right to criticize the government. I said if he thought it was so much better in Europe, he should go there. You should go too.

By kimberly

October 3, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

That has already been suggested. THANKS! Think I’ll stay though, and pop some popcorn. Can’t wait to see how Blinky the Clown’s latest crony appointment further F-s up the future of America. I never enjoyed the horror flicks much, but being an American these days means getting used to the carnage and destruction of everything we hold dear.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

They’ve given us s** subjects for weeks.

By kimberly

October 3, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Jack, the Europeans don’t cotton to immigrants either. Especially not the barbaric, uncivilized ones that comes from the States! Guess we’ll have to stay.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Who said we didn’t cotton to immigrants? We are a nation of them. Yada,yada,yada…

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

October 3, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

The people who “claim” to love this country more than others, are always the first to tell people to leave. You don’t have a clue about what makes this country what it is today, except for your own personal gains.

FYI… the more money people gain, the less “many” of them like to do “personal” things for themselves. You want someone to cook,clean,wash,shop,mow the lawn, etc… for you. But, you don’t want the people who provide the above services to you to have an education, insurance, medical treatment, etc. Then when someone points out the lack of and the cost of the above basic services, you tell them to go live in another country where many of these services are offered.

Your parents didn’t teach you the true value of “coming up” in the world. The little people are the ones who actually keep this country where it is today.

I have learned to value my trash collectors, maid services, cashiers, customer service reps, bus drivers, etc… because they are doing the jobs that I don’t want to do, but I value the people who do. I have an honest appreciation for everyone whose household income is under 35,000 a year.

There are many people who fall into that category who do not have medical benefits and other things that you take for granted.

For those who do not care about others, you should move to another country. However,a better option would be to open up your hearts and your minds. Not everyone is out to take advantage of you, many people truly can not afford the basic necessities.

By Ken

October 3, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

I don’t want anyone to move away. All ideas are necessary to ensure that the pendulum never swings too far to the left or the right.

It does seem ironic, however, that the same people who tout the wonderful European lifestyle, also tout the idea that everyone should have freedom to choose what’s best for them.

The very idea that government determines your healthcare, your work schedule, your vacation schedule and other various aspects of life smacks the idea of personal choice in the face.

Even though I believe that we would better off with a parent at home caring for our children, and that day care should be nothing more than a necessary evil, I would NEVER pass laws restricting what people can or cannot do. That’s what they do in Europe.

By DeltaX

October 3, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

*By Jack

October 3, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Kimberly. I wasn’t questioning his right to criticize the government. I said if he thought it was so much better in Europe, he should go there. You should go too.*

You ignorance and inability to look at other govmts/countries as a means to educate ourselves on whats working and why is really sad. To come out of the box with that hostility, and with those expressions from 3rd grade, sounds very redneck.

And, yes - you are in fact saying he should leave for criticizing the govmt: He criticized and you said leave.

By Dusty

October 3, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Oh, Michael H., I am SOOO afraid of you. Are you going to beat me to death with your GED certificate? Or your student assistant pay stub?

Jack, you’ve got some great travel ideas. Most agreeable.

By Ken

October 3, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Michael… If you prefer the European states, then please explain why you choose to live the United States.

By kimberly

October 3, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Amazed, well said. Thank you. I wish I could believe that there are many Americans who agree with what you just said. Perhaps there are, but mostly I’m seeing the other kind — the “I-got-mine-so-screw-you” kind. There are SO MANY of those! I think their kind is winning. I think it may be too late for our particular civilization. (Yes, I’m always depressed on Mondays.)

By Jack

October 3, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Amazed (Independent Woman). I guess that post was directed at me. Don’t dare tell me I don’t love this country. We live in the best country in the world. I told Mr. Know-it all that if he thought it was so much better in Europe to go there and stay. If someone came to your party and said the party next door was way better than yours, you wouldn’t tell them to go to the other party? Sorry, but I would tell them not to let the door hit them in the a*. Remember: A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it away.

By kimberly

October 3, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Yes Jack, you’re right. And this government has gotten BIGGER THAN ANY GOVERNMENT IN HISTORY in just the last five years. You should indeed be warning us all. A government big enough to spend us into a $4 trillion deficit is big enough to take away all the personal freedoms we’ve ever thought about exercising.

By DeltaX

October 3, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Jack,

If someone came to your party and said the party next door was way better than yours, you wouldn’t tell them to go to the other party?

Thats the problem: It is NOT your party. It is our party and WE can decide how to change it. And if you do not like what you are hearing, it is not your party to kick us out of - you can oppose our ideas, civil-like, or move to the other side of the room and leave the conversation.

Those are YOUR choices in this debate, and I will be relieved when you make a one.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

DeltaX.I did not say he should leave because he criticized. I said he should leave because he said Europe was better. If he likes it better, he should go. HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?

By Sandy/Sanhan

October 3, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Ken, no offense was intended. When I was younger and less experienced with parenting, I would have agreed that the experience should have no bearing in the discussion. But the theory and reality were quite different for me. I made the distinction that you are possibly a new parent, not to denigrate you, your skills, or attitudes about parenting or consumerism, but to illustrate what I discovered: that there was a huge disparity between my preconceived notions of being in the workforce and raising a family, and the actual reality; and the disparity of what I thought parenting would be like and what it actually is like. And of course that will be different for everybody.

Is it possible this topic is already exhausted? Perhaps that’s why the adversarial approach is used…

By Jack

October 3, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

DeltaX you are such an idiot.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

October 3, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Jack,

I would ask to join my neighbor and ask if I could bring something from my party to their party.

FYI.. I didn’t say you do not love this country, however I did try to point out that you appear to be more interested in your own personal gains. I’m sure you have a trash collector and you buy groceries. I’m just asking you to think about those groups of people when you think about your own personal gains. How did those groceries get to the store? I’m sure the people who packaged, picked and processed these items for the store are unskilled labor and many with families.

By Scott

October 3, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Tim - I will just say one thing and leave it there…ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLL TIDE ROLL!!!

By Jack

October 3, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

How did I appear to be more interested in my personal gains? You and Delta Dork have read way more into my post than I typed.

By taboga

October 3, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Michael,

Ever get the feeling that no one gives a rat’s a$$ what a little stooge like you prefers about “Europe”? Or what silly studies a bunch of third world types in the the “United Nations” has done?

But you did bring up something interesting to think about. When Bush was elected and re-elected, it was because of the “ignorant rednecks” as you stated. The thing that is interesting about that, is that when Reagan and Bush I were elected - it was because everyone was a “ignorant redneck” back then too. Then everyone quit being “ignorant rednecks” and became “enlightened” and voted for Clinton twice. But after that, everyone decided to go back to being an “ignorant redneck” and vote for Bush!

It’s amazing, isn’t it - how people just keep going back and forth between being an “ignorant rednecks” and “enlightened”?

And what is a little communist like you going to do when Newt Gingrich becomes the next President? You gonna wet your pants and start quoting to us from Aristotle again?

By Tim

October 3, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Scott… they did plenty of rolling… thanks for goin easy on me though (this is why I don’t trash talk)

By Dusty

October 3, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

DeltaX, if being proud of America makes someone a “redneck”, so be it. I am one of them. If being a liberal makes you “dump” on our country, think twice. It is not cultural, constructive or patriotic. It is mostly hate politics from losers who cannot win an election.

By Just Being Me

October 3, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

What’s with all the name-calling? Geez…

By kimberly

October 3, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

Aren’t we supposed to start the week on the high road, and degenerate as the week progresses?

TIM, sorry Dude. That was painful on Saturday. I feel for ya. Spurrier had no magic in him either, though. Try not to think about it.

By DeltaX

October 3, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

Jack,

I understand that one can like a place in general, more than another; but want to stay where you are because of other factors. And while staying there, you would try to emulate the aspect of the other place you like.

See, I understand a lot, and that there is a lot to understand. I also uderstand that it is not your decision to make; and saying ‘leave’ is plain redneck and an inferior reaction - either to other lifestyles or a smart person that pushes your grasp on the world.

By JLB

October 3, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

How comew sooo nasty sooo early. You are all entitled to your OPINIONS.

By kimberly

October 3, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

Being proud of America doesn’t make you a redneck. But if you are completely ignorant of facts and the basic principles of cause & effect, you might just be a redneck. If you think a nine-second sound bite tells you all you need to know, you might be a redneck. If you think our current pResident has made us safer-er from “towel heads: the true enemy of ‘murica” you might be a redneck. If you think Tom Delay is a good Christian man being persecuted by sore losers, you might be an ignorant redneck. If you think that people of intelligence and awareness discussing issues constitutes a lack of patriotism, then YES DEAR, you are probably a redneck.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

October 3, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Jack, Don’t take things so personal. My originl posting was not directed entirely to you, but at your “go with him” comment.

Anytime I hear\see another citizen tell another to move to another country, it really makes me angry. Because that comment usually has something to do with another person merely pointing out the services provided by other countries. Canada has this, Europe has that = Move, but we love to brag about how great our country is over the other countries. To many Americans it’s unimagineable to look at “how” another country operates. Why???? We are always telling other countries they should operate the way we do. How come we can’t take a look at their operations as well?

No one wants to be under government control, but when the cost of necessary services such as medical is out of reach for a large portion of the country, then we need to do something about it.

No one is saying, buy a car for every citizen or everyone should have a vacation home or cable for everyone. But everyone should be able to live healthy and see a doctor at least twice a year.

By becky

October 3, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

why is the question still out there….why is it still only working mothers have to make the decision….i am a title 9 baby - went to college on one of the first female athletic sch. and still nothing has changed….i have 3 daughters and i see them compromising the same issues i compromised on in the late 70’s - early 80’s. **sorry girls - we tried

By kimberly

October 3, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Becky, interesting. I also have an athletic girl, and crossing my fingers on the title IX thing. Amazing how differently girls are treated in their sports — even still. I have given up believing that things will change for the better. I’ll just have to teach her to play the “other” game.

By Just Being Me

October 3, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

lol Kimberly

Amazed - Not only do I completely agree with what you said, I love the way you said it. Well done. Well said.

Now there’s a good topic for discussion: Why isn’t medical benefits for all a higher priority in this country?

By DeltaX

October 3, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

jack,

Your ABSOLUTE assertion that a person should leave the US is extreme. Exremes land people in trouble and are guided by fear.

dusty,

You have yet to say anything besides “Rah Taboga! Can I sit next on your lap during lunch, big daddy?”

By Jack

October 3, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

BTW. I ain’t no redneck. Pass the PBR. & get me my chew. I need it while I dig my other bathroom.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

October 3, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

Ladies,

The question being asked, makes it look as if we can’t be both a leader and an excellent mom. If you stay at home, you are a better mom. But, if you work and come home to be a mom, you’re not as good of a mother as you could have been if you stayed at home.

The mother who is a leader in the work place has to acheive at work, then come home to cook diner, check/help with home work, clean house, pay bills, etc…..

When I was growing up, I never dreamed of being a stay at home mom. My grandmother was a stay at home mom, who raised my mother and her sisters to goto college, so they could go out into the workforce. My question is why would a Stay at home mother do such a thing? They didn’t have Oprah or all the talk tv shows back then. No womens organization visited the country folks where my mom grew up. Where did she get that idea?

By Scalia

October 3, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

When did things get so divided? I don’t remember a year or two ago where people were at each other’s throats. If you are a liberal, you are whiny. If you are a republican, you are an uptight, money hungry scoundrel.

I think that it’s funny that things are no different than in Africa. Get the masses to fight against each other, while the ruling party does whatever the heck it wants.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Leave Dusty alone. She’s my shootin buddy.

By RF

October 3, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Amazed—everyone CAN see a doctor twice a year. Medicare, Medicaid provide that. Also, hospitals are not allowed, BY LAW, to refuse care based on an inability to pay. It’s a matter of knowing and caring enough to go to the doctor. There are multiple programs, like PeachCare for instance, which provide care for those not qualifying for Medicaid. County Health offices provide screenings and vaccinations for little or nothing. It is possible—I don’t understand why we keep saying people aren’t getting adequate medical care. If you go to or call your local DFCS office, they’ll gladly take your application and let you know what you can get.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Scalia. The terrorists are using the age old trick of divide and conquer. I’ve never seen this country so divided but let someone mess with us and we’ll step up. Been 4 years since 9/11. How soon people forget.

By kimberly

October 3, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

I agree with you, Jack. The unity of Americans plus the compassion and good will of most of the rest of the world WAS INDEED a terrible thing to squander. That, and a budget surplus…. GONE WITH THE WIND. Personally, I have no hopes that we’ll ever get ANY of those back, but again, I’m always depressed on Mondays.

By DeltaX

October 3, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Amazed,

The question being asked, makes it look as if we can’t be both a leader and an excellent mom. If you stay at home, you are a better mom. But, if you work and come home to be a mom, you’re not as good of a mother as you could have been if you stayed at home.

I would be carefull though; a person can do anything, but not everything.

There is already a issue with women being overloaded, not pacing themselves, and ending up a neurotic mess in later years - especially when kids have moved out…etc. Doctors are regularly explaining to mothers that they are going to have to change operating in crisis mode early on to solve this issue.

By Dusty

October 3, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

DeltaX, you have a vivid imagination, more so than most people in your condition.

Kimberly, I love to hear intelligent and aware people discussing this great country of ours. Unfortunately, you are not that kind of person. When liberals start calling the president “names”, the country “dirt” and conservatives “rednecks”, you are dropped from any postive concept. You don’t give helpful criticisms, you demolish the American entity with hate.

So, go pop your pop-corn. You pop-off most of the time anyway.

By kimberly

October 3, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Actually Jack, I think the “divide and conquer” strategy currently being employed was Karl Rove’s idea.

By Vince

October 3, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

In 1925, The Scopes Trials made big headlines as a Tennessee court battled over the issue of evolution versus the notion that all this was created in six days. With that mentioned, I think we should roll back society even more. Women not only shouldn’t work, but not be given the choice to work. This way we can finally get rid of that Reba sitcom on WB, get rid of pornography, no more women singers or actresses, or waitresses or stewardesses… Won’t that be nifty?

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

October 3, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

RF - Peachcare is for kids. Medicade/Medicare, one of them, I get both confused, is for old people and the other is for pregnant mothers or people without an income. This does not cover low income adults. Yes, you can call up your local Health department, but they do not provide emergency healthcare treatment. I’m talking about minor medicals such as a pains in your side, burns, rash, bladder infections, etc…

Yes, hospitals will put a bandaide on it. But, if you were diagnosed before you arrived at the hospital, you might have eliminated the problem and saved a tone of money. Hospitals are expensive, so what makes you think a poor person could afford to make monthly payments.

I have medical,dental,vision, etc and I would collapse at the thought of a hospital bill.

There is nothing wrong with a comprehensive plan that helps other have access to healthcare. There could even be a payscale, but it should be very inexpensive and it should cover medicine and follow-up treatment. Then you could get rid of all the other programs.

By kimberly

October 3, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Dusty, what do you call it when a Radio/TV personality holds up a picture of a 13-year-old girl and calls her “the White House DOG?” And what do you call people who still listent to this A——-E for years and parrot everything he says? You think I’m the hater? Do you have kids Dusty? All through the nineties, I said I wasn’t going to sink to the current level of right-wing hate talk. Look what happened! Now they call the Dems and non-righties “sissies.” Well, I guess we WERE sissies! Look what happens when we DON’T fight back! You’re doggone right I’m fighting back now, but don’t act like I started it! Again, who started the hate talk? WHO?

By Scott

October 3, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Tim - Well, it was a good victory for Bama, but it cost us. Tyrone Prothro breaking his leg was bad. I hope he heals well becasue it looked bad. Football aside, I hope he overcomes it and rehabs it even if he never plays again because it was almost Theisman-like when I saw it.

On to the other topics….

While I don’t see myself moving to Europe any time soon (though I do enjoy the visits and would love to visit Austrailia) I can see some merit in some of their choices. Not all, but some. Whether we learn from them or somewhere else, though, we do need to learn. A wise man learns from his mistakes, a genius learns from the mistakes of others

As far as immigrants go, I don’t mind them, I just have a problem with the illegal kind. Why is it too much to ask that we stop illegal immigration. Not immigration entirely, just the illegal kind. Why do we need to foot the bill for the illegal immigrant who is breaking the law simply by being here? One way to slow it down, that is rarely addressed because it would infringe on our hypocritical point of view, is hammering the businesses that hire them. The law has provisions for it but we don’t do it…why?

By Dusty

October 3, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Jack, bottles are better than cans. They make a nice “bling” when you hit ‘em. Have to be careful with those glass shards. Hard on the bare feet.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

Govt provided healthcare for everyone is a good idea but what would the tax rate have to be to pay for it? If we have socialized medicine, the doctors would have to take a great cut in pay. The insentive to be a doctor would go down .The quality of healthcare in this country would go down. Not a good idea after all.

By Scott

October 3, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Vince - well getting rid of that “Reba” show wouldn’t be so bad…hehheeh

By DeltaX

October 3, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

dusty,

When liberals start calling the president “names�, the country “dirt� and conservatives “rednecks�, you are dropped from any postive concept. You don’t give helpful criticisms, you demolish the American entity with hate.

None of which was said/posted by anyone.

Idiot, You see that is the taboga tactic (and other idiots/trolls): Restate a persons view inaccurately in order to ‘win’ the debate.

And then we sane people have to dig up every word for you guys, bc you suddenly ‘dont understand.’ Which, at that point it sounds like a pi$$ing contest - but in reality it is us trying to fill the viod of ignorance in your heads.

Again - I am a conservative. I had voted for Bush, but am now completely dissapointed: If nothing else, he said the only way terrorist would win is if we let it disrupt our lives, and that is exactly what Bush did: Happen to read about the Vegan couple arrested by Homeland Security for boycotting HoneyBakedHam?

Insanity.

By taboga

October 3, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Europe would be a great place to live. Here’s what you could expect:

• Stable electricity is almost non-existent and outrageously expensive.

• A tray of ice is one of the hardest things to come by.

• The size of the average home over there is about as big as the average apartment over here.

• Most people cook with gas bombalas.

• Convenience stores open after 9:00 pm don’t exist unless you live in one of the metropolitan areas.

• Most homes are heated by fireplaces.

• The price of gasoline is about twice what it is here.

• The majority of a person’s income goes to taxes.

• Most people don’t have air-conditioning.

• The average working person - does not have a washer and dryer.

• Television for most, consists of a couple government-operated channels.

• Everyday appliances such as microwave ovens and the like, that we take for granted - are almost exclusive to the wealthy only.

• Their roads, except for a few notable highways like the Autobahn and some others - are in terrible condition.

  …And while you could technically say that they have “Health Care”, it’s about like saying that you’re feeding someone - because you give them 3 baloney sandwiches a day. For those folks to get quality health care - they have to pay for it at a private facility.

Most of the folks that go on and on about Europe have never spent any time over there.

By RF

October 3, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Amazed— I think the level of socialized medical care we’re talking about is still being used in Canada, and has gotten some bad results. You and I obviously work and can afford at least some of our medical expenses. We count on the fact that our insurance affords us the right to medical care. Medicaid is offered to any who make less than a certain amount a year. The folks who suffer are those who work for small companies not able to offer insurance. I don’t think the truly poor have to do without medical care if they only take the time to do the paperwork. It’s the working (both above and below the povertly line) who are not offered medical care that truly suffer. Many of those are actually middle class people who own their own businesses but can’t afford the premiums to offer medical plans.

By Just Being Me

October 3, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

RF - Are you kidding? This country, or this state, does NOT provide adequate health care for low-income people, or for the homeless (well, I know we don’t care about the homeless because they got themselves into that situation, but uhh…)…

Anyway, Medicaid is not easily granted to anyone, regardless of income level. And please don’t think for one moment that they don’t turn people away, because they do. In fact, I know of a mother of three who couldn’t get Medicaid because she earns $10.00/hr. I can go on and on with examples of hard-working people who can barely pay their rent and buy their MARTA cards and are not eligible for health insurance.

By Chilao

October 3, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Seems we are seeing a female Supreme Court nominee after all? Was it because she stayed home? Best I can figure out, this woman may be a virgin.

Women should do want they want to be doing, that is what the choice they have fought hard for is all about. Anybody been watching MrMom on Desperate Housewives.?

If Americans were willing to pay for agricultural products, for example, what it Cost$ to pay an AMERICAN to harvest, we would not have illegal immigrants. Agricultural products is just one example. Many other goods and services also utilize cheap, under-the-table labor. So while we can blame business, we really have to blame ourselves.

I’m migrant work, remember.

By Just Being Me

October 3, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Okay, for the record, RF, I was referring to your 2:08p post where you said that everyone can see a doctor twice a year. This is definitely untrue, but I see that Amazed already made my point about preventive care, etc…

By DeltaX

October 3, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

And once again taboga is totally incorrect - almost;)

Given what you think, I am quite sure you have not stayed in another country. I have relatives throughout europe - and have stayed (vs visit for a week) for over 1 year, four different times - and find 2-3 things on your list valid; barely.

By DeltaX

October 3, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

Oh ya, Ice is a real big deal!

Spoiled american.

By Scott

October 3, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

DeltaX - Just for clarification, the Vegan couple you were refering to were not arrested by the US Dept. of Homeland Security, but rather the DeKalb County Police Dept HS Unit….

By Tim

October 3, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Scott… BITE YOUR TONGUE! how dare you suggest that Reba be cancelled… it is a great show… I let you get away with a little with the Gators… I draw the line at Reba! lol

By RF

October 3, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

JBM- where does this woman work that they don’t have health insurance offered to her? If she’s working full-time she should be able to get it. There are some who fall through the cracks, no doubt. I have a former brother-in-law who is a drug addict and manages to get medical care without having held down a job in several years. He knows how to play the system well. Because we have so many on Medicaid, the system is going broke now. And I know from my own experience with raising my nephews that if you make less than 24000 a year, you do qualify and should get Medicaid. If your friend was denied, she needs to appeal the decision. She also should go to her DFCS office and apply for Peachcare for her children. There’s indeed a gray area of income where people have a hard time qualifying for medical care. I’m not saying the medical care is the same or even fair, but it’s better than waiting for a catastrophic event to occur.

By Just Being Me

October 3, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

I’ll be the first to say that at my company, our benefits SUCK butt. I mean, they really suck (and we pay out the wazoo for them, too). But, at least I have benefits. I would like to see each and every citizen of this country have the ability to get a physical exam twice a year.

I actually know people (hate to admit it) who will go to the emergency room for Tylenol because they have no insurance. Do you really think these people could care less about the $350 bill that comes in the mail from Grady? Of course not. Who pays that bill? Of course we do.

By Chilao

October 3, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

I was hearing on the news recently that California’s Central Valley, which produces a large percentage of this country’s produce, is having a hard time attracting workers. Why? Seems there is a contruction boom in that area as well, which pays better wages.

Universal Health Care? I brought that up once before, seems that is Communism Communism. Cannot have agovernment actually CARE about its citizens’ health now can we? LMAO After all, they can always get a job at WalMart, oh, wait, they do not offer health insurance.

Yes, France has migrant workers. They are called IT Technical consultants.

By taboga

October 3, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Believe as you will Delta X - believe what you will.

And have you ever noticed hordes of Americans trying to obtain citizenship in Europe…? But there’s a history of them coming over here, isn’t there? And how that possibly be, what with all the wonderful “health care” over there…

By Jack

October 3, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Chilao. Yes, the average US citizen has priced themselves out of the jobs harvesting agrcultural products. They have also priced themselves out of many other industries. That’s why we have out sourcing. If our crops were grown in another country, they would hire people from here to pick them if it was cheaper. Please accept my apology for referring to you as a migrant worker. That was a long time ago and was a cheap shot. Sorry.

By Dusty

October 3, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Kimberly & DeltaX,

So glad to know that you have posted only fair, constructive words about the president and the country on this blog. Yes, indeed.

Perhaps if you watched Lehrer News Hour you might hear and see some fair and constructive reports instead of all the propaganda. Are you interested in my children, Kimberly? I have quite a few. One big fair and constructive family.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

October 3, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

RF - $10.00 an hour does not make medical insurance affordable. Her weekly paycheck is the cost of most plans. How will she pay rent, buy food, pay for electricity, etc.?

Even if her rent is subsidized she would still be almost homeless.

By Chilao

October 3, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Jack - It’s cool; I actually thought it funny, knowing what I do and who I am. I actually read back today to what prompted that from you and it was not anything to do with saying ‘the next door party is better’.

By Scott

October 3, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

LOL @ TIM…okay,well I will leave you to console yourself with Reba since Saturday afternoons seem to be so dismal ;)

By Jack

October 3, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Chilao. I think I did that weeks ago. Not today. I’ve been having fun with DeltaX and Kimberly.

By Just Being Me

October 3, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

RF - Do you have any idea how many low-income FULL-TIME workers do not have health insurance? With all due respect, I can tell that you don’t know much about this subject. (Again, not trying to be sarcastic - but this isn’t a case of ‘I know this person who works and doesn’t have insurance’) We’re talking about millions of uninsured in this country, and a great deal of them (I’ll have to check on the exact figures) work full-time.

To answer your question, this person works for a dry cleaner.

To respond to your advice, I’ve never been in those particular shoes myself. But, personally, if I had to take off 2,3, maybe 4 days off from work UNPAID to apply for medicaid… I might just use the “hospital” as my insurance too. The homeless or jobless might be able to sit at the Social Services office all day, but not everyone can afford that luxury.

By Tim

October 3, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

haha… thanks Scott… I need somethin :)

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

October 3, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

RF - the paper work is not the problem. No adult with children would go without insurance, because of paper work. Children usually become sick at least once a year, with a cold or fever of some kind.

I use to work for an insurance company a few years back and many of their employees could not afford the insurance offered by the company. That was when I first became aware of the problem. I couldn’t understand how anyone could work for a company which provides insurance, but their own employees could not afford the benefits. I kid you not.

By Just Being Me

October 3, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Amazed - Walmart is a prime example. People say in err that Walmart doesn’t offer health benefits, when in fact they do. It’s just unaffordable to most of their employees.

This is just ONE example of many.

By Chilao

October 3, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

37 million Americans are without conventional health coverage. Seems like a real high percentage of the population. I do not think there are 37 million UN-employed.

Seems some Katrina victims, now unemployed, also have lost their job’s health coverage. Or perhaps they can convert to the conversion plan option, which cost alot more (COBRA is it?). Hard to do with no job.

Anyway, I really have no interest in getting into a convo related to such Kommunista concepts of a government actually Concerned about its citizens’ general health since we know fully they don’t (to quote) “give a rat’s *ss about”. Look at the Iraq War Veterans, Gulf War Veterans, Vietnam vets, etc, etc. SNORT

By RF

October 3, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

JBM—when I had to take in the Medicaid paperwork for my nephews who I have custody of now, I was able to make an appointment for review of my/their case. I don’t know if that’s the case in all counties, but usually it doesn’t take going there for days on end. Next, if you read my post, I think I pretty clearly said there are those who work full-time who don’t have insurance. YES—I think they deserve it!!!

Amazed—no, $10 an hour does not make insurance affordable, but from what I recall from experience it does make you eligible for Medicaid. The last time I checked, the income cutoff was 24,000 a year, which is more than $10 an hour. I agree, and said in my post, that the ones I feel sorry for are those who are above the “poverty” line who can’t afford or aren’t offered medical care. Many of those are small business owners. That’s what we need to focus attention on in this country.

By taboga

October 3, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

JBM,

Here is what will happen if you Leftists were to have your way with “Health Care” for all:

• The quality of Health care will go down.

• Private hospitals will start to pop-up more and more.

• Over time, the best doctors and nurses will be working for the private hospitals. (They will pay more).

• Little by little, more and more people will opt for private hospitals. As more and more do, the cost of private hospitals will decrease - causing more and more people to be able to afford it.

…In the long run, the public hospitals will be under-staffed with quality doctors and nurses. The quality of care will decrease dramatically. And of course, the cost of this low-quality care will be enormous (just like the schools). And who is it that will be stuck in the “public” hospitals? That’s right - the poor. And the major difference in it as compared to today, is that today you can get quality treatment at an emergency room for life-threating situations whether you have insurance or not. Find yourself in that same situation in one of the “public” hospitals of the future and you’ll most likely find yourself dying in the hallway…

By Chilao

October 3, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Walmart offers health insurance to people who work 30 hours or more a week. The main reason WalMart is mostly part-timers, working 28 hours a week.

By kimberly

October 3, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

DUSTY: I was asking you as a mother how you felt about a Radio/TV personality going on TV, holding up a picture of a 13-year-old girl, and calling her “The White House DOG” for the purpose of ratings and a chuckle. This was in regard your comments on hate talk, and I was identifying the faction of society (Limbaugh lovers) who popularized it in recent years.

Am I the ONLY parent who finds this behavior reprehensible, and would, from that moment until the end of time, find NEGATIVE value in anything that oozed from that fat liar’s mouth? Yet the man still has followers who spew his daily hate. Amazing.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Those who want socialized healthcare, go to the VA hospital and see what it looks like and tell us that is what you want for you and your children. (My Dad died there as well as my father-in-law)

By DeltaX

October 3, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

tab,

The only way those things would happen with healthcare; is if you ran it.

And all those europeans are coming over bc of ALL THE ICE WE HAVE!!!!

Taboga figured it out! We are the best country bc we have…………ICE!!!!

By taboga

October 3, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Let me ask all you economists a question:

Why did all the employees at Wal-Mart quit their high-paying jobs to go and work for Wal-Mart…?

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

October 3, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

taboga,

FYI.. people with money already have opportunity to the best doctors. The private sector has already taken over and healthcare already stinks and I have/can afford medical benefits. The top rated doctors are currently only treating patience who can afford to pay their expenses. Until the doctor makes a name for him/her self, she will always have to treat the rest of “US”.

So, I guess that theory is out the window.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Never liked Limbaugh, he is too full of himself.

Yes DeltaX, we have ICE. Lots of it. We love it. We like our drinks cold. That is exactly why Europeans are comming here in droves.

By Atman

October 3, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Yanno, you just gotta love how Shaunti and Diane “limit” the choices for women to “(single) Female Professionals with disfunctional families” and “Frustrated Stay-at-home women”.

Like many said already, the choice is the woman’s alone; however, if there’s truly a sense of achievement to fullfil, I’m sure the ladies in question have developed a sense of creativity in order to come up with compromises or options that would lead them to the right path like, I dunno, telecommuting or work at home for starters, or even involve the partner in the choice in order to brainstorm ideas that might help satisfy both sides.

I’m just saying that it’s not just a matter of “choosing”, but also to come up with concepts and ideas that will help them reach the goal.

By DeltaX

October 3, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Someone look at Costco and compare it to Walmart; you will see that there are BETTER ways of providing for the people you hire.

Their practices came mainly from looking at the practices of….wait for it….EUROPE.

This “we are the best and cannot look to other countries to learn from” is where we americans get the label of EGOMANIACS and a*******hole$.

And you all prove the label accurate.

By taboga

October 3, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

I’ve another question for some of you geniuses:

Can you name the most costly and low-quality health care plan in the world? And can you tell us who runs that plan? And could you further explain, why you would have those same people running our national health care system?

Rewsna: Eracidem and the Laredef Tnemnrevog.

By Just Being Me

October 3, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Taboga: I don’t know who the “you leftists” you refer to is, but as I have stated before, I do not wish to be labeled in such a derogatory fashion. For the record, I vote according to which candidate I prefer, usually the lesser of two evils. I have voted Republican and I have voted Democrat, so enough of the “you leftists” stuff with me, okay?

Now, please explain to me (without being condescending, derogatory, or calling names) how that system you described is significantly different from what we have today?

By Jack

October 3, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

I thought we were refered to as “Fat Americans”

By Netbanker

October 3, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Having lived in Europe myself I see the main differences in our cultures being summed up as Europeans work to live while Americans live to work. Even the topic of this week reflects that Americans tend to place value on a person based on their job. What you don’t see in Europe is this type of thinking…you also don’t see many pregnant teens, much teen alcohol or drug abuse, school shootings, etc. We speak of the importance of family values while Europeans live them.

Ken…you had comment on how much the European governments SCHEDULE your life in relation to work hours and vacation. Schedule isn’t quite right. They guarantee no more than 35.5 hours of work week but not when you work those hours. It’s 4-6 weeks of vacation not when you get to take the days off.

Taboga…where were you in Europe and for how long? Some of the things you mention aren’t true such as only heating homes with fireplaces and others depend on one’s priorities in life. In Maine and Colorado most people don’t have air conditioning either because it’s not needed just like it isn’t for the most part in Europe. Are bigger houses better? I suppose they are if you want to spend more time AWAY from family members and having to clean them, fill them with STUFF that we’re importing and thus sending our $$ oversea, and spend more to heat and cool them. It’s a basic matter of priorities…for most Europeans having STUFF isn’t as important as living.

By DeltaX

October 3, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

JBM,

Really. If taboga was able to do what you ask: (Now, please explain to me (without being condescending, derogatory, or calling names) how that system you described is significantly different from what we have today?)

That would mean someone else is posting under his name. He is totally unable to start, continue, and finish a decent debate.

Good luck though! Good day all.

By mit

October 3, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Jack, comparing socialized hospitals to the VA is not a very good one. go to canada or ask a canadian, see what they say and as usual they will probably make fun of us for not having it socialized. they don’t have the problems you all suggest would happen. the VA is a military hospital and if you haven’t found out by now, our govt. doesn’t care enough for its veterans to actually fund them properly. If there is a tax on income for socialized hospitals then they would have the funding and you wouldn’t notice a difference; that is if our govt. doesn’t take it and use it for something else first. and then yes, you will see a bunch of underfunded hospitals.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

OK Geniuses. A good brain teaser.

Three men on a trip check into a hotel. The rate was $30.00 per night. After the men get to the room, the clerk realized that the room only cost $25.00 and sent the bellboy up to the room with $5.00 refund to give to the men. Since 5 doesn’t go into 3 equally, the bellboy keeps 2 dollars and gives each man 1 dollar.

Hence. 3 times 9 = $27.00, 2 Dollars the Bellboy kept = $29.00. Where did the other dollar go?

By Just Being Me

October 3, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Nevermind, Taboga. I withdraw my question. I see you’ve already begun to get derogatory and condescending and I don’t wish to end my Monday that way.

Again, I withdraw the question.

By taboga

October 3, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

JBM,

First of all, I don’t give a damn how you wish to be labled - I will label you as I please and I am not asking for permission. Nor do I give a damn who you “voted for” or didn’t.

Anyone who wants to take the greatest “Health Care” system in the world, throw it out and replace it with yet another aspect of proven socialism failures - is a Leftist.

And you, just like most of the others, are willing to destroy the current system - all because of some feel-good nonsense. You little dim-wits would screw-up the proverbial “wet dream” - if given the chance. All so that you could pretend that your so damned concerned and compassionate - when you really couldn’t give two cents about the poor and those without “health care”!

By Tony

October 3, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Just a bit of factual information which just can’t get through some hard heads.

Fact 1. In 1996 the poverty level was at 13.7 Percent. (Half way through Clinton’s tenure) In 2004 the poverty level is at 12.7 Percent. (Half way through Bush’s tenure)

Fact 2. In 1996 Clinton signed a budget that directed 12.2 percent of spending be directed toward the poor. In 2004 Bush signed a budget that directed 14.2 percent of spending be directed toward the poor.

Fact 3. In 2006 $386 billion dollars yearly will go for Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance, supplemental security income, child nutrition programs, earned income tax credits, welfare payments, child-care payments, foster care and adoption assistance, and child health insurance payments to the states.

The truth is that the working men and women of this country are providing plenty for the poor. And our private charitable donations rank first in the world as well.

Oh and as far as Europe, get this, Germany and most European countries are facing double digit unemployment, they are paying out more in social benefits then they are taking in and failing miserably. I too have been to Europe and believe me, you have a divided Europe with the working class fed up with all the social benefits. Taxes are astronomical. Hell, they avoid marriage to avoid paying additional taxes. Try buying an automobile and experience the taxes associated with that, yet alone the gas which is 4 times the cost of ours. I spoke with plenty of business owners who can barely stay in business because of all the benefits and fringe benefits. They are at their wits end and complain constantly. No, no place is perfect, but America by far beats any other place in the world hands down!!!

Lastly, on social medical treatment. When you come up with a way to cut out drug addicts, (tobacco, alcohol, etc. etc) because, clearly, I should not have to pay for their destructive life style, maybe something can be done, until then, forget-about-it!!!

By Scott

October 3, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Since we are discussing health care, let me ask a question…

How would y’all feel about a proposal that allows people to sue for monetary damages related to malpractice, but does not allow for them to be awarded further compensation for “pain and suffering or mental anguish”. The proposal that you can sue only for damages directly related to the malpractice and what it costs but excluding any emotional penalites?

By Jack

October 3, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Tony. Nice try. They will just ignore the facts. bush is bad, Bush is bad, Bush is bad.

By Just Being Me

October 3, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Jack… where’d the 3 x 9 come from?

By Just Being Me

October 3, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Well, guess I didn’t have to withdraw the question after all since IT WASN’T ANSWERED ANYWAY.

Y’all have a great afternoon/evening!

By mit

October 3, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

tony,

fact 1) the actual number of people living below poverty level has risen by 24,387 between 1996 and 2004.

fact 2) inflation makes that money worth a lot less.

fact 3) back to fact 1.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

October 3, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

FYI…. Tony, the 90’s were very prosperous years for many people, Republicans and Democrats. So, you are really comparing apples and oranges.

The federal governments were spending less, because the states were more prosperous and providing more for their citizens. Georgia is an excellent example of the 90’s success. It grew like crazy and opportunities were abundant.

We are facing more problems now and they are not all a result of 911, terrorism, Katrina and Rita. Many of our current problems are just plain bad decisions and lack of understanding the problem. The rest of our problems are just the blind leading the blind, with a cliff straight ahead.

By Scott

October 3, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

No takers, huh? Thats a shame since it isn’t theory but rather actually on a state voting ballot…

By mit

October 3, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

JBm,

each man paid 9 dollars each after getting his dollar back so, 3*9=27

jack, this is a good one, i have never heard of it before.

tony, bush is bad, clinton is good, is not my point.
points of view are. 12% is lower than 13%, but the actual number is what counts when the money is dished out. so a 2% increase in spending may actually be a decrease, i don’t know though, it could be an increase. percentages are tricky in that respect. just like polls’ percentages don’t really reflect reality.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

They each paid $10.00 before the clerk realized the error and the bellboy gave them each a dollar back. 9 x 3 = 27.

By SteveSC

October 3, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

With regard to the question at issue this week: It isn’t always a choice. My college-educated mother-in-law was left a widow at 48, with a 14-year-old daughter. She was able to put my wife through college with no help and work until retirement, becoming a millionaire on a salary that never exceeded $ 25K. There is no single “right” way to live your life, only smart and not-so-smart. My mother always worked and was a good mother to boot. You just make the smart choices and live with them.

By kimberly

October 3, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

TONY: Sources, please?

By Just Being Me

October 3, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Scott, is that even worth posing? Of course the non-doctors, non-insurance company execs will think that proposal is ridiculous. The doctors and insurance execs will think it’s perfect, as it keeps their premiums down and minimizes their exposure.

What else is there to say about that?

By Scott

October 3, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

JBM - I agree with you, but I do think it is worth proposing if individual citizens would have to vote on it

By mit

October 3, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

hold on, it would take 40 years to make 1 million on a 25K salary and that is by saving every single penny. how old is you mother-in-law?
she had to get a jump with life insurance, investments, something.

By taboga

October 3, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

The trick to the question is basing the total off of the original amount of the room: $30.00. But the roam didn’t cost $30.00 - it was only $25.00. Add the 3 dollars they each got back, plus the $2.00 the bellboy kept to the cost of the room ($25.00) and the total comes to: $30.00 - the same amount that they put in originally.

By mit

October 3, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

ok, my shot at this.

25/3= 8.333333333333333333333333333333333333333 forever. someone has to throw in a penny.

but they really spent 9 on the room. so .999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is mixed in with the 3 dollars they get back.

.333333333333333 * 3 = 1

By taboga

October 3, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Why are you dividing 25 by 3? The room was 25 plus the 2 they gave the bellboy = 27. Divide that by 3 = 9. The exact amount each man paid.

By Schnooza

October 3, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Liberal conspiracy: The additional $1 was a tax.

By Jack

October 3, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

See. Should have waited Tab. Could have had some fun.

By taboga

October 3, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

If Liberals were involved - the bellboy would have been given the whole 5 dollars. Because he needed it more than they did!

By taboga

October 3, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

Whoops!

I screwed it up Jack - my bad. I didn’t see where you were headed with that and I should have! Damn!

There could have been some real fun with that too…

I’ll try and pay better attention next time.

By Atman

October 3, 2005 05:08 PM | Link to this

Jack - In terms of reality, if the room originally costed $25, then it only means that 2 men should had paid $8.33, while the other one paid $8.34, which means that if the bellboy would had been honest, he should had given back the two men $1.67 and the other one $1.66 in that order. But, since he kept $2 and gave each $1, the men had been swindled of $0.67/0.67/0.66 each (unless they all agreed to consider that amount as the bellboy’s tip, which would be an unlikely case right now).

But since this is a brainteaser:

There’s no actual answer (other than the three men are probably from Georgia if they haven’t figured that out on their own), since this is just a play with integers, just like that one brainteaser of the clerk who put 10 men in 9 rooms.

Here’s a freebie that you can do to your friends:

Proclaim that you have 11 fingers; when they ask you how’s that possible, you raise your left hand and start counting your fingers like this:

“10, 9, 8, 7, 6…”

At that moment stop right there, raise your right hand and say:

“…plus 5, equals 11!”

If you did it right, you’ll have them scratching their heads for a minute or two; if they’re graduates from the Georgia schools, they’d probably take it as a fact.

Have fun now.

By Lyrazel

October 4, 2005 07:27 AM | Link to this

When did motherhood become dievant behavior? Sure most women who go to college want the option of raising a family with her hours devoted to the family and his hours devoted to the office of bringing cash home. Who would NOT want a time to leave the race of briefcase bullies and sit in an easy chair wiping formula off the chair arms as baby sleeps. After generations who stuffed itself with status goods and abandoned traditional roles new generations of child-care raised children have come of age and said: no thanks. This beautiful way of life is easier said than done. I dont know how much Shaunti pays her assistant, I doubt its enough to support the woman and her babies and thus the need for men doing supporting is again spewed up for this tradition to continue… A peculiar result of womens liberation was where many professional women had children without husband now is ending caused by the same women strugging in their awareness at how rough and lonely life is as single-income mom. A huge divorce rate means daddy may just be the man who sends child support and not the man who raises little Timmy and his dog Lassie… Money is what we work for, it is not what we value. When do men get options?

By taboga

October 4, 2005 07:51 AM | Link to this

How many are familiar with the “Monty Hall problem”?

Should the contestants on Let’s Make A Deal have kept the original door they chose or traded it in for the other one as Monty offered them the chance to do?

By Lyrazel

October 4, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this

O MONTY! MONTY! MONTY! I WANT THE MONEY!

By chuck

October 4, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

Again, Diane does the typical Liberal thing: She takes two totaly unrelated statistical items, points to them and says AHA! These mean old law firms must be making it hard for women to be lawyers. She says:

American Bar Association enrollment statistics show that women comprised 48 percent of law students in 2004. Yet only 29 percent of all practicing lawyers in the same year were women, according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics. This disparity suggests women are opting out of their chosen field.

What are we supposed to assume based on these statistics that she quotes? First, the number of law students in ONE year has nothing to do with the number of practicing lawyers in the same year. I would assume that if they are PRACTICING attorneys that they already finished law school and passed the bar exam. Second, should we assume that the typical length of time for a law career is only one year? There are hundreds of thousands of attorneys in practice across the U.S. Lawyers typically work for 40 or more years in their profession. It takes YEARS for graduations to have a statistical impact on workforce numbers. That’s why her opinions are generally just drivel. If she is an example of a “working woman” journalist, then there is a bigger problem in THAT field than in the legal profession…one of tokenism.

So Diane, If you want to use statistics to make your point, why don’t you look at the number of women graduates of law school in say 1995-2000 and find out how many of them went into law firms after graduation, and how many are still in the profession? I guess that would just be too much work for you, what with you having to write one whole column a week.

By taboga

October 4, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

WE GOTTA SAVE THE WORLD FROM WAL-MART!!!

The next time one of you Communists want to whine and moan about Wal-Mart and how they don’t provide this or that, or how they don’t create good paying jobs, etc. - you need to do the following:

• Stand in the parking lot of Wal-Mart and ask yourself how it got there. Did someone wave a magic wand, or did construction crews have jobs making it?

• Then take a look at the building itself. Did a genie create the building, or did people with jobs do it?

• Go inside the store. Take a look around. How did all that stuff get IN the store? Did a leprechaun wish it in there, or does truck after truck bring it there? How many jobs do you think are had by truckers who deliver those goods to Wal-Mart?

• Now ask yourself how those trucks got loaded. Were they not loaded by personnel at warehouses who have jobs doing this?

• And how did the warehouses get there? Did the genie build those as well, or did people with jobs do that?

• Then you might ask yourself, how did the merchandise in the warehouse (that got built by people with jobs) get there? Wasn’t it truckers with jobs who brought the loads TO the warehouse?

• Where does the merchandise come from? Is it not made in plants and factories by people with jobs? And even though alot of merchandise is made overseas, the majority of it is still made here in the U.S. by people who have jobs doing so.

• And how does the merchandise get bought? Isn’t it the buyers who have jobs with Wal-Mart who are responsible for buying the merchandise?

• Who handles all the finances for the buying and selling of goods for and by Wal-Mart? Isn’t it teams of accountants and other financial types that have jobs with Wal-Mart?

• When Wal-Mart puts out commercials and other forms of advertising and marketing, isn’t this done by people with jobs?

• Doesn’t it seem likely that Wal-Mart has a fairly good communications system? How many jobs do you think are had by IT folks who manage Wal-Mart’s networking and computer systems?

• How many Legal Professionals have jobs with Wal-Mart?

• How many Security Consultants have jobs with Wal-Mart?

…And how many more jobs have I left off that list? But true to form, someone with an agenda against Wal-Mart (because they can’t compete), will fill the heads of you Useful Idiots with a bunch on nonsense about Wal-Mart and how they only have “low-paying” jobs and you all will gobble it all down. And because they realize that you can’t think for yourself, they will focus your attention on a bunch of part-time jobs that are best suited for high school and college students, or the elderly or retired who just want to make a few extra bucks and have something to do. They’ll then make the claim that those jobs (they fail to mention all the rest) don’t pay enough for anyone to live off of (AND OF COURSE THEY WERE NEVER MEANT TO DO SUCH) and all you Useful Idiots will go around railing on and on acting as if you’re going to save the world from the evil Wal-Mart…

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

I will not stoop. I will not stoop. I will not stoop. I will not stoop. I will not stoop. I will not stoop.

By taboga

October 4, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

I will not stoop. I will not stoop. I will not stoop. I will not stoop. I will not stoop. I will not stoop.

Translation: It went over your head. It went over your head. It went over your head. It went over your head. It went over your head. It went over your head.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Taboga, I understand exactly what you’re saying; it didn’t go over my head.

Since no one raised the subject of Walmart today and you decided against responding to my question of yesterday as someone predicted you would… I can only see your raising of the Wal-Mart subject as BAIT. As others have said before me (and I now see for myself), you don’t have any debate skills. You simply state your opinion, make pitiful attempts to belittle those who disagree with you, stereotype and call names like a 3rd grader.

And, as I said, I will not stoop. I stopped calling people names somewhere around 5th or 6th grade. So, I’m really done with you. There’s nothing I can say to you that won’t put me back 20 years… No need to respond unless you like talking to yourself.

By taboga

October 4, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Jbm,

First you say you won’t “Stoop”. Then you DO. Then you call me a “third-grader”. Then you say you quit name-calling around the 5th or 6th grade. Then you say I should not respond to “you” unless I want to talk to “myself”.

Did you go out drinking last night?

By Tony

October 4, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

Mit and others, Source U.S. Census Bureau

According to a report by the U.S. Census Bureau the poverty rate is at 12.7% for 2004

According to a report by the U.S. Census Bureau in 1996 (http://www.cbpp.org/povday97.htm) the poverty rate was 13.7% and the proportion of children lacking health insurance rose.

According to that report, the share of national income going to the top five percent of households rose to 21.4 percent in 1996, the highest levels the Census Bureau has ever recorded. By contrast, the shares of income received by the bottom four-fifths of the population were at or very close to all-time lows. (Fell 1.8%)

Bottom line, when casting stones be very careful, we all live in glass houses.

One last thing, while we’re at it, in California, 20% of seniors flunked the high school graduation exam, which is at a eight grade math level and ninth and tenth grade english levels. Of which 63% African Americans 68% Latino’s.

Teachers, according to the report, said many students arrive unprepared and unmotivated for their courses and that their grades reflect poor attendance and low parental involvement. (Big suprise uh)Translation POVERTY!!!

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

Good Morning, Tony:

Before I respond, I’m curious as to where the California HS exam fits into this discussion… or why you chose to include that info?

By taboga

October 4, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Teachers, according to the report, said many students arrive unprepared and unmotivated for their courses and that their grades reflect poor attendance and low parental involvement. (Big suprise uh)Translation POVERTY!!!

And the second part of that translation: Teachers should never be held accountable…

By Nikita

October 4, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

a) 0 to completely unrelated in just one day. Congrats, ya’ll. It’s a new record. b) teachers cannot be held solely or even primarily accountable EXCEPT for their students within their time of instruction. So, teachers could be held accountable for their students going backward, but not for students in general failing to attain an external standard.

By Parent

October 4, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

PARENTS are responsible for their children’s education. PARENTS.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

Parent - I completely, fully, wholly and totally agree with you.

It’s so funny how parents take all the credit for children who do well, but none of the blame for children who do poorly.

As a parent, I, SOLELY I, am responsible for my child(ren)’s education. Period.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Correction:

As a parent, I, PRIMARILY, am responsible for my child(ren)’s education. Period.

By Jack

October 4, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Not primarily, totally & completely. Teachers can not make children pay attention in class & learn. That was taken away with corporal punishment. Now it is totally on Mom & Dad.

By Archie

October 4, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

JBM I read some of your posts yesterday and you really did a good job discussing the healthcare issue. I have discussed that many times and Tony, that website you listed has alot of good information but I wonder why you only use that information to support Bush in a sly way. I mean is there no way that people can say the republican way is not the right way for this problem? At what point does objectivity come in? For example in South Carolina the governor is advocating tuition controls for state colleges and universities, well he is a republican but he can get an amen from me. Across the country republicans are speaking up about college tuition. Well I think they may have a point. Good ideas can come from anywhere but some people can’t take any criticism that might make their guy look bad. The numbers of people without health insurance has risen since Bush took office and that’s fact. Those numbers have been rising since before Bush took office and that’s fact,in other words you can look at Clinton and Reagan. That probably hurts some folks feelings but why not try to improve those numbers. The website that Tony provided is one more,one more, one more place that says there are 45 million Americans without health insurance so how many more times do we look at facts and say naw because it may make your guy or my guy look bad.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

Jack, you have a good point. But, the reason I changed “solely” to “primarily” is not to shift the blame, but to acknowledge that as a parent that doesn’t home-school, teachers share in the responsibility for providing my child with an education.

I am responsible for ensuring that my child gets an education, the school is primarily responsible for providing that education.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Archie - I completely agree! (Except that I think you may have mistaken me for someone else, since I didn’t provide a website in any of my posts yesterday). But, I agree. Since I don’t really identify solely with any party, I abhor the idea of supporting one person’s foolish ideas, mistakes, or bad decisions just because s/he is Republican or Democrat. I hate that, and above all else, I think it’s so immature. It does a tremendous disservice to us.

I can also use a couple of governors for example. Here in Georgia and at home in NY, we have Republican governors. I’m now registered to vote in Georgia, but I didn’t vote for the current gov. In NY, I didn’t vote for the republican governor, but I supported him, and worked for his campaign. While they have clear differences and are at opposite ends of the spectrum, both of them have made decisions that I support. And frankly, if a good candidate doesn’t emerge for next year’s election, ole Sonny’ll probably get my vote.

Anyway, I agree with you. It’s not about parties. It’s about issues.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Archie, you know what else is funny to me? We’ll defend a guy “to the death” just because he’s “our guy”. We fight, argue, call names, etc… just to defend some dude who “wears our colors” so to speak.

But, the moment he decides he doesn’t like those colors anymore (changes parties), we flip on him. That cracks me up! Usually the person, or his/her ideals haven’t changed one bit. He still has the same goals, ideas, plans, points of view… just changed parties. So nowwww we like (or dislike) him.

How shallow is that?

By Dusty

October 4, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Onwards and upwards off topic…..

How about the new nominee for the Supreme Court, a single, childless career woman lawyer name Harriet Miers? Democrats will be getting out the branding irons, thumb screws and leather whips. They just want a “little information”, anything to offset her amazing career and her legal association and friendship with the president.

It is reported that Miers gave a political contribution to Al Gore. Probably felt sorry for him. Shows she has some humanity.

By Jack

October 4, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

JBM. I always consider the candidate’s views on issues and not Rep. or Dem. That does a dis-service to the country.

Dusty. Ms. Miers’ appointment is being criticized more by the Republicans.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Dusty, actually everything I’ve read thusfar indicates that there won’t be much of a fight getting Miers in (compared to John Roberts).

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

That’s good to know, Jack. Seems like there are fewer and fewer of us every day.

By Michael H.

October 4, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

Questions about where I live or choose to live are logically irrelevant to the truth or falsity of any of the claims I made (it is the old ad hominem fallacy in other words) and warrant no response. This is a just a variation of the “go to Russia� retort that Cold War conservatives used to use as a “rebuttal� to any criticism of the United States.

Ken, the claim that European governments “determine� the work and vacation schedule of an individual is false. They all have four to six weeks of mandated vacation days which are usually chosen at the discretion of the individual and the employer. It seems to me that particular practice affords more freedom to workers, not less. Otherwise, the employer will dictate to the employee their vacation time, as well as the work schedule, as it is here. Providing every one in a society the right to health care is empowering, not restrictive and the outcome, in general, is preferable to having 45 million people uninsured, millions of others paying high premiums and deductibles, all while spending more as a per cent age of GDP than any country in the world. Something is clearly awry in our system.

I agree that in some other respects there is a tradeoff of some liberty for other social goods (which to me constitute a more just society), and that is another aspect of the difference in political values that I spoke of earlier. However, I do not think most citizens in the Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Sweden, or Australia view themselves as any less free in a substantive sense that Americans. Economic liberty is not everything to everyone else as it is to so many Americans. In the end, we should agree on most of the facts, and the difference in political values will remain. And again, we no longer see Europe convulsed with the fervent religiosity that afflicts the United States periodically even though it usually expires into dormancy to erupt again. No where else is “intelligent design� taken as a serious candidate for a scientific theory and no where else (except in the Middle East) do politicians invoke their religiosity as if piety is a qualification for political office.

Amazed, Delta X, and Kimberly, I have a book you might enjoy having a look at entitled The President of Good and Evil by Princeton philosopher Peter Singer. Singer tries to distill a coherent moral view from Bush’s utterances and analyzes his actions to see if they comport with that moral view. Though his colleagues thought that the enterprise was a waste of time, arguing that Bush doesn’t have the intelligence or attention span to work out a systematic view of anything, Singer notes that because of Bush’s position as president of the most powerful country in the world and the fact that many Americans think like him it was a worthy task. Singer is quite fair in his treatment.

Just being me, I have followed the numbers and between 75%-80% of the those 45 million without insurance in the U.S. at even given time in the last five years work full time.

Tony, I don’t know if your figures are currently correct, but we typically spend only 2% of our total federal budget on those programs and I know that has not increased. That is more telling than a dollar figure and it hardly means that the poor are being given sufficient help. We give the smallest portion of GDP to the poor here and elsewhere of almost any country in the Western world. I think the self-congratulatory ‘we are so generous’ claim is perpetually overblown. And we are back to spending a third of our federal budget on defense, much much more than on the poor. Unemployment is higher in Europe, but currently only France has a rate exceeding 10%. Germany’s is at 9.6% and they are reintegrating the old East German economy into a unified country which certainly complicates matters. The figures are also calculated differently in Europe and our rate is traditionally underestimated by use of a different criteria. When the same methods are employed there is still a difference, just not as great as reported.

Most of the other claims you made about Europe are exaggerated, overstated, and lack the necessary qualifications to reflect, in any adequate fashion, the socio-economic reality of the European Union and those countries outside of it. (Though they were nothing like the laughable collection of nonsense that Tabasco presented. He must take his ‘views’ from Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh.) We are paying quite a bit in private health care for the obese and out of shape Americans who don’t live as long as Europeans who are generally in better health. But Westerners suffer from the diseases of the affluent and it is certainly better for almost anyone to reside in any Western country than most of the rest of the world. I think we can agree on that.

It is a matter of opinion, but I preferred Australia in most respects, and it is doing much better than the United States and, in fact, much of Europe.

Dusty,

You must have confused me with one of your conservative friends. I have three degrees, including one from a foreign university, and publications, but no GED. Not bragging, just clarifying. But I knew you were afraid to attempt to argue and you still are. Fine with me, it is not obligatory, just don’t pretend you said anything of substance. Maybe you and that fool Tabasco sauce should hook up and shoot cans together. Someone here claimed that they made a more satisfying sound than blowing up glass bottles. Jesus, what a culture.

By Jack

October 4, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

He’s so smart. I want to be just like him when I grow up. Three degrees. Can you believe that? And one from a different country. I’m sure his Daddy is quite proud.

By Factual

October 4, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

Miers is not on the public record as being a strong Conservative, or pretty much a strong anything, and therefore the Republicans are fearful she will be another Souter and might not be Gestapo-Conservative enough for them, as a strong conservative nominee had been promised by their FigureHead puppet. Reminds me of a teeshirt I recently saw: “Somewhere in Texas a village is missing their idiot”.

I have to question anyone who gave money to Al Gore though, even if it was for humane reasons.

Had the misfortune of reading some rag at the car dealership while getting vehicle maintenance. Something called The National Conservative Weekly. And Ann Coulter did her “WWRD” routine, WhatWouldReaganDo in discussing Bush. Is she seriously still living in the past? Talk about a Hateful person. Guess she does not like Bush. He’s too much of a softee for her. The whole rag was certainly good Comedy.

By kimberly

October 4, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Yes, Jack. Pick on the smart ones. That’s real smoove. But why would one get an education, when he can spend four hours a day scratching his own A—…. and become pResident! Hahahaha!

By kimberly

October 4, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

Thanks Michael, I think I will check out that book. Yes, mudslingers, I actually read beyond my daily horoscope, as do my kids.

By Factual

October 4, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Kimberly - don’t forget making all those businesses fail, after bailing out back to family money.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Just being me, I have followed the numbers and between 75%-80% of the those 45 million without insurance in the U.S. at even given time in the last five years work full time.

Thanks, Michael. That sounds about right to me.

By RF

October 4, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

So, let’s get this straight. Michael can criticize us, but we can’t criticize him. And you call yourselves liberals—can you take what you give?? We’re allowed to call him on his condescension if he’s allowed to call others uneducated and uninformed. I disagree with him almost every post, but I respect his right to post. Just respect my right not to like him (or shooting cans either).

By RF

October 4, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

Actually, squirrels are more fun to shoot. Caught one in my attic and accidentally blew a hole in the roof of the trailer! Missed the critter and broke Bubba’s Nascar christmas tree ornaments.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

RF, forgive me if I’m wrong. But, I don’t think everyone agrees that Michael is condescending. I remember one week in particular where everyone jumped on Michael for “bragging” about his education. Although I didn’t get involved in the discussion, I observed that a lot of people jumped on him, calling him arrogant, a liar, and condescending. I remember thinking that they were overreacting. As I recall, he didn’t brag about his education. Someone first made reference to his ignorance and/or being a dropout of some sort, and he rebutted by saying that he actually had a degree or two. I don’t remember word for word what was said, but I do recall that he was first called uneducated, and then he “bragged” about his educational credentials. I really didn’t find that condescending. (Personally).

Calling someone uninformed isn’t bad… calling them uneducated is pretty stupid unless you know that for a fact.

And, for the record, I agree that everyone should respect everyone’s right to like, or dislike, whomever they please.

By lilith

October 4, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

I do not feel that Michael is condescending. He’s an academic who knows his stuff and states it well. I can see how that would be intimidating to some people on here.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

So, let’s get this straight. Michael can criticize us, but we can’t criticize him.

Forgot to ask: what’s the big deal about criticizing? I think anyone who openly expresses his/her opinion is subject to criticism, and should expect the same. To me, it isn’t the criticism that causes problems, it’s the disrespect.

By RF

October 4, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

JBM—then please explain that to Michael. He’s been heading down the slippery slope of sarcasm and name-calling a bit lately. He’s starting to sound as derogatory as the rest here. Happens to the best if they blog here long enough, doesn’t it??

Lilith—vocabulary doesn’t necessarily mean he “knows his stuff” any more than the rest of us. He just makes it sound like he does. He doesn’t have a lick more education than I do, but I don’t get my jollies trying to impress people on a blog. I guess it’s that he doesn’t think anyone who disagrees with him is educated that irritates me. I certainly don’t believe that—I have had several very thoughtful changes of heart after some of these debates. It’s good to exchange jabs and ideas—just respect everyone’s ideas.

By RF

October 4, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

JBM—lord, haven’t we all resorted to disrespect here? That seems to be one of the results of these sorts of discussions. I find most of it rather funny—I definitely don’t take it personally. It’s just part of it. If one can’t take it, one need not get involved. In the midst of all that, there are some good ideas being exchanged.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Happens to the best if they blog here long enough, doesn’t it??

RF, I sure hope not! :-) I’m not the “Blog Mommy,” but hopefully Michael realizes that if he is derogatory, condescending, rude, disrespectful, or overly sarcastic, the value of what he’s saying will definitely be lost on many. Not to mention, there is absolutely no defense for someone attacked when they have caused the attack themselves.

I totally agree with you on the “just respect everyone’s ideas.” How boring (and dangerous) would this country be if everyone agreed on everything?!!!

By RF

October 4, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

By the way, calling Tab “Tabasco sauce” and his ideas “nonsense” and recommending that he and Dusty “shoot cans together” sounds pretty disrespectful, doesn’t it?? He’s giving it and taking it. It’s all good folks—just roll with it! Have a laugh and move on.

By RF

October 4, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

JBM—once again, we agree on something. You do get my hackles raised at times, but at least you respect everyone’s right to be here. You’ve actually gotten me thinking a time or two, even if I don’t totally agree with you. That’s where the learning occurs. I promise to try NOT to insult you in the process :-)

By RS

October 4, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

I know, no one’s heard from me in MONTHS, it’s been CRAZY here at work, but in a good way, but…I’M BAAAAACK!! (Hey, Tim, how’ve you been, sweetie?) What DeltaX related WAY back really resonated with me; I see so many so-called “stay at home moms” who are using parenthood as an excuse to sit around & be supported by a hard-working husband. Career or motherhood? That’s a total no-brainer for me! I didn’t go through college to learn how to change a dirty diaper. There’s too much emphasis on breeding anyway; the world is overpopulated as is. And what really frosts my backside is poor people who insist on breeding….grrr! I think it’s more important to contribute to the world & to the economy than pop out babies. Sorry, those are my priorities.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

RF - You’re right, it is just a “part” of blogging… I guess my problem is that I don’t always see humor in it. I mean, obviously, some of the wise cracks and sarcastic comments are just undeniably hilarious! But, when it becomes malicious… vicious and hateful, it really gets annoying to me. It doesn’t necessarily offend me, just gets on my nerves.

Oh, I also forgot to say earlier that I agree: vocabulary and/or having “a way with words” does NOT equal education!

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

And what really frosts my backside is poor people who insist on breeding

Now THAT’S worth debating….

By Scott

October 4, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

So what’s your take on that JBM?

By RF

October 4, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Oh, yeah, I step lightly on that comment!! Technically, I think I qualify as poor, or almost poor, but I’m purty smart and so is my younguns!! But there does seem to be a preponderance of those who can’t afford to have kids (and can’t afford birth control when you get right down to it) who are having more and more kids. I’ve also seen a lot of educated, successful couples who can’t PAY to conceive. Definitely an issue.

By Alex

October 4, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Michael, before you really start crying about health care and how downtrodden the poor in this country are. No one can be refused health care in this country due to a lack of insurance.

By Tony

October 4, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

Michael, I hate to respond to you considering the personal attacks you have levied against me in the past. However, for the benefit of some:

The current entitlement for 2004 is a whopping 14.2% an astronomical $329 billion. Where you get 2% Michael, shows you inability to acquire the correct facts, however, you got Europes entitlement correct. Go figure.

Now (source www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1831.cfm)

Comparisons between countries help to illustrate the impact of public policy. One of the best indicators is the compara­tive performance of the United States and Europe.

Government spending con­sumes almost half of Europe’s economic output�a full one-third higher than the burden of govern­ment in the U.S. Not surprisingly, a large govern­ment sector is associated with a higher tax burden and more government debt. Bigger government is also associated with sub-par economic perfor­mance.

Among the more startling comparisons:

Per capita economic output in the U.S. in 2003 was $37,600�more than 40 percent higher than the $26,600 average for EU–15 nations.

Real economic growth in the U.S. over the past 10 years (3.2 percent average annual growth) has been more than 50 percent faster than EU–15 growth during the same period (2.1 percent).

The U.S. unemployment rate is significantly lower than the EU–15 unemployment rate, and there is a stunning gap in the percentage of unemployed who have been without a job for more than 12 months�11.8 percent in the U.S. versus 41.9 percent in EU–15 nations.

Living standards in the EU are equivalent to living standards in the poorest American states�roughly equal to Arkansas and Mon­tana and only slightly ahead of West Virginia and Mississippi, the two poorest states.

And I too have been to Australia. Rode a Harley through it and have many friends there. I also rode through Europe and worked there as well as Asia.

By kimberly

October 4, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

Actually, I think there IS a correlation between education and vocabulary, as well as between education and the ability to grasp concepts beyond one’s own little world. While one does not necessarily need an eduation to look beyond the immediate horizon and discuss global and societal cause-and-effect relationships, it is CLEAR that the less educated among us will always riducule the ones who do. How else can the small-minded feel better about themselves in an environment in which we cannot see the size of their muscles, the speed of their cars, or the accuracy-to-distance ratio of their personal firearms? (Call me names if you like; it’s a compliment considering the source.)

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Scott, I don’t know. I have a few thoughts that randomly ran through my mind…

In no specific order:

By Greg

October 4, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

Taboga…b!tch shut up!

By Scott

October 4, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Kimberly - while I agree with you that vocabulary usage and education do have a correlation, I think it is evident often on this blog that education does not cure anyone from resorting to condescending, belittling comments.

By taboga

October 4, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

What’s with all the concern about “respect” and whether or not there’s “name-calling”? Am I in church here or out on a blog as I originally thought?

And for the poster that pointed out what Michael called me - don’t let it bother you. It doesn’t bother me in the least. I actually feel sorry for little stooges like Michael. The little panty-waist has to resort to a blog to try and get someone to have respect for his so-called “education”. And the idiots like Kimberly who agree with him - don’t know why. She thinks she supposed to do that because she thinks Michael is intelligent and if she agrees with him - maybe he’ll think that she’s intelligent too! These folks are nothing but pure posers.

But they are entertaining. Make fun of them and then sit back and watch them wet their pants!

By taboga

October 4, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

Actually, I think there IS a correlation between education and vocabulary, as well as between education and the ability to grasp concepts beyond one’s own little world. While one does not necessarily need an eduation to look beyond the immediate horizon and discuss global and societal cause-and-effect relationships, it is CLEAR that the less educated among us will always riducule the ones who do. How else can the small-minded feel better about themselves in an environment in which we cannot see the size of their muscles, the speed of their cars, or the accuracy-to-distance ratio of their personal firearms? (Call me names if you like; it’s a compliment considering the source.)

The above psycho-babble is Kimberly trying to do her best to try and impress Michael.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

Hey RF, what ever happened to the days when couples bore 10, 12, 14 children and none wore dirty clothes, holey socks, messy hair or went to bed hungry? I think the parents back then were just as poor as many of the “poor” today… they just have different priorities, different standards, and different values.

I think ignorant parenting is a way bigger problem than impoverished parenting.

I guess I don’t really have a problem with poor people having children if they are working poor, not jobless poor. At least then they understand and are teaching their children the value of hard work…

By Dusty

October 4, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

Oh, my goodness, Michael has an education, as if the world didn’t know by now. He has told us often enough. Perhaps the rest of us should line up our degrees and let the blog know how smart we are. Well, such weighty knowledge might sink my floating house. For real, Michael, for real! (Michael has the imagination of a box turtle.)

Michael, why don’t you read Solzhenitsyn’s “The First Circle” instead of political propaganda books. There are other worlds out there besides your liberal one, even in Europe and Australia. Try somethng out of old communistic Russia.

By kimberly

October 4, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

Ah, the great sage Tooberface has spoken again. Pray tell, wise master, what knowledge do you have today for a poor little poser? For once YOU enlighten me, I’ll be so much wiser than my college degree or silly studies abroad could have afforded. Silly me. I’m burning the books now, and focusing all my attention on YOU, oh great oracle of truth. Your humble grasshopper awaits.

By Scott

October 4, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

JBM - IMO, this is my answer to the thoughts running through your head

By kimberly

October 4, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Old communistic Russia? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one. HAHAHAHA! Thanks for that.

By taboga

October 4, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Ah, the great sage Tooberface has spoken again. Pray tell, wise master, what knowledge do you have today for a poor little poser? For once YOU enlighten me, I’ll be so much wiser than my college degree or silly studies abroad could have afforded. Silly me. I’m burning the books now, and focusing all my attention on YOU, oh great oracle of truth. Your humble grasshopper awaits.

This is what I meant by “make fun of them and watch them wet their pants”.

By RS

October 4, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Ah JBM: “Don’t breed em’ if you can’t feed em’”. Back in the day, when families WERE large (10-14 kids) yet no one went hungry, or holey-socked, etc, that was the norm. Nowadays, if you’re growing up in a family that can’t afford the internet, cellphones etc, the children WILL grow up disadvantaged & unable to keep up in this rapidly-advancing technological age. That’s where parenting stops being a RIGHT & becomes a PRIVILEGE. And yes, you are right about the difference between working & jobless poor & about spending priorities.

By RF

October 4, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Kimberly—like I’ve said, I respect his right to post, regardless of what I think. I too, have an excellent vocabulary and education, but I rather like the input and different opinions posted here. I don’t think anyone is ignorant here because they debate a point. That’s what keeps this country going—the argument between extremes. Tab makes a point sometimes too, even if most don’t agree with it. The extremes presented here are what makes this kind of debate fun, and can teach us all a little something if we choose not to let the sarcasm detract us. In other words, get over it—or is that using too simple vocabulary for an educated person?

JBM—so right about the drug-addict parents. I had to take custody of two beautiful boys from my drug-addicted sister and raise them. My salary is hardly enough, but it’s a lot better than what they had before. Don’t even get me started on butt-frosting about that issue!!

You’re sounding almost conservative today. You feeling okay?? ;-)

By lozen

October 4, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

I don’t find Michael condescending either. I like intelligent posts. This comes from Factcheck.org Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman sent out a mass “Dear Republican” email urging support for Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, saying: “Before Ms. Miers was even announced many Democrat groups said they would oppose her.” That’s false. Some groups said they might oppose Bush’s next nominee, and we have little doubt that some will. But the RNC couldn’t some up with a single group had said they would oppose Miers. To the contrary, the nomination brought quick praise from Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader. There was opposition all right – but it was mostly from conservatives, not Democrats. This one is another example of how facts matter little to partisan groups intent on scoring points against their opponents.

By kimberly

October 4, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

RF: Trust me when I say I AM over it! Hahahaha! You people… thanks for cheering me up today!

By Tim

October 4, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

RS… hey!!!!!!!! I was wondering if you went into hiding… good to see you on here… I am doing wonderful… hope all is well with you :)

By Michael H.

October 4, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Tony,

The Heritage foundation is a conservative adovocacy group, not a source for independent unbiased research anymore than the CATO institute is. They exist to promote an ideological line and I do not trust nor rely on their figures or those of any similar advocacy group, on the left or on the right.

My 2% figure has been long standing and comes from a study conducted at the University of Chicago. There are many ways to parse figures and get the results that one wants, which is exactly what the Heritage foundation and the other groups created in the 1980s and 1990s and provided with massive funding to push public debate to the right exist for. And unfortunately they have succeeded.

There are considerable variations in the economic and social conditions among the states that belong to the EU, especially the more recently admitted members, but the Mississippi comparison is a farce, especially if health care is considered part of a standard of living as it should.

I choose to base my views on reliable or credible unbiased sources, not the ideologically motivated advocacy groups.

Thanks for the supportive comments Kimberly. I admit to treating Tabsco with contempt because he and his ilk have deserved it. He has never given an argument, backed up a claim with anything but moreover he has proven himself to be a racist, insulting jackass from the get go.

Some of us on the left are fed up with the untold buckets of disrespect, contempt, and hatred that have been visited upon virtually any decent person on the left from the Swiftboat liars, Karl Roves, Cheneys, Limbaughs, Hannities, Boortz’s, Karl Roves, to the ordinary poorly informed conservative citizen. When one gives arguments as I have in the past, many times, here and elsewhere, with the utmost respect and civility, the inevitable response is spewed hatred from the right. I never stop giving arguments and evidence, though it is totally ignored by most conservatives here, but now I am also giving back some of the contempt that has been so well earned.

By Dusty

October 4, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

Uh oh, I think Kimberly has had a little too much..errr……strong coffee today.

By RF

October 4, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

JBM—I’ll get roasted for this, but what the heck? Didn’t you know that jobless poor can get more money for more kids? Seriously though, I think a lot of the problem is that those who can’t afford the kids also can’t afford the contraception and don’t know or care enough to abstain from creating them. You mentioned the other problem I see too. The priorities used to be to work and TRY to have better. We, as a nation, created this generation of “I deserve it” folks who take the assistance and don’t try to get off it. I KNOW A LOT DO FOLKS, SO DON’T BLISTER ME HERE!! I’m just saying that there are a large number of folks who feel they deserve to be paid for sitting at home with two or three generations of kids running around the house.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

You’re sounding almost conservative today. You feeling okay??

LOL! I never really identified with liberals or conservatives… I just have an opinion on every subject (except the death penalty), and based on that opinion, someone will assume I’m conservative - or in most cases, liberal.

Hey RF, we have something else in common. I’m raising my good-for-nothing cousin’s oldest child. Drugs (marijuana is her drug of choice) are the least of her problems, so you can imagine what kind of live she lives…

RS, bearing children is not a privilege, it is a right had by any woman in this country who has access to a p***. Parenting children may be a privilege, but it isn’t one easily taken away.

Scott, my #3 wasn’t a rhetorical question. I don’t know the answer either… lol. I was just wondering aloud what contributions children of impoverished parents have made to society. Surely there are many, I just don’t know offhand what they are.

By Jack

October 4, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

No, Micheal is not condesending. He just likes to try and impress people with his vast superior knowledge and intellect. (I think Kimberly has the hots for him)

By kimberly

October 4, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

You’re right Michael. As I’ve said before, when the hate-spewing gained popularity in the 90’s, many of us to the left of far right decided we weren’t going to sink to that level of nonsense and contempt. Look what happened: nonsense and contempt took over the whole &*&^%$ country. And last year we witnessed more of the same: a polite, intelligent candidate makes rational arguments regarding issues, and backs them up with facts, and the hate-spewers (and queer haters and racists and bible thumpers and those who can only comprehend one nine-second sound bite full of information at a time)called him a “sissy” and a “deserter” (even though history tells us differently) and stuck to their most compelling argument: “Nuh-UH!”.

Being polite has cost us all too much. I say hit them with the truth, and hit them hard until they crawl back into their little holes and hide.

By RF

October 4, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Michael, you said yourself that one can parse numbers to get whatever result one wants. Isn’t that basically true of any study? For every study one quotes, there is usually some seemingly equally empirical study that quotes the opposite. Just accept the fact that both sides have their sources and that the truth probably lies somewhere in between. I take your data and others and the reality I see is right smack between the two. And believe me, Rove and Rush and their buddies hardly influence many ideologies here. There have been very few Limbaugh-ites who have stayed with it on this blog. In a few years we’ll likely elect a democrat for president, and then the righties will claim the same thin about the lefties. It’s what keeps both sides paying attention.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

RF - I can’t disagree with your 1:39. I know two (YES, 2) different women who had their 7th children so they could get a HUD house. (In NY, when you have 7 children, Social Services puts you in a house).

I think there is an unfortunate number of people who take advantage of our welfare system. But, it’s worth noting that many do utilize the welfare assistance to get over a rough patch, and move on to becoming contributing citizens. I often refer to my grandmother who will die a multi-millionnaire. She loves to show us the projects she lived in, and keeps a food stamp (from back in the day before they used debit cards! lol) in her wallet as a reminder.

She was on welfare throughout her childhood, and for most of her twenties. Her story is a long one, so I won’t tell it now. But, the lesson I extracted from it is that the only thing that keeps welfare recipients on welfare is the lack of desire/determination to get off.

By RF

October 4, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

JBM—then you too know how it feels to deal with the druggies and flunkies!! I wouldn’t trade my boys for anything, but I do soooo hate the way I had to go to get them. I’ll never get over having to face my sister in court as the judge read his decision. It’s been worth it to see how a little normalcy and love and stability have changed those two angels!!

By RS

October 4, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

RF, I agree STRONGLY with every word in your 1:39 post. JBM, if a woman exercises her right to bear a child but it is not in the best interest for her to raise said child, she should not, in fact, be raising that child. And there are some cases in which some women should not be allowed to even bear a child, for instance if she’s an addict/alchoholic/AIDS victim or if a sonogram shows the child will be horribly defective. After all, what we are talking about is what is in the child’s best interest.

By kimberly

October 4, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

You’re right Dusty. I am fresh out of those SWEETNESS pills you take every morning. Can you front me some until payday? {;->

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

RS - We don’t disagree. We’re just talking about two different things: what should be vs. what is.

By RF

October 4, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

JBM- I have a niece who has been temporarily on assistance. I think you’re right that it’s a matter of one’s priorities. My niece was embarrassed by it and got off as soon as her husband came to his senses and came back home. I too had a debit card for TANF(temporary assistance to needy families) when I first was given temporary custody of my boys. DFCS offered it and we needed it for a few months. It helped, and I was grateful for it. But I would never have stayed on it or felt like I deserved it. How do we get through to some of those folks and change their mindsets? I wish I knew a way, other than just cold-turkey ending the assistance, to convince more to see the need to get off the government programs?

By Scott

October 4, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

JBM - good for your grandmother….I would love to hear the story, though I know it is likely too long to get into here, but I enjoy hearing those type of stories because I find it to be empowering. It makes me wonder though, why we hear those stories often from the “greatest generation” era but not so much today?

By Oxymoron

October 4, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Oxymoron: Dusty and Sweetness Pills

By RF

October 4, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Scott—it’s obvious isn’t it? We’ve made it too easy to be lazy in this country. When we weren’t subsidizing poverty, people worked and appreciated what little they had. Today, we just give it to them for showing up. Why appreciate what you don’t work to have?

By taboga

October 4, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Some of us on the left are fed up with the untold buckets of disrespect, contempt, and hatred that have been visited upon virtually any decent person on the left from the Swiftboat liars, Karl Roves, Cheneys, Limbaughs, Hannities, Boortz’s, Karl Roves, to the ordinary poorly informed conservative citizen. When one gives arguments as I have in the past, many times, here and elsewhere, with the utmost respect and civility, the inevitable response is spewed hatred from the right. I never stop giving arguments and evidence, though it is totally ignored by most conservatives here, but now I am also giving back some of the contempt that has been so well earned.

Michael is so distraught because his little Liberal world is collapsing around him - he’s resorting to begging and self-loathing. Mikey, doesn’t Aristotle have some words of wisdom for you at this low point in your life?

But hey, don’t be so down on yourself son, Kimberly has got the way out for you! You guys just need to step out there and “take the gloves off” and show us all what you’re really made of!

And I have been waiting for that for a long while now!

By Jack

October 4, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

“Being polite has cost us all too much. I say hit them with the truth, and hit them hard until they crawl back into their little holes and hide.”

That doesn’t sound like a liberal Kimberly. I thought lib’s were all into political correctness. You are correct, politeness is our down fall. Why should we wory about offending anyone?

By RF

October 4, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Jack—shhhhh, or you’ll break the liberals hearts by pointing out to them that they are just as politically incorrect as the rest. Now, really, do we need to have to witness that breakdown?

Goodness folks, if we’re as liberal as we say, then we have to respect the rights of all to comment as they please. If we don’t, then aren’t we being awfully class-conscious, and isn’t that a right-wing fault….? And we thought only the republicans felt that everyone who disagrees with them is ignorant!!

By Scott

October 4, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

RF - Yes, it’s obvious to me, and I agree with you. I posed the question for debate and the introduction of differing views

Jack and/or Kimberly - I think our society has easily learned to have no manners and forget being polite…very few people need a refresher course these days

By chuck

October 4, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Michael H. is certainly NOT condescending, which is by definition:

con·de·scend 1)To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself. 2)To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.

In order for him to be condescending, someone would have to perceive those who disagree with him as inferiors. That isn’t possible. Also by definition, anyone who disagrees with Michael MUST be considered SUPERIOR.

Tony, You should have known better than to say anything negative about EUROPE, Michael’s adopted home. Having been there a time or two myself, I don’t see the big deal. I was in downtown Budapest and was told by one local, that I should avoid being there after dark because the unemployment rates were so high that crime had skyrocketed.

Frankly, the buildings are older, but the ideals of democracy (at least the American Variety that actually works) came from us. Their inability to attain the success that we have here is directly proportional to their inability to quit sucking at the paps of government.

As for the numbers coming from the Heritage Foundation, as I recall, Michael H. used number from the Economic Policy Institute in an argument last year. They are by any measure a decidedly liberal think tank (I use the word “think” loosely here.

What about the supposed statistics used by Diane in her “rebuttal”? Would you agree that her statitistics show what she purports them to show Michael?

By RS

October 4, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

RF: I fear the “cold turkey” approach is the only way we’ll ever see any results; as you stated to Scott, this society has made it so easy for moochers to keep mooching, why should they work? This process is called “enabling”.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Scott - Yeah, she’s got a great story. By the time she retired, she owned 8 rental properties, 2 timeshare properties, and can honestly “brag” that she has NEVER bought anything on credit (and that includes her houses and car). Of course, that means that she doesn’t have any credit, which in 2005 isn’t a good thing… but, try to tell her that. And, I think RF answered your question. I’ll add to that that our generation’s values just aren’t those of our parents and our parents’ parents. To me, it all boils down to values.

RF - I got that TANF too, and was offered Medicaid as well. Once again, it’s about values. My cousin (the mother of my “daughter”) was recently charged with theft and fraud for “stealing” government benefits. Can you believe that heifer had the nerve to collect benefits for all of her children and NONE OF THEM live with her?!!!! Yes, it’s about laziness, and a sense of entitlement, poor upbringing, etc… but it all boils down to values.

By Jack

October 4, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

Scott. The political correctness I refer to is when we cannot celebrate Christmas (Happy Holidays), Easter (Spring Holiday), under God (not) ETC. Maybe we should do away with religion and marriage and the American way and let the good ole government take care of everything for us.

By kimberly

October 4, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

You’re right Jack, but as always, I reject your labels in the first place. To label me as “liberal” is to ignore whatever I have to say. People who do that, IMO, don’t WANT to stop and listen or think. Labeling is easier.

I am PRO first amendment. If the idea of “political correctness” has people upset, it’s because it suggests we stifle free speech. Bigots should be free to spew their rubbish all they want, and the rest of us should be free to call them ignorant vermin. On the other hand, some of us do not WISH to offend our neighbors. But it is only by listening to my neighbors and encouraging them to express their true feelings that I know, with any certainty, WHICH of them I want to befriend. (The night Katrina hit, I listened with horror to one of my neighbors make an ugly racist joke about the SuperDome. Now I know she’s NOT like me. I was sad to learn this, but now I know.)

In terms of our current political climate, I DO believe that the bullies have won, NOT the people with the fair solutions, reasonable positions, or rational arguments. Just like our taste in movies, we are a people who love to blow ‘em up and applaud while we watch the bloody pieces land all over the place. Sad.

By kimberly

October 4, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Jack, I celebrated Christmas last year. No one tried to stop me. Do away with religion and marriage? Neither one have ever done ME a lick of good. (But then again, I didn’t marry you….) {;->

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Naw, I think that the “cold turkey” approach will cause a rapid increase in homelessness and destitution. I know that in the state of North Carolina, and in upstate NY, welfare is SOOOO different… must be locally regulated or something for it to vary like that. But, in both those places, you are given welfare with a deadline. And, in order to receive it (lawfully) you have to work a certain number of hours each week, or show proof of your active job search, or be enrolled in school.

I don’t know what the definitive answer is, but I definitely don’t agree with the cold turkey approach.

By RF

October 4, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Scott—does it seem to you too that the differing views we hope for seem to digress to criticism? What’s your take on why we have so few who rise above the welfare state these days?

By Scott

October 4, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

JBM - that’s great about your grandmother..and with all she has going for her, maybe she doesn’t need credit…I completely agree with you about values, or the lack thereof, in our society these days..this is just my own take on it, and the belief system I was raised in, but here goes…

Those are just a few but they were imparted to me and served me well. Not saying my list is for everyone, each person is raised under different circumstances, but I don’t think they would do anyone any harm

By RF

October 4, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

JBM—my former brother-in-law (aka the biological sperm factory for my nephews) almost created a mess for me with the IRS. He tried to claim the kids TWICE on his tax returns when he hadn’t even seen them in two years!! He’s also one of the one who can’t get a job and thus has to have the free medical care he can get. Thank goodness there are some left in this world who remember the ‘work ethic’ and have pride. Does it scare you to think where we’ll be in another generation? Gives me nightmares!!

Welfare with a deadline?? Sounds good to me, but I doubt we’d ever adopt that as a national standard.

By Jack

October 4, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Try celebrating it in public schools. We may have made a decent match, you seem to be as opinionated and bullheaded as I.

By taboga

October 4, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

I’m going to try and help you out. That’s just because I am a good guy. So listen close.

What you really need to do:

• Label everyone who disagrees with you on any thing that deals with Race: A Racist.

• Label everyone who disagrees with you on social and economic issues: Someone who hates the poor.

• Label anyone who disagrees with Feminism: A Sexist.

• Label anyone who disagrees with Gay Marriage: A Homophobe. (Time for Tim to jump in).

• Label anyone who disagrees with the Leftist ideas on the environment: Someone who wants to poison the water and the air.

• Label anyone who wants to fix the problems with Social Security: Someone who wants to steal money from the elderly.

• Label anyone who wants to reform Welfare: Someone who wants to take food from the mouths of children.

• Label anyone who disagrees with raising the Minimum Wage: Someone who wants to take food from the mouths of children AND throw them out in the street.

• Label anyone who wants to stop fraud, waste and abuse with Foodstamps: Someone who don’t care if children go to bed hungry at night.

• Label anyone who is in favor of identification for voting: Racist.

• Label anyone who is Christian: Right-Wing religious fanatic.

• Label anyone who wants to keep the Pledge of Allegiance in school: Fascist.

…And when you can’t think of an appropriate name for someone who disagrees with you on something: Nazi.

Keep this list handy at all times and use it as necessary.

By Jack

October 4, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

She already uses that list Tab.

By Scott

October 4, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Jack - I celebrate Christmas, and generally wish people a Merry Christmas. I don’t get all wound up if I get a Happy Hannukah or Happy holidays in return. Kimberly said she is pro 1st amendment, so it shouldn’t wind her up either. You can say under God if you want, regardless of what the Supreme Court says. They have the authority to regulate government entities such as public education, but not personal behavior that falls under the 1st amendment’s free speech clause. Quite frankly, I would prefer the government stay out of my faith. They screw up everything they touch beyond function, so I would prefer they leave that alone.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Jack, do you really think that the push to “ignore” Christmas, Easter, “under God” etc. is a liberal/conservative issue (not a rhetorical question)?

I always people take sides on that, but I don’t believe it’s an l/c thing, I think it has a lot more to do with Christians vs. non-Christians. Granted, not all non-Christians have issue with the “under God” phrase, not all liberals do either…

By kimberly

October 4, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Okay Toober. You’re a racist, sexist homophobe who hates poor people. Got it. THANKS!

Jack: When I was a kid, there was one Jewish boy in our class. When our Kate-Smith-wannabe teacher started reading from the New Testament, as she did daily following her lovely rendition of “God Bless America,” she made the boy take a desk and sit in the hall. At the time I thought nothing of it. As a parent now, I’m appalled. How did that boy feel having to be separated from his class? And WHY was it “necessary?”

BTW, HAPPY NEW YEAR to all the Jewish folks!

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

SCOTT - That list is awesome! (At the risk of sounding cheesy, I’ll admit I copied and pasted it to a doc so I can print it out). Your parents are wonderful for instilling those principles in you.

RF, I thought my cousin was bad… lol. She had the nerve to call me and tell me I “had her permission” to claim her daughter on my taxes… permission? Yeah, okay, thanks.

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, could be that the parents had requested such. I had a JW classmate who always had to leave the classroom when we had birthday cupcakes. I always thought it was cruel too, until I learned why…

RF- Why couldn’t welfare with a deadline work (other than the obvious reasons)?

By Jack

October 4, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Scott. We can but the fine public education system frowns on it. No surprise given the zero tolerance/zero thought rules.

By Dusty

October 4, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Well, now that I know that it is almost certain that Sen. Ted Kennedy is going to vote for Harriet Miers, I feel much better. Probably Rep. Cynthia McKinney will do likewise.

Sorry, Kimberly, I gave all my sweetness pills to Michael H. He had 98.6 degrees so I knew he neded some kind of pills.

Bye now. Going to shoot pink flamingos on the front lawn.

By RF

October 4, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

JBM—I think welfare with a deadline would be awesome. Some states and localities are trying it, and it works. But do you really see the folks in DC making that a policy? Think about how many groups would oppose it. That single issue would create more debate on Capitol Hill than Clinton did with his sex scandal! Great idea, but not likely to get past congress these days. It’s too simple!

So she gave you PERMISSION to claim the child?? What a hoot! My sister tried to borrow money from me after I got the boys because she was “fired for no reason”. Here I was raising her kids, and she wanted me to give HER money. Isn’t it unbelievable how the drugs mess up their minds? I never would have believed she could be that twisted, but she was. The last time she saw her kids before she died she didn’t spend more than a few minutes with them. She was trying to borrow money and was as high as a kite. It’s an awful downfall to watch, isn’t it?

By Scott

October 4, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

JBM - I wil pass that compliment along to my parents, as they are the ones who deserve it. I am flattered that you copied it.

Jack - True, but so what? They can frown all they want but I will exercise my rights any way I see fit within the confines of the constitution. If they don’t like it, tough

By Jack

October 4, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Scott. I meant that our children were unable to celebrate. We grownups can do what we want. (within reason)

By Van

October 4, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, you must be as old as I am to remember daily bible reading. BTW, it is Rosh Hashanah. Happy 5766.

You say you believe in the 1st amendment, what about the others?

By Scott

October 4, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Jack - Why can’t children celebrate? I realize schools are scared spitless right now of anything that resembles an acknowledgement of a religious holiday, but I would assume you would instill the beliefs and values ( based on your posts I don’t hink this would be a reaching assumption) that you see fit. By your own admission, they would be rooted deeply, due to their genetic predisposition to inherit your “bullheaded” personality. ;)

By Jack

October 4, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Yes. I have instilled. And am still p** about religion being a no no in this country.

By RF

October 4, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Jack—didn’t you know that the idea of “freedom OF religion” interpreted with all due political correctness means “freedom FROM religion”?? ;-)

By Archie

October 4, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

You can disagree with anyone about race but when you have racist views you are a racist,for example, see William Bennet. Typically people like Mr. Bennett can’t connect the dots when it comes to their comments and being called racist. Americans of all shapes,sizes,and colors commit crime therefore if one suggests that by getting rid of one race would reduce crime one is probably a racist because such a suggestion shows a predispostion although subliminal about said race. I have been called sexist and the person who did so was probably right at the time. I do agree with some feminist positions but not all of them. If you are a christian you’re not a religious fanatic but if you want to force prayer into schools and plaster the ten commandments all over the place… then you might be a fanatic. Some of my church members might agree with me on that one. If you don’t agree with gay marriage you could be a homophobe or a religious person that’s stuck on tradition. I know what the Bible says about homosexuality so a person could be against it and not be a homophobe. I will follow up later…

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Jack - I don’t think religion is a no-no… I just think there’s a fear of proselytization. Non-Christians are afraid (and rightfully so) that Christians are attempting to withdraw the country’s freedom to practice any religion one chooses.

I am a die hard Christian. I don’t mean that I was raised Christian or that I believe in the Bible. I mean that I do my very best every single day to live, talk and walk like Jesus Christ did.

With that said, I still don’t think it’s fair for people who don’t believe what I do to be forced to observe my beliefs in any way. Key word being observe. I don’t think scripture reading in class (as it was done in my mother’s day) is fair, but I do believe that a moment of silence couldn’t hurt anyone.

By Scott

October 4, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Jack - I understand what you mean. What I am saying is I don’t give a rip what people think about my faith or my implementation of it. Whether or not others approve or agree is not part of my faith. I really am not interested in religion being taught in public schools becasue then all religions would have to be (e.g. teaching the Koran as “history” in some California schools) and quite frankly, I don’t want my future children having to deal with it. Even if Christianity were taught in schools today I would be leery of that because if the govt. handles it, sure as the sun comes up tomorrow they would screw it up, twist it, water it down or exagerrate parts that serve their agenda and generally corrupt it. So I am fine with them leaving my faith alone

By RS

October 4, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

Thanks for those that have wished me & mine a happy Jewish New Year. My goodness, she made that poor boy sit in the hall? That would NOT fly nowadays! When I was a teen, teachers actually made nasty jokes about those of us students who were overweight and/or unnattractive! Isn’t THAT appalling? Thankfully, that’s a no-no in this day & age too-I hope! Well, that’s precisely the reason I advocate “cold turkey” for welfare moochers; anyone who deliberately steals from me, my husband, friends & working tax payers in general deserves to be homeless & destitute. They have kids? Well, they should have put on a condom before…oh but wait, that was deliberate. Those kids are their MEAL TICKETS!

By Jack

October 4, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

I’m not in favor of forcing anyone to observe any particular religion. I just don’t think the people want it eliminated.

I need a drink. (with massive amounts of alcohol)

By Just Being Me

October 4, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

Jack… musta missed communion yesterday! (j/k)

By Van

October 4, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Scott, I don’t think people are advocating teaching religion in school, just the good natured celebration of the secular holidays, Christmas, Easter and so forth.

If muslim kids can have a room for daily prayers and if the koran can be taught in public school under some guise, then letting Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny into a classroom isn’t going to freak anybody out.

By Scott

October 4, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

Van - I agree….so if you don’t want to allow Christmas trees and menoras in the classroom, then leave your prayer rugs at home

By Jack

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

RS. Good to hear from you. Thought you had abandoned us. :)

By taboga

October 4, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Jack - I don’t think religion is a no-no… I just think there’s a fear of proselytization. Non-Christians are afraid (and rightfully so) that Christians are attempting to withdraw the country’s freedom to practice any religion one chooses.

They’re not afraid at all - that’s just the nonsense that you Leftists throw out to justify YOUR religious paranoia…

By kimberly

October 4, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Van, I am TOTALLY not as old as you are! I just had a really old teacher when I was really young. {;-D

By Tony

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

Okay Archie, I’ll bite.

First on Prayer and or the Ten Commandments. They have been in our schools for the past 50 years. The pledge of allegiance added under God in the 50’s. The Ten Commandments and Prayer where all there. No one is forcing anything in today Archie, they forcing them out. So who’s the fanatic?

On Bill Bennett, Bill has a radio talk show, and the topic was about bad arguments in regard to abortion. A caller suggested he opposed abortion because more babies would be more tax payers a larger GNP and a smaller deficit. Bill argued “someone could postulate a situation where child’s not likely to be a productive taxpayer.” He argued that “if you wanted to reduce the crime rate, if that was your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down,” he also stated that “that would be 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, he thought, tricky.”

Of course aborting all babies would reduce the crime rate, and if he were trying to make a point about the absurdity of some ideas, that might have been a better way to do it. But in the firestorm of protest, nobody seems to be able to remember that, as a matter of fact, Bennett is opposed to aborting any babies, black or white or brown or green.

By RF

October 4, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

When we were a less religiously diverse society, or when non-christian religions felt forced to keep quiet about their beliefs, schools supported basically christian customs. They don’t now, so really we can’t debate that issue. I just don’t want us to get to the point that any display of religious belief on the part of a child or staff member is not allowed. Sometimes, it seems like if a kid prays in school he just might be violating someone else’s right not to.

By taboga

October 5, 2005 07:58 AM | Link to this

Good Morning Comrades and other Anti-Americans,

PSA: Only a few weeks away from that time of the year: The Christmas Holocaust.

That time of the year when the Religious Reich infiltrates our towns and communities and imposes their theocratic symbols on everyone. So all you good little “defenders of freedom” get in gear and get your battle plans ready. It’s never too early to prepare for the onslaught!

Moving right along to important things…

We should all be thankful for a diligent prosecutor like Ronnie Earle. First he indicts Tom Delay on something that didn’t exist during the timeframe of his charge, then he corrects that by charging him with: Money Laundering. Something else that didn’t exist.

I know you rube Liberals are wondering how could that be. Well, in order for anyone to launder money as in “Money Laundering* - the money has to have first been made illegally. And since the contributions that were raised were done so legally - “laundering” is not possible.

But don’t you little Communists let a little technicality like that get in your way - you go for it! And go hard!

The RNC should give Ronnie Earle a contribution - his exposure of the Left is invaluable!

By Ken

October 5, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

I know I may be a little behind due to work yesterday, but I wanted to respond to some folks.

Netbanker… I appreciate the clarification on scheduling versus mandatory limits. I guess I am opposed to even the mandatory limits. Those limits allow government to interfere with how I choose to live my life. Any attempt to curtail my work simply keeps me in the caste system that the European elite have dominated for centuries. Only now they do it under the guise of balancing life, protecting the worker and ensuring that jobs are available for everyone. In fact, I believe those types of laws are detrimental. Here is a comparison of unemployment rates as of 2004:

Japan 4.7; USA 5.5; Germany 9.8; France 9.6; Italy (2003) 8.6; UK (2003) 5.0; Canada 7.2; EU 8.9

What if we look at the GDP (www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdpcountrydesc.php). There are too many to list so I’ll just post from the countries above. This site had numbers for 2003.

United States $ 37,800 Canada $ 29,700 Japan $ 28,000 Germany $ 27,600 France $ 27,500
Italy $ 26,800

Wow. Those Euros really know something we don’t.

Not to mention, it is NOT cheaper to live in Europe than it is here. I know too many people who have lived and traveled extensively for anyone to pawn that off on to me.

Forget the statistics. Just think about the slippery slope that comes with having the government tell us how many hours we can work, how much vacation we can (must) take. That opens the door for all kinds of other laws (i.e. we will only allow one full time worker per household). Sound ridiculous? It’s not that far of a stretch.

Our country has become the most powerful in the world b/c we encourage people to achieve. We encourage people to excel. We put the fate of one’s life and future into one’s own hands. Anytime the government passes any restrictive laws, it’s wrong, and it doesn’t work. No human wants to be told what to do. Humans need to be convinced to make a decisions on their own. That’s the ONLY way we can affect change in individual behavior.

By Paul

October 5, 2005 08:56 AM | Link to this

Interesting how everyone seems to think that it is only the Mom, who can stay home and take care of the kids. There are 2 parents and the 2 of them making the choices. The Dad could even be the one that stays home. Obviously some parents have little choice, but for those who do [have a choice], I have to question the choice of getting their kids up early to spend all day in a day care competing with many other kids for the attention that a Mom or Dad could/should personally give them, so [parents] can drive nicer cars, live in bigger houses, and take fancier vacations.

By Whiley

October 5, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

What is wrong with both parents working to have a bigger house, car, vacation??? Bigger house means your kids don’t have to share a room, there is little worry of not being able to feed, clothe, or have medical care for your children. You will have better neighbors, less chance of drive by shootings, less chance of being a victim of robbery (due to good security system), newer better cars mean you won’t break down at night time on a scary street, less chance your neighbor just got out of prison or is a released sex offender, better schools, better children in the neighborhood. Less chance there are gangs of kids openly selling crack. Less chance of garbage all over the lawns & streets. My there are so many reasons. My conclusion is life is better all around when both parents work.

By Jose Arcadio

October 5, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Taboga, do you ever have anything positive to say? That piece about “Good morning Comrades” has reached the level of ad nauseum. Give it a rest already. We know how you feel about the liberals/leftists. Do you feel the need to hammer it into our heads day after day after day, week after week after week?

It doesn’t always have to be the Mom that stays home.

As for the stay at home parents, I have a friend that is a stay at home Dad. His boys love it. He teaches them all kinds of stuff like how to build things from wood, carpentry skills, how to change a tire, how to change the oil, etc. Their mother says that she likes working and likes the arrangement that they have.

By taboga

October 5, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Taboga, do you ever have anything positive to say? That piece about “Good morning Comrades� has reached the level of ad nauseum. Give it a rest already. We know how you feel about the liberals/leftists. Do you feel the need to hammer it into our heads day after day after day, week after week after week?

…and month after month!

And as I don’t recall asking your permission to post…

By Throwback

October 5, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Jose,

Just throw it back as in:

Good Morning Fascists and other Gestapo folk

By Jack

October 5, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

Dad is good. Mom is best.

By Sandy/Sanhan

October 5, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Got a question, Jack. Yesterday you stated that parents are responsible for their children’s education “not primarily, but totally & completely.” Why are parents not responsible for their children’s religious beliefs and practice totally and completely? Why rely on public schools for reinforcing the 10 commandments?

You cite that corporal punishment is a primary motivator in school, to which I would take exception. My concern would be that some teachers would use their own religious interpretations to discipline children, either with or without corporal punishment, which would be quite undesireable and dangerous for those not espousing the teacher’s beliefs.

My own general observation is that the fundamentalist Christians feel victimized because there are citizens who prefer to keep the separation of church and state. Yet, in the face of real victimization, there is often a knee jerk response to “blame the victim” as we saw in our recent hurricane disaster. Why is there no blaming the victim in (what I feel are) imagined instances of religious persecution? Can it be that the religious fundamentalists have brought this victimization upon themselves?

I believe the 9th amendment covers my right to freedom from religion. (Just because it isn’t listed, does not mean it’s not a right. Privacy is included here, too).

This discussion has become alarmingly important regarding the choice of two supreme court judges, whose religious convictions seem to have been very relevant.

As far as yesterday’s thread about “political correctness” and the use of language, my thoughts are thus:

In speaking our minds, we belie our intentions, and that there will almost always be challenges to whatever authority or lack thereof is present in an opinion. Using politically correct language, that is “deliberate avoidance of giving offense on the basis of ethnic origin or sexual orientation,” personally gives me pause to think through how my intentions will affect other people. While I certainly have politically incorrect thoughts, the intent of my judicious use of language is to draw out civilized discussion with others. For me, the approach is twice blessed: I exercise some self-control and restraint, and the person with whom I am communicating is less hostile, enabling more pertinenet information to be passed, rather than insults. For me, it is empathy in practice, suspending judgment until I know more about the other person and their experiences. It’s humbling at times, and I often learn more than I bargained for. Better understanding can lead to workable solutions.

There are times of course when I encounter an unfathomable hostility, more likely to occur on blogs and forums such as this, but this too can be a teaching tool as to other folks’ passions and irrationality, and yet another chance to reach for more compassion, right after I get done being scared. Though I’m not generally an optimist, more a pragmatist, I believe that a well placed kind word can be disarming and a step toward peace and understanding.

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Whiley, that argument can be so easily negated…

By Tim

October 5, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

JBM… did you watch SVU last night… OH MY GOODNESS… that one was intense!

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

Wow, Sandy.

I can’t say I always agree with you, but I love what you said and thought it was worth saying again…

In speaking our minds, we belie our intentions, and that there will almost always be challenges to whatever authority or lack thereof is present in an opinion. Using politically correct language, that is “deliberate avoidance of giving offense on the basis of ethnic origin or sexual orientation,� personally gives me pause to think through how my intentions will affect other people. While I certainly have politically incorrect thoughts, the intent of my judicious use of language is to draw out civilized discussion with others. For me, the approach is twice blessed: I exercise some self-control and restraint, and the person with whom I am communicating is less hostile, enabling more pertinenet information to be passed, rather than insults. For me, it is empathy in practice, suspending judgment until I know more about the other person and their experiences. It’s humbling at times, and I often learn more than I bargained for. Better understanding can lead to workable solutions.

Very well said…

By Whiley

October 5, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

Just Being Me, oh really? Go ahead I’d love to hear.

By Jack

October 5, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

Sandy. Yes it is also the parents responsibility to teach their children about religion. Who else is going to do it? I don’t feel victimized by what is going on. Angry, yes. Morality in this country is going out of the window. Look at divorce rates, crime rates, sex here, there , everywhere. I’m not too happy about it. Unfortunately, this is a dog eat dog world. Sandy you seem like a very nice person and you should have no problem ascending to Heaven when the time comes.

By RF

October 5, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

Whiley—wasn’t Bill Cosby’s son driving a nice, dependable car when he had a flat tire and was attacked? What about the woman and her husband killed on 285? Seemed like she was driving a pretty good car. Nicer stuff, nicer neighborhood doesn’t always mean better life. I prefer my little cottage, which I can afford by myself, to raise my sons in and live our lives. We have to do things together because there’s not enough rooms to avoid each other!! Big houses allow for families to scatter and avoid one another. I think every family should have to spend a week in a travel trailer together—they’d learn to get along or kill each other. Hey—maybe that’ll become a reality TV show.

By Sandy/Sanhan

October 5, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

Jose, I think that attitude comes from the hero of the neocons, Grover Norquist. How about this little quote, regarding partisanship: Our goal is to inflict pain. It is not good enough to win; it has to be a painful and devastating defeat. We’re sending a massage here. It is like when the king would take his opponent’s head and spike it on a pole for everyone to see.”

If it doesn’t sound very democratic or American, it’s because it’s not, or at least not the America many of us used to know. Norquist takes his inspiration on strategy and tactics from Communist thinkers, specifically Antonio Gramsci, who wrote that Marxists would come to power by ‘capturing the culture,” (according to David Brock, a former conservative writer, author of the *The Republican Noise Machine, {Right Wing Media and How it Corrupts Democracy}). Brock is the founder of Media Matters, a watchdog group that shows how media both left and right, distorts the facts.

It’s a kind of expose on how the right wing has bought out a huge portion of media and created conservative think tanks and turned the news into propaganda, all the while convincing people of the “liberal bias” in journalism. Some of the posts touched on how numbers can be skewed, especially when filtered through conservatively based research.

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

TIM!!! I was just going to ask if anyone saw it. Was that not the best one ever?!!!!! And for the first time, Mariska Hargitay was SUCH a hottie! ;-)

That was a really emotional episode - my favorite kind! She definitely deserves an Emmy for that. So did that Richard guy… I actually thought they had the wrong guy until he got that smug look on his face…

By Whiley

October 5, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

“wasn’t Bill Cosby’s son driving a nice, dependable car when he had a flat tire and was attacked? What about the woman and her husband killed on 285?”

Is that the best argument you can come up with? Like that cancels out the DAILY almost constant occurrence of BS in the more run down neighborhoods.

By Tim

October 5, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

JBM… I have always thought she was absolutely beautiful… and yes… definitely emmy worthy

he did a great job too

RF… I’ll pass on the whole trailer thing… I think I will be able to have a large house and still be able to do things with my children

By Sandy/Sanhan

October 5, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

Thank you, JBM.

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

Whiley, RF already got a piece of it…

Here’s another piece: nicer neighbors? Did you hear about the middle class Marietta subdivision that has a halfway house for convicted child molestors in it?

Less chance of kids selling cracks in the ‘burbs? Yep. They sell meth, marijuana, x, and all kinds of other stuff urban kids don’t know much about.

Oh, and what about the valuable time stay-at-home parents get to spend with their children? Less of a chance of abusive babysitters, more bonding time with your child(ren), more time to help with homework…

I’m not defending one practice or the other… I’m just saying that the argument you posed can be easily negated.

By Sandy/Sanhan

October 5, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

And Jack, thank you, as well. Despite not being an optimist, I am concerned with creating a little paradise here and now.

By RF

October 5, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

nothing wrong with the big house, nice lifestyle. Just pointing out the obvious that the house does little to determine what goes on in it.

Whiley— it’s early and I’m not as good as Michael with the obscure quotes. There are crooks and criminals in every neighborhood. Often our wealth lulls us into believing that because one drives a new car in an upscale neighborhood that we’re better off. To some extent, that’s true… Undoubtedly, housing trends show how the middle-class and mobile groups tend to flock to the newer, generally safer areas. That’s been true for decades. But there will always be those who manage to carve out a life and security wherever they are.

By Renee

October 5, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Staying at home may be good for some families, not feasible for others. Doesn’t mean just because you don’t stay home, the kids will become these drug dealing thugs. My mom and dad worked, I was a “latch-key” kid and I turned out fine. I work a lot but the time I spend with my daughter is quality time and I make the most of it and I teach her and have taught her what she needs to know.

By RF

October 5, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

you have those priorities Renee, and that’s really all it takes. A lot of parents do the same, but a lot don’t. Just seems there a lot of families who think the big house, nice cars, and nice clothes make the child better. Would you buy your daughter a Land Rover at 16? I’d rather not and have the money to go on a family vacation. I’m a single parent so I don’t have a choice about working, and like you I don’t think that’s the issue. It’s about how you use the time you have, isn’t it?

By taboga

October 5, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Renee,

Not all drug addicts lose their families and jobs. Some of them don’t. Maybe we can find an example of one.

By Dusty

October 5, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

Our first contributor to this blog was Denise Noe. Among other things, she was very concerned that poor welfare mothers had to go out and take entry level jobs when they wanted to stay home with their children. OK. In today’s AJC, she has written a piece declaring Atlanta in great need of sidewalks. What prompted this great need? Because Denise Noe CAN’T learn to DRIVE a car and likes to walk. OK. Maybe Ms. Noe has good reasons why she can’t learn to drive. As judgmental as it may be, I can’t help but lose some credibility in what she has to say. Maybe it is because I learned to drive when I was fourteen. Or maybe I need to go for a nice long walk (on a sidewalk).

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

My parents both worked while raising my 3 sisters and I. When they had my baby sister, my mom (and dad, I guess) decided to stay home until she started school. We were latchkey kids until the baby was born. Although we all enjoyed a happy life, we all agree that our baby sister definitely got the better end of the deal. We all turned out great though. 3 have college degrees, 1 is in her last year of school to become an RN, the baby is in her senior year of college. We took vacations even after my mom stopped working. Both parents had nice cars. None of us have ever been on drugs, in jail, or suffered from “trash in the streets” or “criminal neighbors”… I just don’t see how one can definitively argue that it is better (or worse) for parents to stay home with their children on these premises.

Oh, we did get robbed once. Came back from church to find our nice ‘burban home had been broken into despite the alarm system that their two jobs allowed them to afford…

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

RF,

No, those who employ rigorous social scientific methodology and publish in peer reviewed journals cannot parse stats anyway they choose. The Heritage Foundation is an ideologically driven advocacy group.

The claim that the truth on a factual matter must lie between two extremes is called the “golden mean fallacy.” The truth is determined by the evidence, full stop.

By Meg

October 5, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

I guess no one would want to admit that God’s system is better than ours. I majored in English, I worked for many years, and now I’m at home raising my children, home schooling and teaching them to appreciate poetry and literature and I’ve never been happier. I only wish that English majors made as much money as senior engineers so that my husband could have a turn staying at home with the kids while I worked. I feel I know my children now, when I worked I didn’t. This is how it’s supposed to be. When I worked I was always worrying about the kids, I honestly didn’t do a very good job because my heart wasn’t in it, when I came home it was to a sticky, dirty mess and crying kids, life was chaotic and horrible. I wasn’t doing well at my job or at motherhood. Now I make sure the house is clean before my husband gets home, the laundry is always caught up, I don’t nag him to do anything because now I have time to do it, and we’re both happy. Marriage and child rearing takes two people, a man and woman, with one of them staying home with the kids. I’ve tried single parenting with my oldest son, I’ve tried married, working Mom, and this is the configuration that works. If anyone tells you different they have their own axe to grind, and they don’t have your children’s best interests at heart. No one loves our kids more than my husband and I do, and no one else could raise them better. To say that I’m “setting things back for women everywhere” is ignorant. How do you think we got where we are? “Working Moms” are a recent phenomonen, they want you working so you’ll be too tired and guilty to say no when your kids start demanding all those toys they saw on commercials. It keeps the economy in hyper drive. They want you too tired to say no when the kids beg to watch an R rated movie or when they want dolls dressed like hookers or video games where you steal cars and have sex with prostitutes. It keeps the sleaze factories in Hollywood going. My kids are my career. I don’t babysit them with the TV, I don’t let them watch broadcast or cable TV, I make sure they watch wholesome, age appropriate content, I make sure they read good, wholesome books, I have time and energy to make sure no garbage goes in and I answer their questions when they ask them. They’re being raised to have values and standards. That wasn’t the case when I was working over 40 hours a week. I know I have a lot of kids (six) but I don’t see how it’s possible to work AND raise them right. I think the Moms who work when they don’t have to, just to have a career, are setting us back. They’re not doing their best job raising their kids, they’re not doing their part volunteering in church and PTA, they’re letting other people take up their slack so they can have their ego boost. Obviously I’m not talking about women who have to work but would rather stay home. I’m talking about cases where there’s a choice. We chose to have less money but invest more in our kids. How can that be a wrong choice?

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Just seems there a lot of families who think the big house, nice cars, and nice clothes make the child better.

Agreed.

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

RF,

Most routine health care, annual physcials, tests, and important checkups are not available only to the extremely poor who qualify under medicaid (which is refused by many doctors.) Emergency care cannot be refused but that is hardly addresses most health care needs. AFDC is addressed only to those with children. Most of the 45 million without health insurance, including minimum wage earners don’t come close to qualifying for any government assistance through these programs.

I invite you to read up on the details of these programs and you might be surprised.

By Renee

October 5, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

RF - I would NEVER buy my child an expensive car at 16 (mine will be 16 next year). I don’t think it’s a good idea because the child has no concept of the idea of a car. I don’t actually agree with children driving at all at that age. If you buy a child everything they have no appreciation for what they have. I work but I talk to my daughter, I spend time with her, we cover ALL subjects when we talk, I monitor her friends, her whereabouts, everything.

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

Meg, I could really give you a lengthy response. But, I think I’ll just say that you’re doing the right thing because it’s what works for YOU and YOUR family.

No one person, religion, political party, or judge can decide what works best for another person’s family.

By Meg

October 5, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

phenomenon, sorry, bad English major! I get phonetic when I hurry.

By taboga

October 5, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

How dare you criticize the royalty of our society! Even if you did it indirectly - it was way out of line!

If a Welfare mother wants to stay at home with her child, then, by God - that is her right. And if you weren’t so stingey with your money and were more willing to help out our nobility who deserve a comfortable lifestyle at our expense - Denise Noe wouldn’t have to write those pieces defending their rights. At least she’s concerned and compassionate!

By Meg

October 5, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

No person can, but God can. If you follow Him you’ll always be secure in the knowledge that you’re doing the right thing. Right and wrong aren’t relative. They’re etched in stone. Email at tygerkittn@aol.com if you want to get lengthy, I don’t mind!

By chuck

October 5, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

So Michael H.: Here is what you said,

No, those who employ rigorous social scientific methodology and publish in peer reviewed journals cannot parse stats anyway they choose. The Heritage Foundation is an ideologically driven advocacy group.

The Heritage Foundatin analyzed such a “peer reviewed article that appeared in the Journal “Adolescent Health”. I have include their entire analysis below. Please explain 2 things for me.

1) Where in this article did the Heritage Foundation go wrong? Yes, their ideological slant is obvious, but what about the numbers? Can YOU refute their conclusions?

2) How does a peer reviewed journal such as the one referenced, allow obviously flawed research into those hallowed pages? I thought your premise was that the numbers could not be parsed in a manner designed to advocate for a position on an issue. Clearly they can be.

*Virginity Pledgers Have Lower STD Rates and Engage in Fewer Risky Sexual Behaviors by Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. WebMemo #762

June 14, 2005 | |

For more than a decade, organizations such as True Love Waits have encouraged young people to abstain from sexual activity. As part of these programs, young people are encouraged to take a verbal or written pledge to abstain from sex until marriage.

An article by professors Peter Bearman and Hanna Bruckner in the April 2005 issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health strongly attacked virginity pledge programs and abstinence education in general. The article stated that youth who took virginity pledges had the same sexually transmitted disease (STD) rates as non-pledgers. It also strongly suggested that virginity pledgers were more likely to engage in unhealthy anal and oral sex. The report garnered widespread media attention across the nation. A reexamination of the data, however, reveals that Bearman and Bruckner’s conclusions were inaccurate. Moreover, in crucial respects they misled the press and public.

Bearman and Bruckner tested the long-term effects of virginity pledge programs, examining the health and risk behaviors of young adults (with an average age 22) who had taken a virginity pledge as adolescents. Their analysis was based on the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (“Add Health�), a database funded by the federal government. We used this same database to reexamine the issues they raised.

Several discrepancies were immediately apparent. For starters, the Add Health data clearly reveal that virginity pledgers are less likely to engage in oral or anal sex when compared to non-pledgers. In addition, virginity pledgers who have become sexually active (engaged in v****, oral, or anal sex) are still less likely to engage in oral or anal sex when compared to sexually active non-pledgers. This lower level of risk behavior puts virginity pledgers at lower risk for sexually transmitted diseases relative to non-pledgers.

How do Bearman and Bruckner conclude the opposite? In a narrow sense, they do not. Although they strongly suggest that pledgers are more likely to engage in anal and oral sex, they never actually state that. In fact, they very carefully avoid making any clear statements about the sexual risk behaviors of pledgers and non-pledgers as a whole. Instead, they have culled through the Add Health sample looking for tiny sub-groups of pledgers with higher risk behaviors. They then describe the risk behaviors of these tiny groups and let the press infer that they are talking about pledgers in general.

The centerpiece of their argument about pledgers and heightened sexual risk activity is a small group of pledgers who engaged in anal sex without v**** sex. This “risk group� consists of 21 persons out of a sample of 14,116. Bearman and Bruckner focus on this microscopic group while failing to inform their audience of the obvious and critical fact that pledgers as a whole are substantially less likely to engage in anal sex when compared to non-pledgers.

This tactic is akin to finding a small rocky island in the middle of the ocean, describing the island in detail without describing the surrounding ocean, and then suggesting that the ocean is dry and rocky. It is junk science.

With regard to STDs, Bearman and Bruckner actually found that adolescents who made virginity pledges were less likely to have STDs as young adults than were non-pledgers, but concluded that this difference was not statistically significant. This conclusion was based on limitations in their methodology methodology. In fact, the same methods that they used to demonstrate that virginity pledges do not reduce STDs also demonstrate that condom use does not reduce STDs.

One problem is that Bearman and Bruckner examined only one of several STD measures available in the Add Health data file. Analysis of the remaining measures reveals that adolescent virginity pledging is strongly associated with reduced STDs among young adults. These results are statistically significant in four of the five STD measures examined and are very near significance on the fifth measure. With all the STD measures, the allegedly ineffective virginity pledge is actually a better predictor of STD reduction than is condom use. On average, individuals who took virginity pledges as adolescents were 25 percent less likely to have STDs as young adults than non-pledgers from identical socioeconomic backgrounds.

Further, Bearman and Bruckner’s suggestion that virginity pledgers are ignorant about contraception is also inaccurate. Although virginity pledgers were less likely to use contraception at the very first occurrence of intercourse, differences in contraceptive use between pledgers and non-pledgers disappear quickly. In young adult years, sexually active pledgers are as likely to use contraception as non-pledgers.

Of course, virginity pledge programs are not omnipotent. Many years will pass between the time an adolescent takes a pledge and the time he or she reaches adulthood. These years will be full of events and forces that either reinforce or, more likely, undermine the youth’s commitment to abstinence. Despite these forces, taking a virginity pledge is associated with a broad array of positive outcomes. Although most pledgers fall short of their goal of abstaining until marriage, in general, they still do a lot better in life. Compared to non-pledgers from the same social backgrounds, pledgers have far fewer sex partners. Pledgers are also less likely to engage in sex while in high school, less likely to experience teen pregnancy, less likely to have a child out-of-wedlock, less likely to have children in their teen and young adult years, and less likely to engage in non-marital sex as young adults.

Overall, virginity pledge programs have a strong record of success. They are among the few institutions in society teaching self-restraint to youth awash in a culture of narcissism and sexual permissiveness. They have been unfairly maligned by two academics who should know better.

Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies, and Kirk Johnson, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis, at The Heritage Foundation. These findings are based on research presented by Rector and Johnson at the Eighth Annual National Welfare Research and Evaluation Conference in Washington, D.C., on June 14, 2005. The conference was run by the Administration of Children and Families of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The full conference papers “Adolescent Virginity Pledges, Condom Use and Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Young Adults” and “Adolescent Virginity Pledges and Risky Sexual Behaviors,” both by Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., are available on heritage.org.*

By Jack

October 5, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Cutting and pasting should not be allowed.

By RF

October 5, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Michael—I haven’t had a chance lately to look up the figures on Medicaid. Do you know the income cutoff? I think it was around 24,000 yearly the last time I checked. As I said earlier, there are certainly those whose income is above the cutoff who don’t have health insurance. I think instead of the feds financing it, why can’t all insurance companies offer an affordable plan for those who are self-employed or don’t have insurance? Kaiser-Permanente offers a plan for indivuduals to join. I don’t know the cost, but at least that one company is trying to offer an option. As I said earlier, I think those not considered poor deserve health care, but does the government have to be the one to offer it?

Tab—my sister is an example of an addict who lost it all, including her life. She was killed by the crack addicted “friends” she spent her time with. She couldn’t keep a job, and I’m raising her sons as a result of her lifestyle choices. Drugs-lost job-lost home-lost family. Unless you’re related to Whitney Houston, that’s what can happen to you as a drug addict.

By Dusty

October 5, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Ah, Taboga, you are so right. I was far, far out of line and I do apologize.

You see, I did not take my sweetness pills this morning. Therefore I could not write how sweet and kind I am. I also did not wish to write at length about my vast knowledge. So I took the “golden mean” and got all out of line. I won’t let it happen again. I have seen the light.

By chuck

October 5, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

Jack, Sometimes you have to cut and paste to show the utter stupidity that often comes from lefties like Michael. Their idea of valid research is any research that agrees with their undeniably perfect opinions. He makes these statements about the Heritage Foundation without knowing anything about what they do and how they do it.

By RF

October 5, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

Michael—my nephews were on Medicaid while I battled for permanent custody of them. I went through the whole application and interview process for it. It was embarassing for me, but I did it to provide coverage for them. You might be surprised to find out how many on Medicaid are not even poor. Disabled children, regardless of parents’ ability to provide insurance, receive Medicaid as their primary insurance. Georgia, like Tennessee, is on the verge of having to drop a great many from Medicaid rollls in order to balance their budget. Another good reason not to have the government providing insurance for a larger group don’t you think?

By kimberly

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

SANDY/S: You are rockin’ and rollin’ today! I wish more people would stop and think things through like you do. Very good points.

By RF

October 5, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Renee- as a sensible parent, you would know better. It amazes me when I drive by the average suburban high school to see how many cars (nice ones, too) are in the student parking lots.

By kimberly

October 5, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

MEG: How nice that you had a choice. Most of us in the 21st century don’t, and never did. But I’m happy for you — envious even — that you had a choice. The path I’ve landed on is of course MY doing. My choices, my mistakes, my consequences. I won’t blame others for my bad decisions. But it truly IS too late for many of us to start over, so the hopeful words of trust and faith you offer ring hollow.

CHUCKIE: Your obssession with controlling the sex lives of others is disturbing.

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

lozen,

That was an excellent post from Factcheck.org. Remember when Cheney, in the debate with Edwards, invited people to check the accuracy of a claim he made by going to Factcheck.com? He didn’t even get the address right and for those who went to Factcheck.org they clearly stated that Cheney was actually wrong! No matter, facts mean nothing to most conservatives today (in contrast to the past), that’s why the ones here go on and on about any personal remark (like my response to the GED statement from Dusty) and ignore the content of what you say, any argument you give, any evidence you cite.

I think that the vitriol we currently experience in so much public discourse from our politicians and ordinary citizens can be traced back to multiple sources on the right. When Gingrich became speaker he injected an incivility into the House that it not experienced for some time with his calling Tip O’Neil “fat,� attacking individual representatives rather than criticizing their views, bashing Clinton for anything bad that happened, and distributing his little manual of adjectives to use in speeches describing democrats, “un-American,� “traitor,� and the opposite lexicon for references to Republicans.

However, before that Lee Atwater elevated negative campaigning on the behalf of Bush I into a virtual art form and that was the legacy he gave to the Republican Party. His comment that he would “strip the hide off of that little bastard [Dukasis] and make Willy Horton his running mate� was a new low and set the course for Republicans ever since. Bush II let the Swiftboat liars and others do most of his dirty work for him, though his own campaign also assisted while at the same time denying it.

The talk show and scream television media has become dominated by circus barkers such as Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, who know almost nothing and are listened to by millions of admiring “dittoheads� who then try to emulate their idols by acting as right wing cyber vigilantes trying to hunt down and destroy any one who disagrees with them. We have excellent examples here in the likes of Dusty, Jack, and the most loathsome of the lot, Tabasco.

Behind the scene have been well funded advocacy groups shaping the language of both parties and ‘framing’ the issues in the American Enterprise Institute, the CATO and Heritage Foundations, the Family Research Council, to name a few of the major players.

The latest issue of the New Republic magazine has a cover story on the training of young Republicans, “Swimming with Sharks: How Young Republicans Learn to Attack,� by Franklin Foer. It only arrived yesterday so I haven’t yet read it but it looks interesting.

The democrats have responded with reason and argument and taken it on the chin while the right appeals to emotion in the form of patriotism, gay bashing, liberal bashing, Bible thumping, which are offered to the lowest rung of the conservative totem pole and the smarter ones are taken in by the advocacy groups which are increasingly inserting themselves into the more mainstream media.

I think that cognitive scientist George Lakoff of Berkeley has some of the best ideas in both diagnosing this and in how to respond to it. It is high time something were done, but it takes thinking and money and we are lacking in the later category.

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

kimberly I couldn’t agree more with your remarks about the treatment that Kerry received in the last election. It reminded me of the first election I voted in when George McGovern ran as clean and fair a campaign as could possibly be run against the most dishonest politician ever to inhabit the White House who held an “enemies list,� sponsored breakins, and resigned in disgrace. I actually had a young, conservative lawyer claim that it was Clinton who disgraced the White House and lowered the standard of political life. Short memory or, as with most Americans, no knowledge of history beyond their own lifetime.

But I think that politics today, probably more than ever, is about power, how to get it and use it as you see fit, not about the public good or arguments for and against policy. The Republicans know this, have corporate support, and they are making the most of it. And the ordinary Republican just repeats the sound of fury of the talk shows and scream TV, signifying how they have been completely taken in.

(I wonder if Tabasco has an arrest record for assault. If not, he really needs some therapy that should set him off, as if he needed any stimulus. Odd, he seems to experience no cognitive dissonance in doing nothing other than labeling those he disagrees with while accusing them of doing the same. He must not read his own posts. I generally gloss over them and seem to have a better understanding than he.)

By whateva

October 5, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

loathsome? Our Beloved Fuhrermann?

say it ain’t so, say it ain’t so.

By lozen

October 5, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

We all see the world through our personal belief systems. Sandy’s posts prove to me the superiority of eastern thought and meditation. Sandy you are an inspiration and an open minded, good hearted, intelligent person. We all can learn from others if we will listen. As long as we want to argue with other races and ethnic groups, etc (whose shoes we have not walked in) about their lives and what is right for them instead of listening to what they have to say, we can’t learn anything.

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

RF,

No, I do not agree and I have assisted people through the whole process in applying for medicaid as well. My ex-spouse worked in AFDC for five years and I did to some years ago.

The fact is that we have 45 million people, most of whom work full-time who do not have affordable health care, do not qualify for it, and this is the only country in the Western world that does not view health care as a human right and provide it for all of its citizens. I view that as a moral disgrace.

By Renee

October 5, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

Shouldn’t health coverage be earned, just like any other benefit. I think anyone should have the right to see a doctor and go to the hospital, but if they have no means of payment why should I foot the bill.

We have many able-bodied people on Medicaid who can get up off their a*, get a job and get health care. Now if we offer something to the working class who cannot get healthcare through their job, maybe even at a reduced rate, I could understand that, maybe.

By chuck

October 5, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

Kimmie, Too bad someone didn’t control the sex lives of your parents.

By RF

October 5, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Okay, Michael, I know about the 45 million. Do you think the government can responsibly offer that insurance when many individual states can’t keep Medicaid operating without deficit? If you read what I wrote, I actually agreed with you about the 45 million. Sure it’s a moral disgrace—I actually agree with you again! I’m just not sure that we really want Medicare/Medicaid expanded to that extent. It’s already overloaded as it is. Can you think of a way to balance Medicaid’s budget other than more money?

By kimberly

October 5, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

To the Bible-thumpers: When Jesus healed the sick, did he ask for an insurance card or a co-pay first? Did he only heal the sick folks with money, status, and a solid work record? Why then, do His followers scream with indignant anger when someone without money receives medical attention? I know that the current system bleeds the rest of us dry in order to pay for indigent care, but that’s how the system is set up. Why not advocate a REASONABLE solution, like health care that everyone can afford, and end the raping of America by insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and HMOs? Why are the people who want to improve a clearly flawed system hailed as “communists” or “socialists” and “unpatriotic” when they’re trying to actually improve life in America? Things that make ya go, “Hmmmmmmmm….”

By taboga

October 5, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT!

To begin with, there are no “45 million” without “Health Care”. In fact, no one is without “Health Care”!

“Health Care” was the name applied to “Medical Insurance” by the Leftists, in order to gain sympathy for their agenda to nationalize our Health/Medical system.

The mythical number of “45 million” which was pulled from a Leftist’s butt, suggests that we have “45 million” people who cannot get medical care.

Now, the “45 million” is not a static number, but rather a dynamic one. That is, if you could take down the names of everyone today that does not have “Medical Insurance” - you would not have the same names on the list six months from now. There is not a static number of people that total “45 million” who go on and on without “Medical Insurance” - folks come and go from that number.

In addition to that, the largest group of folks who do not have “Medical Insurance” are those who do not want it. Many self-employed along with others who can afford to pay as they go - choose not to have “Medical Insurance”. But they are counted in the total of “45 million” for obvious Leftist reasons.

If for example, a person quits their job, loses their “Medical Insurance” and then regains the insurance a week later, they are counted as a person without “Medical Insurance” for the entire year. So, there are alot of folks who may not have had “Medical Insurance” for just a brief period of time - but are included in the total of “45 million” nonetheless.

Another group of people who do not have “Medical Insurance” are those without it, but could get it from the government - but just don’t know it or don’t care.

When you boil it all down, yes, there are some people who want/need “Medical Insurance” that cannot afford it or obtain it via any other means. But there is nowhere remotely close to “45 million” who fall into that category.

The cries of “45 million people without health care” - is just more Leftist propaganda. Aimed at the rubes who will believe it.

By kimberly

October 5, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

Chuckie: Mom says you’re my real dad, but she kept the truth from me to spare me the trauma.

By Akeya

October 5, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

I personally don’t think that any woman should be forced to stay at home or work is she doesn’t want to. It’s a personal choice. The problem comes in when self-righteous stay-at-home mothers get their hackles all hiked when people don’t understand their position, or when mothers who work outside of the home are made to feel (by those pesky stay-at-home mothers), as though they are doing some kind of disservice to their children. Give me a break.

By chuck

October 5, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Why am I not surprised you don’t know who your real Dad is?

By lozen

October 5, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Michael, I always count on you for good info! You are absolutely right about who took us down this road of yelling and screaming and name calling. Most people don’t know any history (and some are even proud of knowing nothing!), therefore they find it easy to spout simple black and white solutions for problems they don’t begin to understand and that aren’t solvable by easy black and white solutions. Ignorance is a terrible thing. Even worse is to defend your ignorance and call it good, as the blog fool does.

By kimberly

October 5, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Chuckie, I mean Dad, I think it was wrong of mom to keep us apart. I’d like to bring the kids over on Sunday for breakfast, and we can all go to church together. You can give me the moral instruction I’ve lacked, and then we can pray for my errant soul. I love you Dad.

By RF

October 5, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Good Point Tab—hey, I was part of the illustrious, pitiful 45million myself a couple of years ago for about a month while I changed jobs. OMG- I was part of a liberal stats group. Next thing you know, I’ll be attending an ACLU rally!!

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

RF,

Yes, I agree, we do have major problems with our current budget, which is a large issue. I would suggest increasing taxes on the wealthy, not more tax cuts, and cutting some of the large ill-conceived pork projects that have been passed the last few years, and not investing so much in defense, especially elaborate weapon systems that are of little use for our defense needs. That is a start.

The head of the Harvard School of Public Health actually proposes extending medicare to the whole population. She may be right, she may be wrong, but I think the best source for information and policy proposals for discussing these issues are the experts in schools of public heatlh who are always researching, discussing, and publishing on these matters.

However, in the current political climate I expect virtually nothing to change.

Tabacso,

You are a total idiot. Everything in your post has been accounted for and the 45 million claim of course is where we currently stand. The figure comes from the Harvard School of Public Health and is widely cited. It doubled in the 1990s and has doubled since. This is the only time I will waste responding to you. It would take hours to correct all the stupid sh*t that you post.

By RF

October 5, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

But why isn’t the simple solution best? Do we always have to look for an expensive, complicated solution to life’s problems? If you were drowning, wouldn’t the simple solution of throwing you a life preserver be best? If we aren’t going to be simple, black-and-white about it, then let’s debate, create a government commission with oh, say a billion in budget, go to congress with our ideas, argue some legislation with Ted and the boys, and then we’ll get back to you as to whether or not we can offer you a life preserver. From those of us on neither extreme, the simple solutions are sensible and require much LESS government to enact. Besides which, they’re just darn funny sometimes!!

By lozen

October 5, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

Why is Chuckie being so mean to Kimberly? I haven’t had time to read closely this morning so I’m at a loss. Can someone explain this to me? I just want to say Kimberly is a fire brand, passionate, intelligent, obviously well read and educated. You go girl!

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

Out of curiosity I would like to ask a general question for conservatives here, which shouldn’t be too provocative. What are your main sources for information on domestic politics and international affairs? What do you typically read, listen, to or watch?

By chuck

October 5, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

When you can’t refute, call names and hide behind the “I’m not going to respond” response….AGAIN.

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Honestly, I don’t care if it’s 45 million or 4 million - the number is too great. And, I wouldn’t necessarily say that the government should provide healthcare for all. I’m not sure what the answer is, but what I DO know is that no human being should be without health care.

At the same time, I think we are a great part of the reason health care is so unaffordable…

By Van

October 5, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

The trouble with a universal health care in America, is the only plans proposed would include everyone and not just thoses without health coverage. Gone would be all the HMO’s PPO’s, etc.

As we have seen in Canada and Great Britian, after universal health care, a new tier of helth care emerges, the “private” doctors. For those with the means, no more waiting for MRI’s or treatment.

taboga is correct about the number of folks without health care or insurance, of the 45 million, there are about 4 million hard core uninsured or uninsurable folks. That is people without health care for over a year.

It would be simpler and cheaper to provide these 4 million with and health coverage from the private sector.

Anyway, medical care is a privacy issue and the federal government should not be involved in it.

By kimberly

October 5, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Lozen! Actually a week or two ago, Chuckie called me a “ignorant, self-loathing little miscreant” then signed off for the week. Today he said my parents should not have conceived me. THAT’s when I put two and two together. See, I’ve hardly slept a wink since he stung me with those words. Only FAMILY can hurt you like that! {;-D

By RF

October 5, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

Michael—do you really think we’re going to tax the wealthy any more than we already do? Some are in a 50% tax bracket now, although we all know they pay nowhere near that. Why can’t we have a simple 10% flat income tax without restrictions for everyone? Think of the budget that could be generated. We talk about taxing the rich, but what does that mean? Do you honestly think wealthy congressmen are going to truly tax themselves more? Not likely in this lifetime!

I’ll pass on Medicare for the whole population if it’s ever offered. I find it fearful that the federal government might one day have that much control over health care. I prefer choosing my plan and my doctors. I do, however, believe that the government could reasonably offer some incentives for the insurance industry to offer a reasonably-priced plan for the uninsured not elgible for Medicare/Medicaid.

By Sandy/Sanhan

October 5, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

Perhaps a better meausure of how lack of medical insurance affects the country would be to look at how many people have had to declare bankruptcy because of health care costs, even among the insured.

The new bankrupcy law that will soon go into effect was essentially written by banking lobbyists to ensure payment of credit card debt, even in cases where credit cards were used to pay hospital and medical bills. Efforts to spare Katrina hurricane victims (the ones who survived) from this law have fallen on deaf Republican ears, despite the devastation of their livelihoods. What about “the general welfare” of the nation, not to be confused with the welfare state?

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

Why should I spend time refuting, one by one, the easily refutable false claims that people like Tabasco and you make, when you are incapable of understanding the obvious?

Weren’t you the teacher who was recently arguing for the literal flood story, Noah’s ark, and all that?

I rest my case.

By Sandy/Sanhan

October 5, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I humbly accept your compliments, from this week and last, but fear you are giving me way too much credit. Though I must admit your presence of mind and reasonable temperament keep me posting. To your credit you’re a centering influence, and lead me to believe in the worth of WTW. I thank you for that.

By Jack

October 5, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Michael H. You like to call people idiots on this blog. Do you do that to people’s faces? Easy to be brave and condesending on a blog.

By lozen

October 5, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Harvard School of Public Health! I’m sure T. will come back with “they’re all educated communists who don’t know nuthin’ because they’re educated out of books.” And, of course, in his mind all their professors were communists. That’s laughable; one of our professors is a member of the Heritage Foundation!

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

RF,

As I concluded in my last response I expect no meaningful heatlh care reform legislation in the current political environment. You asked what I thought ought to be done and I gave an answer.

The last opportunity for health care reform was in 1994 when Hilary Clinton chaired the reform commission. That effort was scuttled largely by the propaganda of the health care industry which ran the big government boogie man argument in nightly television ads. The propaganda that you and most conservatives seem to accept without question and sometimes to your own personal detriment.

Yet another example of how political discussion was distorted, subverted by the power of vested interest groups working on their behalf and against the public good.

By KATHLEEN

October 5, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Both Ms. Feldhan and Ms. Glass appear to be addressing married, heterosexual couples who are both employed. This is not realistic, especially with the current economy! If a mother is married or has a partner helping her to raise the child and both parties are employed with at least one earning more than minimum wage, they are lucky! Seems like we need to stop trying to answer the debated question that has been around for 40+ years (funny you don’t see the same question addressed toward men!) and focus more on equal pay for equal work (women earn 73 cents for each dollar earned by a man) and raising the minimum wage (which hasn’t budged in 8 years!).

By Dusty

October 5, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

OH, I am going out for some fresh air. Kimberly is now wearing a halo. Michael H. has gone from philosophy to health care expert. Sandy thinks the government did not “give” enough to Katrina victims. Lozen is their character witness, as long as they stay liberal. My eighteen year old cat thinks she should have free health care. Mercy..

By chuck

October 5, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

MIKIE, 3 newspapers a day, hard print local, national, wsj, online Barron’s, AJC. ABC news at 6:30,local news at 6:00, Fox at 7:00. 2-3 hours per day research online for stuff that interests me.

By RF

October 5, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Michael—come on, don’t you know at least one conservative you like somewhere?? Or at least a moderate? We’re not all as deluded and ignorant as you think.

By Teenager

October 5, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

Why would you pull “45 million” out of your butt instead of farting it out?

By kimberly

October 5, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

Sandy, regarding the new bankruptcy law that’s about to aid irresponsible lendERs, not only does it contain no exemptions for victims of medical catastrophe, it also contains NO provisions WHATSOEVER for the soldiers, or families of soldiers, many of them who gave up a decent wage to be sent to the desert and guard the oil. I spoke to my congressman (Tom Price R-suckup), who is also a doctor, and asked WHY would he vote for a bill that did not offer some protection to sick people and SOLDIERS, or even wounded, disabled soldiers? The bill makes no distinction between Nordstrom addicts, shopoholics, and those who are devastated by outside factors. The bill also does not address CORPORATE bankruptcy. It also does not address the issue that, IF there is a “credit crisis” that perhaps the industry at the heart of it should ALSO bear some measure of responsiblity and change their practices. He never replied. Congressman Price, why do you hate our soldiers?

By lozen

October 5, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Anyway, medical care is a privacy issue and the federal government should not be involved in it. This may be true Van, but the govmt is totally involved in medical care from granting money to certain research programs, to trying to please the huge pharmacy lobby, and the huge American Medical Association, to not regulating insurance companies with their huge lobbies, to the bankruptcy laws referred to by Sandy, to trying to ban abortion (talk about privacy issue!).

By taboga

October 5, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

Congressman Price, why do you hate our soldiers?

Jack,

See, that template I sent Kimberly yesterday - helps out!

She doesn’t agree with the Congressman, so therefore HE “hates” our soldiers…!

Good work girl - you’re catching on!

By chuck

October 5, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

It is called personal responsibility Kimmie. You borrow money, you PROMISE to pay it back. That’s the deal. I know people, who under the old law have gone bankrupt or defaulted on loans 2-3 times over the last 20 years. I love how you lefties think…the credit company was stupid enough to loan them money so they ought to suffer the consequences. Here’s one for you—-that fool was stupid enough to leave his door unlocked so he deserved to be robbed. Why should I have to go to jail for just doing what he must have expected me to do? He should go to jail for leaving his door unlocked and ENTICING me to rob him. And you wonder why America is going to hell. UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE.

LOZER, we have a MARKET economy. If you don’t like the way a company does business, ORGANIZE A BOYCOTT. I thought that’s what you lefties were best at…protesting. Form a coop and buy your drugs and health care through them. Why is it that you always want a GOVERNMENT solution to every problem. Isn’t it fairly obvious that the government screws more things up than it helps? STUPIDITY!!!

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, I don’t always disagree with you, but that last post of yours was quite drastic.

First, it names the creditors, not the creditholders irresponsible. Sure, sometimes the creditors are desperate and exercise poor judgment, but how much more often are the creditholders at fault?????

Secondly, seemed a bit far-reaching to say your congressman hates soldiers based on the info you provided…

Just my two cents.

By kimberly

October 5, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Silly me. I had this ridiculous idea that a Congressman should represent the people who live in his district, not just the corporations from which he receives dividends, or the fraternity with which he sucks kegs up in Washington. The folly of this notion has been explained to me repeatedly. “Brother Bluto says vote for this bill, so why should I read it or CARE?”

By chuck

October 5, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

HEY KIMMIE, don’t vote for him…WORK FOR HIS OPPONENT…GO DOOR TO DOOR…ORGANIZE A LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN

By Jack

October 5, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Kimberly. Silly rabbit. Politicians aren’t elected to represent the people, they are elected so that they can be re-elected.

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

RF,

Sure, I have read a number of conservative writers for years and find some merit in what some of them say at least some of the time, though most of the time I disagree. Most conservative writers these days, with some exceptions, seem obliged to defend everything Bush does to the point that they are engaging in spin, not journalism.

But to name a few, David Brooks is the most open minded, Andrew Sullivan is interesting sometimes, others who are less so that come to mind, but that I read are Charles Krauthammer, Norman Poderitz, though I misspelled his name, Fred Barnes, Morton Kondrake, and George Will.

By Billy

October 5, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you sure are bitter today, and extremely judgmental. Your moral superiority is boring and condescending. It kills me when people like you tell people how they are supposed to live, when I am sure that you live in a glass house. That’s the beauty of the right. They believe in the “do as I say, not as I do” mantra.

And I guess that all of those Christians that boycotted Disney World, Kraft foods, Matthew Shepard’s funeral, were all liberals?

By kimberly

October 5, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Chuckie, contained witin your slew of inappropriate and unwarranted personal insults, you had a point or two. Certainly, I don’t condone the filing of bankruptcy by chronic over-spenders, or as I referred to them “Nordstrom addicts.” I never said I did, although you assumed it from your inexplicable, seething hatred for me.

I never said bankruptcy reform was a bad idea, either. I merely pointed out that it’s not just the law itself at issue, but the clauses and exceptions and degrees contained in the law. Half the folks who file BR do NOT do so for reasons that were beyond their control. But nearly half of them do so because of medical catastrophe. Why can’t there be a distinction written into the law? Why does it only address individuals’ debt, and not corporate debt? Why no exception for soldier’s families during wartime? And why no provisions to suggest that the out-of-control credit industry police ITSELF, at least to the degree that they maybe not shove credit cards at 17-yr-old college freshman who are YEARS away from being able to pay for anything? You’re not old enough to buy beer, but you can borrow $10K at 19% even though the math itself is beyond you?

So if you’d like to discuss an issue, that’d be great. If you’d like to continue your unexplained personal issues with me, just tell me what church you to go, and I’ll be there on sunday with the kids. GRAMPA.

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Anybody who would boycott Kraft just has the blue-box blues.

By RF

October 5, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Kim—I was almost agreeing with you some earlier, but do you really believe that a person filing bankruptcy should be allowed to without any restrictions? Many, many people make bad credit decisions, myself included. Working to take care of it isn’t bad, it’s the only way to go. I dug myself out and others could if they didn’t see bankruptcy as an option. Soldiers receive pay whether deployed or not. That money is there while they are enlisted, and like all of us, they have to learn to live off of it. As to wounded soldiers, they aren’t suddenly cut-off because of the injury. If they’re not able to serve, then they have disability benefits. So we’re not supporting the war, but suddenly soldiers (who enlist with the possibility of actually fighting) deserve extra money? The lesson I learned is this: don’t get into it unless you have a plan to get out of it. I paid my debts, every last cent, and others can do the same. It isn’t about protecting corporations, it’s about protecting all of us who pay our bills the best way we can. I’m tired of seeing people use bankruptcy as a quick fix.

By Ken

October 5, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

Whiley… What’s more important, your children having their own rooms, or your children having your full attention when you are at home?

Kimberly… I find it ironic that so many people want to bring up the “Did Jesus do…” on this board only when it fits their argument. There are many things folks on this board support that I do not believe Jesus ever would.

It also appears that many people on this board want to govern to the extremes fringes rather than to the masses. For example, I hear figures of anywhere between 30-50 million Americans without health insurance. That means there are 350-370 million WITH healthcare insurance. Why can’t we see that our system adequately provides in excess of 90% of population with virtually all basic needs of society. Perhaps I’m a half-full kinda guy, but that sounds pretty darn good.

In any capitalist society, there will always, I repeat ALWAYS, be people with superior financial means. They will always have better schools, better healthcare, better everything b/c they can afford it. The quicker we accept that, the quicker we will be able to address the real issues in society.

By RF

October 5, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Pretty good list Michael. I knew you had to be able to see a little bit of the other side now and then. It’s the tug-of-war of ideological extremes that keeps us learning and keeps us honest. God forbid we ever lose that!

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Chuckie,

Hardly impressed.

You might expand the scope of your reading to include some journals of opinion on the left and the right and I see little value in local television and virtually none in Fox which is little more than the unofficial GOP network.

PIPA (Program on International Policy Attitudes) at the University of Maryland did a study released last October which surveyed the attitudes of knowledge of American voters. Among the findings weret that Bush supporters, in general, knew less about Bush’s own positions than Kerry supporters did. The most interesting finding for this context, however, was that in rank ordering the most informed to least informed participants in terms of the media they watched, those who used Fox television as their primary source of information ranked last. Those who listened to and watched NPR and PBS were at the top. Yes, there are other variables that come into play such as the fact that the NPR and PBS audience is well educated and those who view Fox are considerably less so, but I think that anyone who pays even cursory attention in comparing them can see a huge difference in substantive content.

And correct me if I am wrong, were you not the person who argued for the literal interpretation of the flood story? If not, I stand corrected. If I am right, well, what can one say, other than no one in the 21st century Western world should believe such nonsense.

By kimberly

October 5, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

RF, again more word-twising. What’s up with that? I never said “a person filing bankruptcy should be allowed to without any restrictions.” Why would you say I said that? I posted QUESTIONS. Did I perhaps mis-punctuate? These are QUESTIONS I have. For example, why, in a time of war and economic disaster, particularly at the government level, would Congress spend so time and energy on a bill that ONLY protects and industry which, at this point in time, is EXTREMELY profitable, and do so without any mitigating verbiage to assiste the most vulnerable among us? How does that translate to “no restrictions?” or the implication that no one should ever take personal responsiblity for anything?

Obviously, the group-hate thing is more important to many of you than the intelligent discussion of issues. What’s the matter? Your families aren’t speaking to you, so you can’t rag on THEM for awhile?

KEN: Good point. That using-Jesus-only-when-it’s-convenient thing is done by people on ALL sides of an issue. Kind of like “culture of life” we live in. But the ones who go to church are best at it, because they always have good quotes fresh on their tongues.

By taboga

October 5, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

You are a total idiot. Everything in your post has been accounted for and the 45 million claim of course is where we currently stand. The figure comes from the Harvard School of Public Health and is widely cited. It doubled in the 1990s and has doubled since. This is the only time I will waste responding to you. It would take hours to correct all the stupid sht that you post.*

Oh Michael, stop with your lying. The figure comes from no such place. The Congressional Budget Office is the one’s who released the numbers and you Leftists conveniently portrayed them as you do. If you weren’t such a moron, you would realize that Harvard could not have obtained them - only repeat them.

Of course the number is “widely cited” dim-wit - it is the “widely cited” claim that I am disputing!

And in all your illustrious education, did you happen to take Mathematics? The claim of “40 million” was cited in the 90’s. And if you say that it has “doubled” since - shouldn’t there be about 80 million without “health care” now?

By RF

October 5, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Now Kimberly, you made a good point about the 17yr.olds. I’ve always wondered why banks would even consider such a thing, but I do remember being offered credit cards as a senior in high school. There’s a reform we need!

By chuck

October 5, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Hey BillyBoy…If you don’t like it don’t read it. I certainly don’t care one way or another what your opinion is. As for boycotts, I think conservatives ought to do it MORE OFTEN. I personally choose how I spend my money. If I don’t like a company policy, they don’t get my money. I’m still boycotting France. I had a 6 hour layover in Paris last summer and didn’t spend a dime. So in short, Bite Me!

Kimmie, I don’t hate anybody, life is too short. I just love being sarcastic. I don’t know you…won’t break my heart if we never meet, but I don’t hate you. You just have an unbelievably naive view of how the world works. It is always easier if you never have to take blame OR responsibility for anything. It is CLEARLY not true that 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical catastrophies, but what if they are? Does that relieve responsibility of the person who used the services of a medical professional? I don’t care how much time and money you invested in your medical career. If I get sick YOU HAVE TO TREAT ME. If I feel like it I’ll pay you. The doctors I know go WAY BEYOND what should be expected of them. Why at the end of that should they be left holding the bill? They have families to feed, employees to pay, and equipment to replace…not to mention that they deserve to be paid for the work that they do.

How would you like it if your employer, assuming you have a job, came to you and said, “You know Kimmie, I spent a little too much money eating out this month so I’m not going to have enough to pay you. I appreciate the hard work though.”? As Nancy Pelosi squealed, “Power to the people”…as long as those people are uneducated, unmotivated, and poor.

By kimberly

October 5, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Ever get this in the mail: “BAD CREDIT? NO PROBLEM!” Lenders bait known bad risks because they can charge them HUGE interest rates. Okay, free market, their call. Fine. But they then USE their giant lobbies to convince Congress to protect them from what was their risk to take in the first place. The families devastated by a child’s cancer or a husband’s stroke end up with fewer protections as a result. So when you complain about the little people using government as a crutch, realize that big money is using them to cover THEIR backsides as well.

And WHY can’t we protect the soldiers’ families from bankruptcy in wartime? Haven’t they sacrificed enough? Or does a $2 magnet on the back of your car REALLY sufficiently “support the troops?”

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

That’s actually where my credit troubles of old began… in freshman year when I Discovered credit cards.

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Thanks RF,

Actually I have followed most the careers of all of those guys except Poderitz, the main editor at Commentary, who has been around a lot longer than me. I find Commentary and The Weekly Standard to be the best sources for serious thought on the right. The National Review has largely turned into a rag in my view, especially when they had Ann Coulter on their staff (at least they had the judgment to fire her), and when Stephen Holmes was at the healm before he left to found right wing websites and work for the Club for Growth. I think that Will, Barnes, and to a lesser extent Krauthammer have become little more than spin artists for Bush. Consider Barnes defense of Bush’s failure to veto any spending bills by making up a distinction between “Big government” and “strong government.” Federal spending under Bush has increased at twice the rate it was under Clinton and exceeds even that of the Johnson administrations. Bush came into office with a $250 billion surplus and in three years we had a $400+ billion deficit. Conservatives at the Weekly Standard and Commentary call Bush on this and don’t just put up a smoke screen of distinctions that don’t make a difference.

Krauthammer is a smart guy, a Harvard trained psychiatrist, with an advanced degree in a political science field (and Will has a PhD in philosophy from Princeton and Sullivan a PhD in political philosophy from Harvard both of whom chose journalism over academic careers, in contrast Limbaugh is a dropout and I think Hannity too)whether I disagree with him or not, as I often do. But I am at one with him in his view that the proposal that intelligent design theory “should be taught as a competing theory to evolution is ridiculous. … The entire structure of modern biology, and every branch of it [is] built around evolution and to teach anything but evolution would be a tremendous disservice to scientific education…But the idea that there are these two competing scientific schools is ridiculous.”

By RF

October 5, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, for the sake of your nerves, don’t take this silly blog so seriously. I returned questions to your questions. So I don’t rattle you further, which was never my intent, the answer is NO. I wasn’t twisting your words, I was just sumamrizing what I perceived as the intent of your message. Now if I were Chuck, I’d attack you personally, but I’m not.

You have to realize the way you threw that out there at first did seem to send the impression that you believed the answer to all your questions was a liberal YES.

Nothing personal, so don’t take it there. I haven’t attacked your family so leave mine out of it PLEASE! They’re very nice people down there in the trailer park. I need to call them to take in the rebel flag before the rain starts. The dogs can hide under the porch or the rusty washing machine in the front yard. ;-)

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Tabasco sauce,

No, there was no 40 million claim in the 90s, it peaked near 20 million but why bother to correct you.

The Harvard School for Public health does indeed compile their own stats, and they are sometimes at variance with the government figures. If you ever read anything they publish or heard an interview with any of their people you would know that. But you haven’t so you don’t. Instead, like all blowhard conservatives, taking their lead from O’Reilly you just try to bluff your way through.

You are and remain a total idiot who is out of his depth and out of his league. Go and try to impress your redneck friends with your aggression and bluster.

Of all the conservatives and people on the left who post here you are undoubtly constitute the basement of the totem pole. As Norman Mailer said of “W” you have no more substance than spit on a rock.

By RF

October 5, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

So why are soldiers’ families going bankrupt in wartime? Don’t they still get paid when they are at war? Honestly, I don’t have the information to know why that’s different.

By chuck

October 5, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

In answer to your question Kimmie, the reason they would pass this legislation is because 1)It’s their job. It’s not like other things were left undone while they did this…they have committees. 2) It was the right thing to do. Bankruptcy is tantamount to THEFT. It doesn’t matter whether or not they are PROFITABLE, they deserve to be able to keep that which belongs to them. It is called personal property rights…another thing you lefties don’t understand.

MIKIE, I’m glad to hear that you get all of your information from an UNBIASED SOURCE LIKE NPR. I know that they have never been guilty of advocating for one position or another. As for whether or not you are impressed>>>who gives a flying flip. I know you have this little Napolean complex. I talked to one of your former students last week and he got on line and read some of your diatribes. He died laughing and told me that you strut around class like a little banty rooster. He also said that you belittle everyone who tries to express an opinion in your class unless it is the one YOU gave them. The fact that you teach by intimidation is enough to let me know that you have little to say and can only hold your own in a debate when you can hold a grade over your opponent’s head. Sorry, that won’t cut it on a blog, because NOBODY cares.

By taboga

October 5, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

If anyone thinks that people are going bankrupt because of “Medical Bills” - you’re the most gullable and naive person near you!

Hospitals and Clinics, have, for years, taken anything a person can afford to pay them. If it is $25.00 a month, and that’s all you can afford - they will take that for as long as you can pay them. Medical facilities are the last one’s in line to sue folks and many people skip out on their medical bills and have never been touched. And they leave it to the rest of us to pay them.

So any clown out here telling you that “Medical Bills” are responsible for bankruptcies - is just that.

By Jack

October 5, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Some employers do not pay their employees when they are deployed. The get the pitance that Uncle Sam pays them when serving. That is known as working to maintain poverty level.

I like the guy for 2nd mortgages when he says, “get out of debt now, call us” Borrow from Peter to pay Paul.

By RF

October 5, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

Tab— I have a former brother-out-law who has managed to create about 50 grand in unpaid hospital bills. He’s never paid a dime and noone has ever tried to sue him. And you’re right about payments. My brother and his wife had some medical bills after an emergency with their daughter that took them several years to pay. The hospital took their monthly payments and even wrote off the last few thousand because of my brother’s diligence in paying them every month. Many hospitals are now run by non-profit organizations who use these unpaid bills to keep them from making a profit. They expect to have unpaid bills!!

By taboga

October 5, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

No, there was no 40 million claim in the 90s, it peaked near 20 million but why bother to correct you.

You’re lying again Michael - I can see your lips moving. The figure of “40 million” was first introduced to the public as a part of “Hillary-Care” in 1993. Hillary took those numbers from the CBO and ran around touring the country with the claim of “40 million being without health care”. That “40 million” then became the mantra of every Leftist politician and pundit across the country.

You need to do a better job of making up your facts beforehand and not afterwards…

By kimberly

October 5, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

RF, Hon… Thousands of our deployed soldiers are really in the National Guard. (As in 1 weekend a month; two weeks a year, protecting folks here at home.) Not only were they deployed to foreign soil, but now they can’t work their day jobs that set the family’s living budget. Yes some employers still pay them, and that’s great. But many of these guardsmen are entrepreneurs and small businessmen. Many of them are in financial trouble as a result. I just think we owe them better than this, which is why I take it personally.

Question: Why are military families the only ones making sacrifices for the war effort? Why does the “support the troops” thump-thump spirit only apply as long as it doesn’t touch the wallet (or big fat tax cut) of those who benefit from those sacrifices? Just wondering.

By RF

October 5, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Thanks Jack, I had forgotten that. The reservists and national guardsmen aren’t guaranteed a job or salary while they’re gone except for the active duty pittance. I knew there was something I had forgotten. I think, even if the new law doesn’t provide for it, that someone will surely address that soon. Perhaps we should all be contacting our representatives to put that bug in their ear??

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

Chuckie,

You must lack something in reading comprehension since I did not say that I got all my information from NPR, nor even that I listened to NPR but that a study showed that those who did were the best informed. (Bet you didn’t do well on standardized tests did you?) And, as the posts I made refute that claim since I cited numerous conservatives that I have read for years.

Of course, instead of addressing that claim you just engaged in the usual “liberal bias” dismissal and that is one of the reasons that it is a waste of time to give you and Tabasco evidence for anything. If you don’t like it, just call it liberal.

I don’t know whose student you talked to, though it wasn’t one of mine, (or whether you made it up like all the other stuff you have about several people here) but as I said before you will never be given my identity, so give it up.

And let me ask you, are you the fat football coach I saw at the middle school website and are you the one who made the literal reading of the flood story? If not, I will take your word for who you say you are and what you said, and stand corrected. What I will not do is invent some silly biography and insist that I know someone when I don’t.

By taboga

October 5, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

100’s of thousands of people have been in the Gaurd for decades on end. People have collected monthly paychecks, medical benefits, etc - without ever having to do a thing other than a drill. No one complained that they were drawing this money and not doing anything - they were there IF we had needed them. That’s all that mattered.

Now, these folks who are deployed in the Guard, are drawing Active Duty pay while they are. And no, no one is going to get rich off of A/D pay, but then again, there aren’t very many wealthy people in the Guard to begin with - so there is not going to be that much disparity in the pay they are drawing now and what they were making at their jobs.

We don’t have people in the Guard, in masses - going bankrupt. This is just more Leftist politicization of the war - and something for you to whine and complain about and *pretend that you really give a damn!

By RF

October 5, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

kimberly,HON, Jack cleared that up for me. I had forgotten that fact. I actually agree with you on that point too. See, it wasn’t Jump on Kimberly day at the park after all.

And speaking of big fat tax cut!! I hardly consider my child tax credit big or fat. It too has it’s limits, but it did allow one fairly moderate, conservative leaning family to eat better this year. Now that’s just gotta be wrong, doesn’t it?? And actually, since I spent that money, which helped the economy grow, and contributed to the federal giveaway by generating more in sales tax revenues, didn’t I actually end up helping the country in the long run? I actually used the money instead of hiding it in the sock under the mattress of my water bed in the double-wide so I could donate it to the NRA!! Oops, I’ll have to call Momma and have her put down the Marlboros long enough to go move that now!! Come on Kimberly, you know you want to laugh at that last part!!

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Last time T-sauce, nope, I have followed the figures for years, that was not the figure, and it was not my source and you are indeed stupid as spit.

By DeltaX

October 5, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Michael H,

These idiots have you loosing your faith in humans being a concious/thinking species yet?

Tiring huh? Makes you wonder why their parents decided not to eat them at birth!

By kimberly

October 5, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Toober, since you love to ramble on even more than I do, please enlighten us to what it is, precisely, that YOU give a damn about. Or are you one of those mites that needs to drag others down in order to feel good about yourself? (That’s a rhetorical question, Sparky.)

By Jack

October 5, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

What? This isn’t jump on Kimberly day?

By Jack

October 5, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

I love it when DeltaX talks like that. Shows his true colors.

By RF

October 5, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Naw, actually it’s ‘watch Michael, Chuck, and Taboga try to avoid calling each other obscene names’ day. They’re right on the edge and I’m waiting to see who draws first blood!

By chuck

October 5, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Mikie, So much for honesty in debate from the left. Either you made your number up to fit your earlier post OR you didn’t KNOW. What a tragedy that would be.

According to a CENSUS Bureau report:

The numbers of uninsured during the last recession from 1990-92 jumped to 35.4 million from 32.9 million. But the number continued to rise even in the boom years of the mid- to late 1990’s, reaching 40.7 million in 1998 before dipping slightly in 1999 and 2000.

Go get him Taboga

By taboga

October 5, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

With the exception of 1999 and 2000, the number of Americans without health insurance has risen steadily from just over 30 million in 1987. It is a bipartisan failure. After President Clinton dropped his botched attempt for a more universal form of healthcare in his first term, the numbers of the uninsured soared from 35 million to nearly 45 million. Aided by a booming economy, the numbers fell in Clinton’s last two years to 40 million. Under Bush, the number cracked the 45 million barrier for the first time — 45.8 million, to be exact.

-Boston Globe Sep. 21, 2005

By DeltaX

October 5, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Jack,

I was refering to taboga and Dusty; but take a bite of the offence pie if you so choose. (Love how people LOOK to be offended;)

I did not know you were in the taboga cheering section with Dusty! Thanks for correcting me.

By tracy

October 5, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Diane, the point of the feminist movement was to allow women the freedom of choice. Yet you stand on your glass soapbox claiming that a woman choosing to stay at home is harmful to all women in the workplace. I left a vice presidency in banking to stay at home. I’ve been here for 5 years, and am pursing a graduate degree now. My daughter sees a woman who works, regardless of the pay scale (or lack thereof), and a woman who continues to educate and improve herself. I’m no cookie-baking fluff-mom and I resent the implication that my decision is holding you back. I continue to fight for equal pay and only work with organizations that support families. What are you doing about it?

By Jack

October 5, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Micheal H. and DeltaX couldn’t make a pimple on Tab’s butt.

By RF

October 5, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

DeltaX— they didn’t eat us so they could take us to church and private school and create some brain-washed clones of themselves. We were also their excuse for having sex so they didn’t have to atone for their sin!!

By kimberly

October 5, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Jack, only if you whisper sweet lies in my ear first. {;->

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

RF,

I didn’t see your earlier post about the current income levels for qualifying for medicaid in Georgia though it varies from state to state and household size. A friend I assisted two years ago was single and with an after tax income of around $14,000 per year. She was losing her sight and needed surgery which cost over $4000 per eye. She got the money from the Lion’s club eye foundation which required her to get a medicaid denial first, which they were certain she would get and did. By the time everything was processed she couldn’t see well enough to drive to work. In the end, she had some out of the pocket expenses but I don’t know what she would have done without the foundation. Perhaps if she first lost her sight and then her job because of that she may have then qualified for medicaid, but not when she was working for $14000 per year.

Sorry to hear of your sister’s encounter with drugs. I have a very affluent neighbor who lost her 40+ year old brother recently ultimately to drug related issues. I’m not close to all that but it is a scourge.

By Jack

October 5, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Kimberly. Hehehe!

By DeltaX

October 5, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

*By Jack

October 5, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Micheal H. and DeltaX couldn’t make a pimple on Tab’s butt.*

But I could provide one heck of an imprint of my shoe on it - but for that I would have to discern it from your face;)

By RF

October 5, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Indeed it is Michael, but it’s the reality of life in our world these days. I checked some figures on Medicaid myself at lunch, and the figures differ according to household size and other factors not spelled out specifically on the site I was viewing. Single people get the worst deal—they’re allowed very little income. Typical of many family-oriented programs, it seems the more children you have, the more you are allowed to make. I saw one qualification list that showed you could have four household members with children 1 yr. old or less and make 32,00 a year and qualify for Medicaid. The income cutoffs change yearly depending on state decisions. Seems there’s a lot of difference from state to state and year to year.

By Dusty

October 5, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

I’m back and I admire the tenacity of RF. She really believes that she can debate with good sense on this blog. I will send her a pink flamingo to go with the trailer.(Yes!) In the meantime, she might realize that Kimberly thinks every citizen in the US has been “done wrong” by the Bush administration. Kimberly also has a bad name for everybody that doesn’t agree with her. Michael H. is even sadder. Supposedly a great scholar and teacher, he spends his days expounding his knowledge to people who don’t know him and don’t really care how much he knows. He also has derogatory names for people who don’t agree with him. So, round and round it goes. I hope you can hang on, RF. Sometimes it is fun.

By Jack

October 5, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Nice come back DeltaX. Liked Kim’s better.

By DeltaX

October 5, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Nice that you can take a hit Jack.

Really impressed;)

By Nikita

October 5, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Taboga, my husband had a catastrophic accident which cost about $200k. The insurance initially refused to pay. So the hospital kindly reduced my husband’s portion to $100k based on his income. nevertheless at that point in our lives there’s no way we could have paid $100K. We would most likely have filed for bankruptcy. Keep in mind as well that many people who are severely in debt due to catastrophic injuries 1. could not have planned for them, 2. are also either disabled or unable to work for a lengthy period, making their ability to pay the hospital back minimal.

as for meg’s comment earlier:

“I guess no one would want to admit that God’s system is better than ours.”

Well, “his system” didn’t come directly from him in an unequivocal fashion. It comes through worldly intermediaries who, frankly, I do not trust or expect to convey the thoughts of a God adequately.

“This is how it’s supposed to be.”

With all due respect, this is how it’s supposed to be FOR YOU. I don’t have children, and when I do have them I will likely adopt them. Because I think that’s the more compassionate choice. I will probably work because I thrive on work. and my husband will probably be home with them because he can work from home. and that is what works best FOR ME. As far as I’m concerned, that is how it should be.

“Marriage and child rearing takes two people, a man and woman, with one of them staying home with the kids.”

I respectfully disagree, though naturally children thrive on person attention.

“If anyone tells you different they have their own axe to grind, and they don’t have your children’s best interests at heart. No one loves our kids more than my husband and I do, and no one else could raise them better.”

Probably true. Well, definitely true in the sense that you feel best about their upbringing when you are calling the shots and they know that. But I really had a fabulous childhood. and my parents both worked. My mother worked less than other moms do since she was a teacher, and my father worked full time. And they both spent their available time with me if I wanted that. But I had a lot of completely unsupervised play/rambling time on my own initiative, which I think has been very good for the development of my imagination and resilience.

“To say that I’m “setting things back for women everywhereâ€? is ignorant.”

Your personal decision doesn’t set anyone back. But your insistence that women should stay home when they have children, if echoed by society, represents a very real threat to women’s ability to be paid and treated equally and therefore sets them back.

““Working Momsâ€? are a recent phenomonen, they want you working so you’ll be too tired and guilty to say no when your kids start demanding all those toys they saw on commercials. It keeps the economy in hyper drive. They want you too tired to say no when the kids beg to watch an R rated movie or when they want dolls dressed like hookers or video games where you steal cars and have sex with prostitutes. It keeps the sleaze factories in Hollywood going.”

Now, this is paranoia. A lot of parents are lazy and unwilling to take the high road when faced with, say, Rainbow Brite on the left and a whining kid on the right. But it’s unfair to blame this on parents working. My parents — who again worked — were the strictest parents among any of the kids I knew. No soft drinks in my house, no candy, and no media of the “lesser” kind (my mom — also an english major — i could read anything i wanted) unless they’d viewed or listened to or read it beforehand. I didn’t get to watch r-rated movies until i lobbied for the right around age 13, and then i had to watch them with my mother. Now, would you say she was too busy to raise me?

“I don’t see how it’s possible to work AND raise them right.”

Meg, I applaud your choice. I merely disagree that your choice is appropriate for all child-bearing women.

“I think the Moms who work when they don’t have to, just to have a career, are setting us back. They’re not doing their best job raising their kids, they’re not doing their part volunteering in church and PTA, they’re letting other people take up their slack so they can have their ego boost.”

a) self-determination, particularly if you are a driven person or one who does not thrive on nurturing or advancing others, is NOT an ego boost. Rather it’s an essential. Would you tell a man to suck up his ego and stay home playing tiddlywinks when he has the drive and talent to be successful in a business that he thrives on? no one works “just to have a career. they work because they need to and want to — and a woman’s needs and wants are just important as those of men. b) it’s called “volunteering” because it’s voluntary. no woman is or should be required to do it. furthermore any organization which cannot function without every mother volunteering has issues that it needs to address. and frankly, again, being the kid I was was, I wouldn’t have wanted my mother to volunteer in my class. It’s important for children to develop their own personalities, and I don’t think I would have felt compfortable doing that if my mother were always hovering overhead managing my life for me.

“I’m talking about cases where there’s a choice. We chose to have less money but invest more in our kids. How can that be a wrong choice?”

this creates a false dichotomy. less of you = more harm. you seem to be implying that no less than 24 hours of you is enough to give your children the best uprbinging possible. one would also get from this dichotomy the idea that sports and playgroups and other such extracurricular non-mommy time is harmful. but in fact it is likely that many children will thrive on a limited amount of quality time from mom & dad combined with quality time in other environments with other humans and even solo time in an engaging environment. And also, I suspect that with 6 kids that’s what they’re really getting, anyway. after all, no one of your children can have your undivided attention at all times.

In sum, I applaud your decision to drop your job in order to concentrate on giving each of your kids the personal attention he or she deserves, but I strongly disagree that your choice is the right one for all women, or for their kids.

By taboga

October 5, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Michael,

I must admit I was wrong. I had assumed that there should be about “80 million” without health care since you said the numbers “doubled” in the 90’s and then “doubled” again since then. I was wrong.

Since there was roughly 40 million without health care in the early 90’s and since you have doubled that amount twice — we should have about “160 million” without health care now!

Hell, if you keep going, we might be able to get that number up to an even “200 million” by the time we close the blog today! And by tomorrow sometime - we’ll all be just one step away from: The Grapes of Wrath…!

By Michael H.

October 5, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

RF

No one is drawing blood, though I have told those two numerous times that we are using different sources that calculate the uninsured differently. I never drew any stats from Hilary Clinton though I admired the effort of the Clinton administration to reform health care. But I give up. I just hope that Chuckie doesn’t go out and harrass someone he mistakes for me, for their sake, not his. Those two might get themselves arrested.

And I guess that Chuckie isn’t going to own up to whether he is the football coach or whether he is a literalist on the genesis account.

By CB

October 5, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Michael H,

Chuck has had plenty of opportunity to deny that he’s that fat balding loser teacher and has yet to do so.

By taboga

October 5, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Taboga, my husband had a catastrophic accident which cost about $200k.

I don’t care.

By Bruce

October 5, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Someone said: “no more tax cuts” which leads me to a question. When the checks were passed out did you get one? If you did what did you do with it? I know what I did with mine and it wasn’t send it back.

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

I have no idea why, but for some reason I thought RF was male. Guess I assumed.

By Jack

October 5, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

Tab. That was quite insensitive. Remember Karma.

By RF

October 5, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

oh don’t worry Dusty, they make ‘em pretty tough in the trailer park these days!! You gotta wrestle with all the dogs to prove who you are there! Don’t send the pink flamingo—it wouldn’t match the camo theme we have in the yard, and I really don’t think it would work with my old GA flag curtains.

I can hang on. Actaully, it’s rather fun to participate. I TRY to be open-minded enough to accept a good point when made, even if I don’t agree with the person’s view of life. I guess that’s why I’m politically a moderate too.

By taboga

October 5, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Jack,

I know. But it bores the hell out of me when people give “personal” testimonies.

By taboga

October 5, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Bruce,

I sent my check back to the government so that we can “Shore-up Social Security” and “Pay down the Debt”.

Yep.

By Nikita

October 5, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Care or not, I just refuted your point. I would have filed for bankruptcy had we not successfully convinced the insurance company to pay. because of medical bills. Which is the opposite of what you said. Because, among other things, I would have owed that debt for about 20 years. Just curious, how do you think people climb out from under $200K in debt when they make $15,000 or so yearly and are not working because they cannot or are working hourly retail or some such because they’re physically incapable of working their former skilled job? Oh, right — I imagine you don’t care how they climb out. You simply care that you’ve stuck to your untenably rugged individualist principles.

By taboga

October 5, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Nikita,

I would tell those people to quit wasting their time on a blog, go get another job and quit with their incessant whining about their problems that no one gives a damn about!

That’s what I would say!

By RF

October 5, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

JBM—you’re right. I’m trying to figure out where Dusty got the idea I was female. Probably the trailer references had him picturing what’s her name that sings “redneck woman”.

By Tim

October 5, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

how stupid is spit?

By taboga

October 5, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Tim,

Aristotle got so upset and started foaming at the mouth. “Spit” was all the little stooge could think of…

By RF

October 5, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Actually, Nikita, there is a law which states that as long as you pay a regulary amount each month, you can’t be sued, even if it takes twenty years to pay off the amount. And, hospitals bill you what they want, and then settle for a much smaller amount. I’ll bet your insurance got them to settle for less than 100K. It is frightening when you get those bills, isn’t it?

By Nikita

October 5, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Ah, now I understand. You have no argument and therefore you’re attacking me personally. With, I might note, no reading comprehension. Got it.

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

I love Karma.

By Tim

October 5, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

thanks for clearing that up

By kimberly

October 5, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Nikita, Toober face doesn’t HAVE any points. And he doesn’t care. His only joy in life is to aggravate others with faulty information and inflamatory comments. Best ignored.

Your story illustrates what we should ALL remember: There, but for the grace of God, go I. But wait a minute: Six people will start calling me names for saying that.

By Ken

October 5, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Kimberly… I am assuming based on your comment that you are NOT one of the individuals going to church on Sunday. Makes me wonder what business you have at all trying to hold people to a standard that you personally are not willing to follow.

Most of y’all on the BLOG just don’t get it. Why can’t each and every person just leave the others alone. Quit pushing your ideological extremes on to the rest of the bunch. When in doubt let the individual make their own choice. There are so many “legal” things in this society that I abhor it drives me batty, but I would never take those choices from others.

If God can provide us free will, then so should the government.

By Nikita

October 5, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

RF, my insurance paid the bill in its entirety when the issue was resolved. But yes, it is quite scary.

As for the bill and the situation, I don’t know if this is irrational, but my fear actually was that if we were stuck with $100K listed as debt on our credit reports that we would never be able to buy a home together because $100K would suggest an untenable debt load. Please advise, if you know.

By taboga

October 5, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Ah, now I understand.

Thank you. Finally.

You have no argument and therefore you’re attacking me personally.

(And moving from the twilight zone to reality) — It was you who brought your PERSONAL problems into it.

With, I might note, no reading comprehension. Got it.

No, I haven’t “got it”. In fact, I haven’t even a remote clue as to what you’re saying! But don’t take that Personally…

By chuck

October 5, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

OH CB (Michael H’s Buttmonkey)I believe I told you in a previous post that coach Kirby is a good friend of mine. As for your assessment of him based on his picture…I thought you liberals didn’t care about appearance only character. I guess that’s another myth blown today along with the one about Michael’s intellectual honesty and prowess. Having just searched the Harvard public health website, ther is no mention anywhere of the number of uninsured being at 20,000,000 ANYTIME during the 90’s. If you can find it Michael why not give us the source for your number? The problem is you just cannot admit when you are wrong. Of course if you did, that would take up all of your blog time.

BTW CB…coach Kirby would mop the floor with your sorry little liberal butt. I think you should go to his Middle School gym and call him a fat, balding loser teacher to his FACE. Let me know how that works out for you, assuming you can still type.

By Bruce

October 5, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Tab,

I shored up mine own personal security account, took my wife out to dinner, and bought something nice for the kids. But I didn’t send it back and I would be willing to bet those wanting to stop the tax cuts didn’t either.

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

RF, Whew! That was really troubling me. I was about to go back and read everything you’ve written to try to figure out where I got that from!

By taboga

October 5, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Bruce,

Of course they didn’t return it. In fact, I have never met anyone in my life that has returned a tax refund.

But all it took when this all started in 2001, was for Liberal Politicians and the News Media to start telling all the obedient Leftists that we didn’t need a tax break, and that that money should be used to shore-up Social Security and pay down the debt - and within 24 hours they were all out preaching that sermon to anyone who would listen.

Parrots. Rube parrots.

Btw - I got drunk with mine in Cancun! I thought I would go down and there and support the local economy and create jobs!

By Renee

October 5, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

JBM, I was so upset last night, I was looking forward to House all day, I forgot about the playoffs.

By kimberly

October 5, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Ken, sorry, but HUH? I agreed with you, yet you still argue with me. Let me rephrase: from MY observations, the church people do more of it than the non-church people, if one were to break down the entire population so simplisticly. In MY observation…

And yes I agree with you Ken. Pot SHOULD be legal. Personal choice. {;->

By Dusty

October 5, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

RF, I am sure you are a moderate conservative. (There goes your reputation right there.) All that and you have a camo theme.Only black tire gardens are better. Yeah, sometimes it is fun here, ‘specially Jack. He loves us all. Sometimes.

By DeltaX

October 5, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

Nikita,

Medical debts cannot prevent the purchase of a home; BUT…

It can prevent many other loan situations (auto financing) that tightens money to a point that buying a house is not possible.

And I do not know how debt is handled with privately owned medical practices - those debts may affect a house buy.

By taboga

October 5, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

You communists think that Pol-Pot should be legal!

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Renee - I was disappointed too… until I remembered SVU was coming on! Hope you didn’t miss it…

By Renee

October 5, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

I haven’t gotten into it, is it pretty good? I ended up watching the CSI Gravedigger 2 part series on Bravo

By Just Being Me

October 5, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Oh no, Renee!!!! I promise you, this was the best L&O episode I have ever seen (and I think I’ve seen all - if not most - of them).

By taboga

October 5, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Michael,

Where are you? Have you run out of other folks’ writings that you can cut and paste?

Must we conclude by cause-and-effect, that that it was befalls one, when one lacks the capacity to originate one’s own thoughts there Aristotle?

By Dusty

October 5, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry, RF. I did think you were female. Guess it was the Georga State flag curtains. Such a nice touch. Are you on the local “homes to visit” list?

By CB

October 5, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Friend hmmmm? Right… I don’t recall that post Gee you’re kind of sensitive about his weight…

Let’s see…Same degrees. Same number and order of brothers. Same situation with mother. Someone posting on a blog here as Chuck mentioned his daily drive to Athens, where this guy teaches. This teacher is known as “Coach” and someone posting as “Coach” here with the same offensive rants as you. That’s right Chuck, I lurk on here a lot and I remember everything you’ve written.

Well if it’s all a coincidence I’ve done a disservice to that educator and of course owe him an on-line apology.

But if you are one in the same I have to say that guy doesn’t look like he’s in enough shape to wipe anything.

By Jack

October 5, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Is it better than Colombian?

By Jack

October 5, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

All we are saying….is give peace a chance.All we are saying….is give peace a chance.All we are saying….is give peace a chance.All we are saying….is give peace a chance.

By taboga

October 5, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

Everybody’s talkin, bout bagism ragism, thism, thatism, ism ism ism, all we are saying is give peace a chance.

By Lori Howard

October 5, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

Can anyone predict what would happen to the American economy if the majority of female teachers and female nurses chose to become full-time mothers who did not contribute to our work force? There’s currently a shortage of nurses and some teachers…

Does a women have to go to college to be a great stay-at-home mom? Why bother getting an education if you’re not going to ever use it? Perhaps wives should follow the teachings of the New Testament and the Promise Keepers and “be subject” to their husbands.

By Jack

October 5, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

My friend was upset after paying for a 4 year degree for his daughter only to have her get married and opt to be a stay at home wife.

By Scott

October 5, 2005 07:51 PM | Link to this

I doubt anyone on this blog would have to look hard to be offended

By taboga

October 6, 2005 08:02 AM | Link to this

Good Morning Comrades and other Anti-Americans,

I dreamed last night that I was in a place that had millions of different ways of becoming successful. But everyone around me thought that there was only one way: A College Education. I kept trying to show them the elephant in the room but nobody saw it.

And over and over again I kept hearing John Lennon singing: Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see…

By Bobb

October 6, 2005 08:04 AM | Link to this

It isn’t the responsibility of schools, daycare, baby sitters, mall managers, gang members, drug dealers, or whoever watches over your children while you are away to actually raise them for you too - that is still your responsibility. That goes for the mothers and the fathers.

If you want to be a 24x7 career person, then don’t have children.

If you want both, then you are really going to have to work hard on your priorites. It’s not easy to do right and this work/life balance suff you hear about is nonsense - you can’t balance them because your family will always need to come first. Most people don’t get this.

Choose wisely, because more than your career is at stake.

By Tony

October 6, 2005 08:13 AM | Link to this

By Michael H. October 4, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this Tony, The Heritage foundation is a conservative adovocacy group, not a source for independent unbiased research anymore than the CATO institute is. They exist to promote an ideological line and I do not trust nor rely on their figures or those of any similar advocacy group, on the left or on the right. My 2% figure has been long standing and comes from a study conducted at the University of Chicago. There are many ways to parse figures and get the results that one wants, which is exactly what the Heritage foundation and the other groups created in the 1980s and 1990s and provided with massive funding to push public debate to the right exist for. And unfortunately they have succeeded. There are considerable variations in the economic and social conditions among the states that belong to the EU, especially the more recently admitted members, but the Mississippi comparison is a farce, especially if health care is considered part of a standard of living as it should. I choose to base my views on reliable or credible unbiased sources, not the ideologically motivated advocacy groups.

Uh-um, Michael, I don’t believe you know what your talking about. Just like in the past, you throw out numbers to suit you false ideology. Do you understand what entitlement spending covers? Not only does it cover SS, Medicare and Medicaid, which by the way the AARP says this portion of entitlement spending is currently 7.5%, and Michael, surely the AARP isn’t a bastion of right wing advocates. They also indicate that soon just these three aforementioned entitlements will surpass 17% not to mention Welfare, Food Stamps, Daycare, Child Nutrition Programs, Earned Income Tax Relief, Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Child Health Insurance Payments to the States. Michael, the numbers I gave you are correct and we are spending an astronomical amount (14.2% of GDP) of money on the poor and your 2% is well, just plain stupid as spit!!!

Oh and on Europe Michael, I have friends and relatives who live there. Been in their homes. Most are extremely small, no central air/heat they have space heaters which is almost a waste. In addition, you pointed out their wonderful vacation, the fact is, they (all) have to take it at the same time. The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark etc. take theirs in June, Greece and others take theirs in August. So it isn’t as if they are allowed to choose, the Government tells them when as Ken was trying to say.

People are disgusted with the quality of their healthcare and the benefits for those on the dole. You continue to falsely claim that Europe is so much greater than the United States. The fact is, some things are better, but overall the United States is the best country in the world by far!!!!!

By Lyrazel

October 6, 2005 08:16 AM | Link to this

Lori, would America start depending on teachers and nurses brought in from other countries, as it does now? Go check some stats about the nursing situation already in America…

Is this really an option for most Americans or is it an affluent-only option? Its nice and suburban to think the bulk of American women are just going to go to Yale and then fold nappies for their next 40 years… Its also ludicrous to assume the average young American couple will have available capital to turn a two-income family into a 3-dependant 1 income family; especially those whose college was not paid for by the parents, or couples with mortgages, car loans, tuition bills, medical expenses…etc. Fewer college graduates are getting those lifetime careers…so what happens when Betty quits to have BamBam and Barney gets laid off at the law firm? Women do return to work..at very lower wage scales, btw…and return to careers like teaching and nursing frequently because they are not penalized for time off as one would be in business, law and the plethora of businesses which require participants to stay current on software technologies, etc.

By taboga

October 6, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

Not all that long ago people lived within their means. Young couples starting out - were starting out. They understood that in the early years they were going to have to work hard, save, work hard and save - until the children were older and they could then begin to enjoy some of the finer things in life.

Today, there’s the notion that all you have to do is go to college, step out into the world - grab a home, couple of cars, house full of comforts and gadgets - and if anything gets in the way of that, then life is unfair and an insurmountable adversity. And a part of the “anything”, is: Children.

By Sandy/Sanhan

October 6, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

I found this at the PBS.org website, from the news show Now 3/25/05:

The nonpartisan think-tank the American Bankruptcy Institute reported in 1998 that cases where the system was abused accounted for less than 3 percent of the personal bankruptcy cases it reviewed. In addition, a new study from Harvard University found that it was illness or injury, not credit card use and misuse, which led to nearly 46 percent of filings, with job loss coming in a close second. Critics of the Harvard study say that the threshold for medical expenses was set too low at $1000.

There is additional information about the study, ABI, and other organizations that study bankruptcy.

An additional thought about investing in the health of America: if hospitals are not being paid the balance of what they are owed, as indicated by some posters yesterday, and write off large sums, doesn’t that indicate that there is something wrong with the system if people can’t afford it, even with insurance? If patients are unwisely using credit cards to pay the hospitals and doctors that treated them, out of fear or fairness to pay for the care they received, should they be punished for trying to pay their bills? Or should we make things affordable by cutting out the bureaucratic insurance expenses?

Lots of folks use credit until and because they think things will get better in the future; unpredictable (to the average person) events, such as 9/11 or a hurricane or other natural disaster can set folks so far back they will never catch up. I’ve heard this explained that Americans have shifted from saving for these disasters to using credit as their safety net, often not a conscious decision, but as a result for out-of-controls costs, like heating and fuel oil, lost jobs, etc.

When one is facing financial ruin, they will often make bad decisions because they can’t afford an accountant, financial expert, or attorney to guide them, and because of the stress of not knowing when your utilities will be shut off or when your car will be repossessed, or what your legal righs are. Some friends of mine declared bankruptcy through an attorney, and didn’t even know they had until they tried to get credit for a reliable car. They ran up their bills through travel expenses in trying to help care for an elderly infirm relative.

It’s one thing to know enough not to use credit unwisely, but if one is in the position where their childrens wellbeing is concerned, they’ll go deeper in debt to provide for their kids’ necessities.

By DeltaX

October 6, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

taboga,

Everyone has had that dream; old news.

If you are blessed with the conclusion, maybe you will see the light - revealing the other truths. Hint: It regardes rolling dice. Because you see, anything is possible but not necc probable - and that is what you miss. The less control you have (education), the more your hoping to cash in on possibility; so just go keep playing the lotto.

I know your reply: You do not understand.

Yes, we can thank the Beatles for being the first boy band and for creating bubble-gum top 40 for the white collar masses. The whole white albums drum line was played (badly) by paul - as is most of the drums. Ringo was a joke - in both senses: funny and crappy drummer. And poor john had some major issues - One word: Yoko.

Give me Zeppelin anyday.

By Lyrazel

October 6, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

Second question: when women return to the workplace are they penalized with jobs that will accomodate their family but offer little or no career advancements? The CEOs of business are them who burnt the midnight oil not them who depart at 3 to carpool… To use an example Shaunti is no longer making her 6 figure income she once bragged on before she gave it up to have children…so without her husbands support to pay for assistants maybe she is pulling in 30,000/year…(her first book would have brought o maybe 10,000) now if she had to pay insurance and benefits to her employee one doubts if she would be crooning so…meager salary…myopic benefits…do womens options ever really change despite their education levels if they become mothers……………at least I hope the state of making pies will improve with so many housewives at home with Timmy….

By RF

October 6, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

Sandy—we, as a society, have changed the definition of “necessity”. Many people using credit aren’t buying food or basic clothing needs. They’re buying expensive clothes and shoes because they can “pay later”. I very rarely see people use credit cards at Kroger or Wal-Mart when they’re buying food. They use those to buy electronics and gadgets they don’t really need.

By FatMoose

October 6, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this

tab,

Not all that long ago people lived within their means. Young couples starting out - were starting out. They understood that in the early years they were going to have to work hard, save, work hard and save - until the children were older and they could then begin to enjoy some of the finer things in life.

Today, there’s the notion that all you have to do is go to college, step out into the world - grab a home, couple of cars, house full of comforts and gadgets - and if anything gets in the way of that, then life is unfair and an insurmountable adversity. And a part of the “anything�, is: Children.

That is what YOU think people think. And you are wrong [how could you be right about a system you did not attend? You read what the college experience is like?!?]. Those of us that attended college know how the pattern goes.

Educate you you say? Naw, like Delta says; you can keep playing the lotto and rolling dice. (fun knocking your little butt around this blog;) Good day, Comigha.

By Renee

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

I don’t know if I totally agree with you RF. Of course, to some degree you are correct but the flip side is that a lot of people do use it for necessities. I have and I know plenty of other people who were glad to have that to fall back on when hard times had arisen.

Credit cards are meant to put you in debt whether you use it for necessities or for luxury items.

By Lyrazel

October 6, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

DeltaX, Ok just how young are you? I literally gag every time Stairway is played, dear… Boy bands were available long before the Beatles. PopNTot bands like Led Zeplin are a dime a dozen and played to audiences too stoned to appreciate music at the time and are now nostalgic pabulum for generations unwilling to go beyond enforced music-Industry standards…hence the reason the Paul/Stones can make 600 milion off a tour these days… Next new thing please…I am waiting for your generation to go beyond its puppy-love of the swishy bling-blingers and discover some band who rocks a house with music…not drivel….as Frank Zappa said: Shut up and play your guitar!

By taboga

October 6, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

FootMouse,

In addition to talking with birds - you now possess the subliminal capability to determine whether or not I have been to college?

And since I am such a nice guy, I am going to let a little rube like you in on a secret. You ready?

Not everyone who has attended college, sat there and absorbed the garbage from the societal misfits who spend their entire escaping reality by hiding behind the walls of academia. Can you even imagine that Bird-Talker?

Some people FootMouse, even possess the ability to think for themselves! Now, I know it’s easier for you to imagine floating houses in a hurricane alley, than it is to comprehend that - but it’s true. It’s not a rumor. And it not even anything a little bird will tell ya.

Before I am finished, I am going to teach your little dumbass something. Something that you might fined useful - other than your posing and pretending.

See what a great guy I am! I don’t want anyone to ever accuse me again of not having compassion for the weaker and inferior there chirpy!

By RF

October 6, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Renee- you’re right, and there are always exceptions to any statement. I’ve known people who used credit during hard times too. It’s easy to do and very addictive.

By Jack

October 6, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

Who sold more records DeltaX?

By Archie

October 6, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

People that dispute Michael H.’s use of the 45 million uninsured figure are being egregiously stupid. That was mentioned in the presidential campaign which is why President Bush gave a statement as to what he was going to do about it. Heck, the candidates did not dispute that figure. It was on the website that Tony(conservative) provided. That figure was used in an article in USA today and various newspapers around the country. The only place I heard any dispute is here on this blog and amongst folk that are afraid of a universal healthcare to the point that they would lie to themselves because of a political philisophy. Heck you can do an informal survey— the person that sits in front of me has a son-in-law and daughther that are uninsured and I have a brother that’s uninsured because the job doesn’t provide coverage. I have already stated that I worked with a guy on a part-time basis for myself but fulltime for him and he has no health insurance. My co-worker makes sure that his son stays in school so he can keep him covered. When Michael H. said 75 to 80 % of those without health insurance had been working full-time he was telling the truth. 20 years I sold health insurance and the premiums weren’t even close to what they are now but the incomes have not risen at the same pace. This would not be an issue if incomes rose at the same pace as the health insurance but it comes up because it is a problem that needs a solution not denial. If you talk to people and listen there is strong possibility that you know someone that doesn’t have any health insurance. If you talk to six grown folk one of them probably has no coverage.

By Renee

October 6, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel…no blasphemy against Zeppelin allowed :)

By Jack

October 6, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

Children, children watch where you go, and don’t you eat that yellow snow. - Zappa

By taboga

October 6, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

Archie,

Ever met anyone who worked part-time or full-time and their employer didn’t provide them with a New Car?

Oddly enough, I know some employers who don’t provide their workers with:

• Cell Phones

• Stereos

• Cable TV

• Computers

• Trips to Panama City Beach to get drunk.

But you know what, as strange as it might sound, those employees, somehow, through some strange voodoo - managed to acquire those things. Can you believe that!

By DeltaX

October 6, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

You obviously never got to see Zeppelin.

I did, along with Stones (4x), Beatles (2x), Zappa, Floyd (3x), and many others (eartha kitt, dizzy g, brewbeck Qtet). Saw most before ‘73.

I was a studio drummer for many years and sat in with many players (and tought at MIT): I appriciate your feeling on the subject, but I have a view that I do not think you have had privy to.

Got busy here suddenly - gotta fly out. Sorry to miss the fun.

Tab, You puked a lot of words up here in your last post, but none of it makes any sense. There is not even a hint of cohesion: Poor boy; I see you still are thinking you can talk to birds and talk about things you have never experienced - You need to ste into the world, open your eyes for a number of years (5 min does not cut it) and then you may have experienced something to talk about; instead of seeing elephants.

Sure you taught yourself to think; and your result was as good as Nell’s.

By Sandy/Sanhan

October 6, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

FatMoose, you’d best get ready for your lesson. If you’re lucky it will be humorous, but not likely original. Even Taboga’s insults are copied from his Republican heroes; note last week’s “ham sandwich” screeching about my lack of a “point,” lifted from DeLay’s response to his indictment. (Found it Newsweek just this morning…)

I’m a Springsteen gal, myself, as if nobody could have guessed…

By taboga

October 6, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

Archie,

Since I feel like teaching today, I am going to try and help you understand something.

No employers provide their workers with “Medical Insurance” - the employees do!

Now, before you strain that last brain cell trying to figure that out - let me explain…

…If I were going to hire you to do a particular job (what a thought) and I crunched the numbers to determine the value of the job to be done, and I concluded that the worth of your services would be about $25.00 an hour - I would be set to pay you that.

BUT, since I know how much these so-called benefits mean to you - I am going to go ahead and provide you with them. The way I am going to do this, is by subtracting the cost of these benefits, along with my half of your SS payments (which you think the employer pays) and maybe a couple other things - then I am going to crunch the numbers again.

Now, my new and revised hourly pay for you is: $18.00 an hour.

And once you take the job, you can go around telling everyone that you make $18.00 an hour plus the FULL BENEFITS that I have provided for you!

See how that works?

By Nikita

October 6, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

The problem here is not that children need a certain amount of attention and time from parents. It’s that a fair number of posters here seem to believe that they need all the attention from the mother to the exclusion of any dreams or talents she may have. But it’s good to know that everything I’ve done is worthless unless I’m at home raising little whippersnappers.

By DeltaX

October 6, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

Jack,

Out of all bands, who sold the most records EVER?

When you find that answer, you will see that album sales prove it means nothing.

I will shorten your search: Elton John’s 1997 “Candle in the Wind” Diana Tribute is by far the highest selling Single of all Time.

Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You” from the Bodyguard Soundtrack would be the higest for a Female

The Eagles Greatest Hits 1971-1975 is highest selling album by a band.

Michael Jackson’s Thiller is highest selling male solo artist album

Shania Twain’s “Come on Over” is the highest selling female solo album

So, please choose a measuring system that MEANS something.

Q for you: Why did Page have to play the hard solos for the Stones? And Clapton had to play the solo on Guitar Weeps…Both came out of Yardbirds…

By DeltaX

October 6, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

Sandy,

I find it too bad that Springsteen got caught in that famous bubble back in the Boss days. I think he is quite underestimated on a real level, vs pop star status - and do not think he ever got the credit he should have.

By Michael H.

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

Thanks Archie, You made my points very well. What more is there to say? I gave up on the clowns on that issue though every post they make, including Tony’s last one, (though T s really beyond hope) has so many factual errors in it that it would take all morning to correct and then they would ignore or misrepresent the response, charge liberal biased sources, spend all day looking for stats from some right wing “think tank” post those as a rebuttal as the conservatives here have done repeatedly, countless times in the past and as they do at every website. Chuck the fundamentalist and his Catholic brother Boscoe are masters at that. (Tabasco is just a hate filled racist and fascist who mocked the suffering of blacks in New Orleans by describing them as toothless, nappy haired blacks parading on television to get money.) No matter how many ways and times they were refuted on straightforward factual issues they wouldn’t acknowledge a thing.

And get this! Holy crap! Chuckie is the one who posted that hilarious account of Noah’s Ark holding all the species and he teaches in a public school! Isn’t that beyond belief! And this moronic fundamentalist who denies evolutionary theory tries to be condescending! (Probably has a degree in P.E. from a Bible college, that wouldn’t get you a job as a janitor in Burger King to borrow his words. If he has some sort of Masters in education he probably wrote a thesis on how they fitted T-Rex, a vegetarian at the time according to fundamentalists, into the Ark.) Give me a break. I guess he has a membership in the Creation Science Museum in San Diego to support the Ark exhibit there.

I am tempted to say no wonder students come to me knowing nothing about history or science but the problem is more complex than a few pieces of jetsam and flotsam in the school system like him blocking critical thinking, it has to do with our whole benighted culture. But I can hardly stop laughing now (though I guess the joke is really on us taxpayers.)

A friend of mine who went to Harvard Divinity school said one of his professors remarked that its graduates would find themselves doing battle with the Christian fascists for the rest of their careers. When I would hear comments like that from grad students I was annoyed and usually called them on it. Unfortunately, they turned out to be right, creeping fascism is what America is now facing.

But filling up Noah’s Ark, Jesus Christ that’s so funny, made my already very good day. Thanks Chuckie.

Have a good weekend Lozen, maybe another the corruption of another Republican pol will be described in wonderful detail this weekend the way the AJC did Reed. Fun reading.

By Archie

October 6, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Taboga you are truly stupid. You have two posts that have absolutely nothing to with what I posted earlier. At no time did I mention anything about an employer. I mentioned Michael H’s numbers in the posts from yesterday. If you could read you would see that. If you respond to a post you should read and comprehend the post. No one conservative or liberal has suggested an employer provide a car or that an employer is responsible for every benefit that a person might want in life. What the others say about you is correct that you are incapable of carrying on an intelligent debate, and in fact you can’t even compose an intelligent thought two minutes in a row. The gist of my earlier post is about the numbers Michael H. posted yesterday!!!

By Sandy/Sanhan

October 6, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Delta, I hear you. He’s in town here tonight, Rochester, NY, 5000 seat acoustic show, but alas, I will not be there… My best friend will be there, but I bet she goes to the bathroom during “Reno.”

By Tim

October 6, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

Garth Brooks has the highest album sales of all time… if I am not mistaken Mariah Carey has the highest album sales for a woman… and only Elvis and The Beatles have more #1 hits than she does… ain’t ‘merica great :)

By Archie

October 6, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

DeltaX I should tell you that incorrect about the Eagles because I don’t like their music and I don’t know anyone with that album. Those numbers aren’t right. Naw I will tell you that you are right and that those numbers can be found on a billboard magazine website and so many other places. My point is I am going to respond to your post in a relevant way and I am not going to dispute something that’s so easy to verify. Delta there is nothing wrong with your numbers and those Eagles have made some good music as well as the other artists you mentioned.

By Michael H.

October 6, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Tony,

The only thing I am going to bother to say to you, though it is a waste of time, is that I was not, (go back and read what I said) and neither were you, in the beginning talking about all entitlement programs. We were talking about programs specifically for the poor and those programs collectively are only near 2% of the budget. (Like another conservative myth we spend so much on foreign aid, yes, 1/2 of 1% of our federal budget.) Social security is not a program for the poor and treating as such is what inflates all of the figures you wasted you time with. You erected a straw man and in so doing completely missed the point.

Yes, the University of Chicago actually surveyed people’s beliefs about the dollar amounts that go to the poor and the % of the budget and turned up results like you just offered, i.e., that most people have no clue of how little goes to the poor. And neither will you until you take your hate filled ideological blinders off. And I’m sure you won’t.

I will be sure to tell my closest friends in Scandinavia that they will no longer be permitted to visit the United States in the months they usually come, i.e., anytime between January and December, as they have been for the last twenty years.

By Just Being Me

October 6, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Tabasco is just a hate filled racist and fascist who mocked the suffering of blacks in New Orleans by describing them as toothless, nappy haired blacks parading on television to get money

Michael, that’s quite an accusation. Are you sure that’s what Taboga said?

By Dusty

October 6, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

The rain in Spain comes down on the plain—Noel Coward (also in Georgia, kindness of Tammy)

By Michael H.

October 6, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Oh, I will also be sure to tell them how the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, T-sauce, and Pat Robertson have also shown how poor their health care systems are.

By Renee

October 6, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Tim I believe you are right about Mariah (Mimi)

By Michael H.

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

Just being me,

Yes, it was in one of the two blogs devoted to disaster relief issues that are listed below the post box. I think that they are still accessible, if you want to scroll through them. But Tabasco has no shame in saying what he does, so it shouldn’t be a surprise. And Chuck’s Noah’s ark nonsense is still there to if you want to spend or waste time looking for what these morons said.

By RF

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

Well, if the percentage of budget going to the poor is only 2%, then they’re sure getting all of it. I have a neighbor whose rent ($1400 a month) is being paid as “section eight”, her utilities are paid, she gets an EBT card every month, AND Medicaid. Oh yeah, she also drives a 2004 Expedition, has a Nextel, and they just put a new satellite dish on the house. Her “boyfriend” doesn’t work “to keep from messing up her benefits—his words. And guess what—they’re white too! I know anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean much, but I seriously look at that and question how much we really need to be GIVING away to anyone anymore…

By Michael H.

October 6, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Sandy/Sanhan,

I just caught your reference to where Tabasco borrowed his language from Delay. That is funny. I have seen conservative bloggers cut and paste Rush Limbaugh’s “arguments� from his website as if no one on the site would ever notice.

Another guy here, Boscoe, used to cut and paste comments from the Pope and pass them off as his own.

Funny how they cannot even use their own words.

Have a good weekend.

By DeltaX

October 6, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

RF,

Friendly question; In your statement: but I seriously look at that and question how much we really need to be GIVING away to anyone anymore…

Why not blame the crooked TAKERS instead of the notion of GIVING?

By taboga

October 6, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Michael, that’s quite an accusation. Are you sure that’s what Taboga said?

Of course I didn’t - he’s made that up just like he has everything else.

That’s the typical spineless thing a Liberal Commie does when you expose him as a fraud…

By Tim

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

thanks Renee :)

By RF

October 6, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Delta—good point. I actually don’t blame the giving, or those taking who actually need it. I just think we need to require more proof of need and more follow-up on those receiving various aid programs. I basically just threw that out to see what sort of response it would get. Would you believe that I actually TRIED to report them, but nothing ever happened? We (several neighbors and I) have called, but so far noone’s been out to the house that we know of. There doesn’t seem to be a very good system for following up on and checking the background of those applying for government assistance. I’ve known several who have needed it from time to time, and I’m glad it was there for them. Just seems to be a lot of abuse of the system and we hear about very little being done.

By Jack

October 6, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

DeltaX. I was referring to Beatles vs. LedZepplin. Not most ever by anyone. BTW, I was greatly disappointed when Elton broke Bing Crosby’s record for most singles sold. That get-a-life Lady Diana crowd bought 10-20 copies each AND he ruined a good song about Marlyn Monroe to appease them. They certainly lowered the bar for knighthood.

By Just Being Me

October 6, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

RF - That really p** me off.

Michael, I wouldn’t be surprised if Taboga did say something like that, but I don’t think he did. I think you’re mixing up where someone else (who I doubt is racist) made that reference and later retracted his use of those particular words.

By Jack

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

Michael H. When I read your posts two words come to mind. Needle dick. Those women lied to you. Size does matter. (unless it is your ego)

By DeltaX

October 6, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

Jack,

I know you were comparing them directly; but that does not compare talent or actually who is better. The top sellers are an easy way to show that arguement provides no proof to speak of;)

I totally agree that elton went downhill and took some good songs with him!

By Dusty

October 6, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

You know, I thought there was a ray of hope for Michael H. Yesterday he said that he liked David Brooks, my favorite conservative columnist. But today, he is having one of his brainless tantrums, not a sign of a well balanced intellectual.

So far he has insulted many, profaned church and religion, represented himself with borrowed material, ridiculed others, demeaned the United States and apparently made false accusations. His ever widening claim of friends around the world becomes very doubtful. Michael H. is not a true representative of academe. He is more like a pompous producer of blog material.

By Renee

October 6, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

I cannot share those sentiments regarding Elton.

By Scalia

October 6, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

That’s awfully harsh, Jack. Why do you have to refer to somebody’s genitals when you want to cut them down? I know some jerks with some whoppers.

By kimberly

October 6, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Jack, Dude. D-ck wars are not sexy. Save your bragging for our private times.

By RF

October 6, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

JBM—your memory is better than mine (that gives you away as a woman—y’all never forget anything do you?). That derogatory comment was mine in the midst of a heated debate with you wasn’t it?? I said it Michael, not Tab, and I retracted it too. We all make mistakes (even you).

By joe

October 6, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

Taboga, this is one of your many, many, many posts from yesterday but not the first time your posts don’t make any sense: Must we conclude by cause-and-effect, that that it was befalls one, when one lacks the capacity to originate one’s own thoughts there Aristotle?

What? Huh?

By Just Being Me

October 6, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

RF, I remembered it was yours, just didn’t think it was necessary to call you out since you had already retracted it (even though Jack didn’t think you needed to). Yeah, I do have a pretty good memory. LOL

By RF

October 6, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

Of course I don’t want to blame it on age JBM. I’m getting to that point in middle-life/parenthood where I’m writing myself notes on post-it pads and then forgetting where I posted the notes!!—LOL I just tell my nine-year-old “now don’t let me forget…” I figure as long as I don’t run off and leave one of the boys behind somewhere I’m doing okay!

By RF

October 6, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

JBM-have you ever read that thing about “if you give a mom a muffin”? That’s about how my memory works.

By Renee

October 6, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Yeah JBM, you got me on that one.

By joe

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

Yes, it was Chuck who came up with a whole load of crappy math to try to explain how the Ark story could be true literally. (Of course he had taken his info from some other idiot somewhere.) It was truly unbelievable that someone living in the 21st century could do that. However, Chuck is not alone. Someone on this blog once truly believed women have one less rib than men because of the story of Eve being made from Adam’s rib! Lozen is right. Ignorance is a terrible thing. And Freud was right, “Religion is the mass neurosis of the human race.” Most of the people who will not hear anything they don’t want to hear aabout W. are religious fundamentalists. They learned to accept fairy tales as truth and it’s so much easier for W. to get them to accept his fairy tales as truth! Fundamentalism rots the brain and the ability to discern truth from fiction.

By Just Being Me

October 6, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

RF, Renee

:-)

By Dusty

October 6, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

Joe, you should know a lot about brain rot, having experienced it first hand.

I am a Republican and Christian but not a fundamentalist. George W. Bush is a strong president who has had to handle two great disasters and a war. He has made some mistakes and said so. If you, genius, think you could do any better, then hop to it. The next election will be coming up before long. Get on the ticket.

By RF

October 6, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Joe, for clearing up my misconceptions about brain rot. And all this time I thought it was age and alcohol!! How dumb could I be? So, if we elect a democrat, will this condition clear up?

I’m a moderate, by the way, so “fairy-tales” have no effect on me. Maybe if W gave out bottles of some good Crown Royal before elections, I might be persuaded then…

By Bobby Reed

October 6, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

To the person talking about the Canadian health service. If it is so good why do the Canadians that have the money come to the good old USA to get treated. If Bill Clinton had been on their system he would have had to wait up to 6 months to get heart surgery.Heard a lady tell about being in Canada and getting sick at night. Went to emergency room and never did get a Dr. They all said that they had put in their 8 hrs. Had to catch a plane and come to US to get treated. Do we want that?

By Michael H.

October 6, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

I hate all blacks and foreigners.

By kimberly

October 6, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Dusty, please enlighten us as to how many mistakes our leader has admitted, and as to how many disasters he has actually handled vs. created. Personally, I’ve only heard ONE admission, which wasn’t really an admission, but more of a “to the extent that someone else screwed up, I guess, since you all say so, I am sort of responsible, to an extent,” delivered while rolling his eyes and looking away. Please inform me of other instances of accountability that I missed.

By joe

October 6, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

why, dusty butt, my deah. Thank you so much for your invitation to run for pres. However, I think you probably know I don’t have millions of dollars and could never run. Unfortunately in this country now one must have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth or marry a woman with one to ever run for pres. Or there’s the ocassional exception of someone like Clinton who is so charismatic he can get a big group of people behind him with silver spoons in their mouths. But again dear sweet rusty bum, thanks for the thought.

By Ben

October 6, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Michael H. - What about black foreigners?

By taboga

October 6, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Michael

We finally agree.

By Tony

October 6, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

Health Care, if we socialize it, it would be a disaster.

First too many people don’t take care of themselves. They are over weight, lazy and continue to become health time-bombs. We have diabetics who still drink and eat as they please, again health time-bombs. Drug addicts, Alcoholics, cigarette smokers, gay and straight women and men who indulge in sex with numerous partners and are at extremely high risk of AIDS and other STD’s. The list goes on and on and on and on……

Why should I have to pay for there self destructive lifestyle?

Then we have the Medical Institution itself, why would they invest in say better laser technology when existing technology will suffice. There defiantly will not be any cost advantage to advance in technology. So medical expertise and care will decline. Today it is a fact that people in Canada who can afford it come to the United States for their serious health care. Color it any way you like, but social care in Canada is NOT working.

Lastly, the government has screwed up everything it touches. Far too many people graduate from school and can not read. Do you want the same group who control our schools controlling your health care? I certainly do not. Look at the space center, screeewwwed up, but the private sector making hay. Pretty soon, we’ll be using them to go to space.

Today far too many people through their employee can obtain insurance, however, and for what ever reason opt not to. Then you have people who make poor decisions concerning finances. You know the ones with telephones stuck to the side of their heads cigarette in their mouth wearing designer cloths, but are making minimum wage or less than $10.00 and hour. You know the same ones who are max’ed out on their ridiculously high interest rate credit card. Hell, the Mafia gives better rates, but that’s a different subject.

But then the person who struggles and puts off until they can afford it, saves wisely, is not over weight, doesn’t drink or smoke, you want him to stand in line with the aforementioned. Too me, that is unacceptable.

There’s has got to be a better way. I don’t want 45 million uninsured people, but if just half of those people would be responsible, maybe we can get the other half covered, but you know as well as I, that ain’t going to happen. So the Sandy’s, Michael’s, Archie’s and the rest can continue to spew 45 million, oh, and haven’t done anything about it in the last past 50 years of liberal control, but if they get their way now, just like in Europe and Canada, they’ll be looking somewhere else for their serious medical attention, but for the rest of us, well, we’ll be holding the pooh-pooh bag they’ve created in line with drug addicts for medical care…

Oh and you won’t be able to sue because it’s the government!!! Ahhhh what a wonderful world.

By joe

October 6, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

Bobby Reed, why are so many americans going to India and Thailand for surgery these days? Much much less expensive and much, much, much better care say those who have already gone.

By Billy

October 6, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Jack: Is Taboga the kind of person that you should defend? Now RF what do you have to say? Do you still agree that he isn’t a racist?

By taboga

October 6, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Got back on the blog to see what’s happening. And of course that little juvenile joe is out here posting under my name again.

By kimberly

October 6, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Tony, you said, “Do you want the same group who control our schools controlling your health care? I certainly do not.” Are you saying that the government should stay OUT of personal medical decisions? And if so, do you apply that equally to the personal medical decisions of men AND women?

By taboga

October 6, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Joe,

Could you please explain to everyone out here, why it is that you feel the need to run around posting your childishness under other’s names?

By Just Being Me

October 6, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Tony, you raise some good points.

By joe

October 6, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

But Tony, Do you want the same group who control our schools controlling your health care? I certainly do not

By taboga

October 6, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

And of course Kimberly is referring to Baby-killing as a “medical decision”.

By RF

October 6, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Billy- I only give a point where earned. I don’t care who’s racist, black, white, male, female, gay, straight, whatever!! I will still defend a person’s right to his opinion whether I like it or not. I’ll even sling a little mud every now and then, but I still respect the right to think and post. I rarely agree EVERY day with ANY here, but as my granny would say “even a dummy can add 2+2 every now and again”

By joe

October 6, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Ooops, finger slipped before I was finished but Kimberly is saying what I was gonna say. Tony wants the gov’t to control the reproduction of american women by banning abortion but he doesn’t want the gov’t running the health care system.
Taboga, why in hades would anybody want to pretend to be the biggest a* on this blog? And I think everyone on here can tell the difference between your nasty little ego trips and everyone else.

By taboga

October 6, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

RF,

Why the hell are you responding to that? There’s no “Billy” out here, that’s Joe - the little juvenile that comes out here from time to time posting things under MY name…

By Archie

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

“First too many people don’t take care of themselves. They are over weight, lazy and continue to become health time-bombs. We have diabetics who still drink and eat as they please, again health time-bombs.”

I agree with those statements and some of those people are republicans. “Hell, the Mafia gives better rates, but that’s a different subject.” You are right again with that statement. We probably agree with that statement for different reasons and I will say once again for the umpteenth time that you should not pay for the financial mistakes of others. Also there are many that go to Canada for their drugs and if we are the greatest country in the world one would think we would be better than Canada. Also if their system is so bad why have they continued with said system for years. Rhetorical question,how can you put down the government and yet praise the head of that government that being the president? Although the government failed on 3 levels during New Orleans-hurricane-issue the people that work for government probably first worked in private industry so to criticize the government is like chasing your tail. My thought pattern is based on group insurance. The agent who sells it brings in big premiums but the cost is lower for the people in the group. You(Tony) are right about those credit card rates and I know from experience. Hopefully that topic will come up.

By taboga

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

Taboga, why in hades would anybody want to pretend to be the biggest as on this blog? And I think everyone on here can tell the difference between your nasty little ego trips and everyone else.*

Because you’re a little punk Joe that plays little juvenile games like an 8 year old. Pulling on your little pecker and picking your nose, thinking: “I’m going to get Taboga by posting under HIS name. You’re a sick litte f*** son!

By Tony

October 6, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

Joe and Kimberly,

A while back we where debating abortion and stem cell research, and the topic of a soul came up. The argument was that neither had one.

I however do not agree, but to take that even further and more simplistic:

The human body is like a boat crossing a river, to carry the soul from this bank of life to the next life. Whether the soul is in the boat at the time you sink it, or not, you have destroyed the vessel that would have carried the human soul.

By joe

October 6, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

T. why oh why couldn’t your mother have gotten an abortion?

By kimberly

October 6, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

Tony, your views on the soul are interesting, but you did not anwer my question. DO YOU BELIEVE that the government should stay OUT of personal medical decisions? Yes or no? And if YES, do you apply that equally to the personal medical decisions of men AND women? And if NO, then how do you justify making the first assertion?

By lozen

October 6, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Tony, where did you cut and paste this from? The human body is like a boat crossing a river, to carry the soul from this bank of life to the next life. Whether the soul is in the boat at the time you sink it, or not, you have destroyed the vessel that would have carried the human soul. Whoever wrote this probably believes it. You believe it. You’re quite welcome to believe it if you wish. I do not see life in those terms. Many people do not believe the human body is like a boat carrying the soul from one bank to another. If you believe that little story, do not ever have an abortion. For those of us who do not believe that little story, all we ask is that the government leave us alone to act according to our beliefs.

By joe

October 6, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Oh Kimberly darlin’ Can’t wait to see ole Tony skate around that one can we? He’s gonna have to skate or disappear.. which one, which one?

Tobugya, spit. Yeah that’s what you are, spit on a rock. Thanks Michael for the great image.

By kimberly

October 6, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

I do not wish to judge Tony; I wish to hear his answer. He made a vehement assertion to his belief about government and medicine. If he truly believes it, he can back it up. If they are reasonable and sound, his arguments will hold up. I can respect an argument that holds up. Show me.

By Tim

October 6, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

ok all have a wonderful rest of the week… I am off to L.A. (NOT lower Alabama!)… ‘see’ y’all next week sometime… Taboga… I will give you ALL the details of my trip when I get back ;)

By kimberly

October 6, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

Joe, I think you’re right.

By Tony

October 6, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, I believe by the laws of nature every child conceived has a right to life. All hypocritical arguments to the contrary can not change that.

The main argument for legalized abortion has to do with a woman’s control over her body. Certainly this right is very important but is it enough to override the fundamental right to life? When one thinks about it, this right to control ones body is not absolute. No one would agree that a woman has the right to beat someone to death simply because she uses her fists which are a part of her body. In this case a persons right to life outweighs a woman’s right in regard to her own body. The example illustrates that this right is not absolute and is completely dependent on what it is that one is doing with their body. The important question really is - should a woman’s control over her body extend to “this”? In this case we are talking about abortion. As science has shown this is a unique human individual’s life. This situation is the same as our example and the right to life is still the more fundamental and important right and must therefore prevail.

“we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights â€â€? of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

By Dusty

October 6, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, is it possible that you don’t know that President Bush is the elected leader and decision maker of our country? He is always responsible, dear liberal. Do you want him to grade everything that happens such as:” 9/11—I did good!” or “Katrina Disaster Efforts—I did bad!” He also told us that the war in Iraq would be a long struggle and it is. Don’t bother with all the hoopla about lies, Haliburton and other distortions. I am glad we are fighting terrorists in Iraq and not here. And no, I don’t like wars and killing.

Suppose you just send the president a nice mourning and weeping hairshirt and a box of hankies to use for presentations. Doesn’t really matter. You will still be doing the usual Democratic fussing, fuming and accusations.

By kimberly

October 6, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Tony: I appreciate your viewpoint, but you did not answer my question, which was based on YOUR assertion. Can you answer the questions?

Dusty: Doh! You did not answer my question either. You are repeating talking points. If I want Karl Rove’s daily rant, I can read it on the RNC website.

Can ANYONE answer a direct question, or is this just a forum for wanking off?

By kimberly

October 6, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

Again, Tony… I did not ask your views on abortion or when life begins. I asked: DO YOU BELIEVE that the government should stay OUT of personal medical decisions? Yes or no? And if YES, do you apply that equally to the personal medical decisions of men AND women? And if NO, then how do you justify making the first assertion?

By Sandy/Sanhan

October 6, 2005 05:13 PM | Link to this

It’s paradoxical that this notion of a “culture of life” is now a political ideology, but those who subscribe to it don’t want to spend tax money on a national health care plan because they don’t deem certain lives worth their money… and because the administration cannot be trusted.

And yet our money and our children’s money is being spent to outsource a war in which atrocities are being committed, and most of the perpetrators are not and will not be held accountable. Given the choice, I’d rather spend my money on national health care.

By Ken

October 7, 2005 07:21 AM | Link to this

Kimberly… I think many people, including myself, want the government to stay out of medical decisions for myself and for my family. However, whenever anyone proposes national healthcare they essentially provide the government with influence over those same medical decisions.

Wouldn’t you (an I mean the collective you) rather simply have the goverment out of your life. Let the government provide you the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Nothing more. Nothing less.

Ever since the great socialist, FDR, we have become a nation dependent on an organization, that by design, is constantly in flux. The Founding Fathers built that flexibility into our Constitution knowing that times would change and that the government would need to change with it. Our government has done so very admirably when facing issues originally intended for the government… civil liberties, protecting national sovereignty, protecting property rights.

Now that people want the government to do things outside of it’s original intention, we run into pitfalls. For example, look at social security. That was a socialist idea forced on to us by FDR through his “court packing” threat. It worked in 1934, but now the math simply does not add up. The ratio of contributers to receivers has shrunk to catastrophic numbers. Unfortunately, over time our nation has become dependent on it. Noone denies we need to fix it, but we are deadlocked b/c the politics of the program prevent us from doing so. Noone wants to make the hard choice for fear of making their “base” unhappy. Politicians are paralyzed.

This happens ANYTIME the government provides any sort of subsidy program. The government cannot start giving money away and then stop, or even alter the program. Once the population is being “paid” by the government, it is not beholden to free thought, but to the people it pays. It is essentially making payoffs to voters.

We made the mistake with social security, I would rather not make the same mistake with national health care.

By taboga

October 7, 2005 08:00 AM | Link to this

Buenos dias Communistas y otros anti-americanos,

What a great day it is Comrades!

The Braves won last night (no offense to you “Teachers are more important than ball players” Liberals) and the AJC has a great piece about the proposed “Education Sales Tax”.

How about a big round of applause for Jerry Keen (R-St. Simons Island) for introducing the idea of removing the requirement for Property Owners (those who make the country run) to have to foot the bill for the Communism Indoctrination Centers (Public Schools). A big round of applause!

Of course the AJC/Liberals are all up in arms about this, needless to say. And while the AJC is fretting so about pretended “shortfalls” in education funding - I see it as a perfect opportunity for you Liberals.

Now put on your thinking-cap Libs (the one you threw out when you started school) and pay attention.

As you Libs are contstantly railing on and on about how much you love and support public schools - this is the perfect opportunity for you to really show it and get out there and actually DO something for it. This would be a first and you Libs could be a part of an historic event: Liberals acutally doing something other than whining, moaning and pretending that they care.

All you little Lefties have to do, is to donate some your money to the public schools (CIC). I mean, with all you libs out there donating some of your own money to the public schools, organizing fund-raisers and the like - how could the Public Schools possibly be “under-funded”? I don’t see how that could be.

And for the rest of us “Property Owners” (those who make the country run) who are having to pay for the Communist Indroctination Centers; while sending our kids to private schools, we’ll finally get the tax break that we deserve!

Smoltz was something last night, wasn’t he!

By Whiley

October 7, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

“we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal…”

But not women.
I’m horrified daily there are people out there that want to force pregnancies on women. If that ever comes about that the govt. wants to write into law ownership & regulation of all women’s reproductive organs, I will have my uterus removed and FedEx it to its new rightful owner, George W. Bush

By RF

October 7, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

Yes, indeed Smoltzie earned his keep last night!! The first base umpire was a little off, but hey, you can’t have everything. Let’s just hope Sosa can do as well on Saturday in Houston.

By FatMoose

October 7, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

Although I understand and believe in reproductive rights; I do not understand how women can compare a fetus (or before) to a cancer.

And the notion that Whiley brings up of: I will have my uterus removed and FedEx it to its new rightful owner, George W. Bush is really sick and twisted. I cannot imagine feeling that way about my own body!

Can someone explain to me how a woman can look at her uterus as a sort of a traitor organ?

How can you refer to a part of your own body (much less the part that could bring on a son or daughter) so crassly?

By Sandy/Sanhan

October 7, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

Ken, isn’t lobbying a form of payoff, and not necessarily to the voters, but to powerful and rich people?

While admittedly imperfect, at least Social Security is accessible across the board to all citizens, regardless of political party affiliation, wealth, or lobbying power. While there are flaws and growing pains, Social Security has worked for folks for 70 years. It needs tweaking, sure. But can there be a guarantee if private corporations, motivated by greed, profit and not by concern for the general welfare, to protect the investors? I’ve not, at least in recent years, heard of anyone bilking the Social Security system for millions in the same way that corporations have scewed their investors and current and former employees.

If we focused on finding and prosecuting the cheats, the system could better serve the needy. This is a democratic (small d) ideal, to even the playing ground a little bit, and to hold those in charge responsible. The people screaming for the destruction of Social Security are the rich and influential, who have no need for it the same way the middle and lower classes do; they have their investments and are more able to take larger risks, and are able to recover if things go awry.

Simply, some of us see Social Security as an investment in the well being of country, and wish to keep it that way, with monitoring to see that it continues to work. To demolish the system, i.e., “starve the beast” and force financially unsophisticated people to private accounts seems like a recipe for disaster.

By Just Being Me

October 7, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

FatMoose - I’m certainly not defending Whiley (after she called my partner a loser), but I think she was trying to express her disdain with and disbelief in the idea that the government could claim ownership rights over her body. Although I agree that the statement was crass, I think her point was to demonstrate that she thinks giving her uterus is as unreasonable as being told what to do with it…

By DeltaX

October 7, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

JBM-

I am going to cut off my balls and send them to JWB: (Listen for the shudder of all men from accross the globe)

See;) You can hear em’!!

It is an extreme. I would understand it better if it was something like: My uterus is the gateway to possibly my son or daughter. And because it is such a central part of my being, and possibly others; I hold it sacred.

By taboga

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

I’ve not, at least in recent years, heard of anyone bilking the Social Security system for millions in the same way that corporations have scewed their investors and current and former employees.

Congress has “bilked” it for billions of dollars in the past - that’s why there is no “Social Security Trust Fund”. “Social Security” went broke a long time ago. And no Sandy, it wasn’t the “Wealthy” that you despise so much that did it - it was your beloved Democrat Party that kept sticking their hands in the kitty to fund all their other Socialist programs.

“Tweak” my a*! You can’t “tweak” something that is dead - back to life again!

By Just Being Me

October 7, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Delta, I agree that it could’ve been worded a little differently. I agreed with FatMoose that Whiley’s statement was crass. All I’m saying is that I think I understand the sentiment she was trying to express.

By Whiley

October 7, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

Some of you assume women just love popping out babies at random, that a house full of babies is the only thing we want in our lives. lol Thank you Just Being Me, you get what I am saying.

If the Govt wants to own & regulate my sex organs, will they provide us with really good looking young men that have been “fixed” to keep us happy then? Or maybe “I am fixed” tattoo’s on every man that has had a vasectomy so that women are safe from unwanted pregnancy’s? Fair is fair. I’d like to place an order ahead of time for an Orlando Bloome look alike thank you.

By kimberly

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

KEN: you said, “I think many people, including myself, want the government to stay out of medical decisions for myself and for my family.” So I’ll ask you the same question I asked Tony: Do you believe that government should stay out of medical decisions for men AND women equally? I am truly curious about this issue, as it seems a lot of people say things like that, but don’t really mean it. Do YOU mean it? I mean for EVERYBODY, or just for you and your family?

By DeltaX

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

Whiley,

I know what METAPHOR you were expressing. That is elementary to understand.

It is the way you choose to express it that reveals how you view yourself as a woman.

Can you understand that is my point?

(example to help you: A child says they hate another child. You understand what he means, but still correct him in the manner of which he states it; because it shows a lack of respect: for yourself and others)

If you show so little respect/importance for your reproductive biology; why should one believe you could make rational decisions regarding it?

By kimberly

October 7, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

Hahahaha! I just read Whiley’s FedEx comment. Hahahahaha! Good one!

Why do people in this country say “they hate us for our freedom” and then say, “but you’re not free to do that!” Then they say, “I want freedom from government!” and then they say, “Hey, that person needs more government controls…” PICK A SIDE, people. Your desire to have it both ways screams “hypocrite” and tanks your credibility. But then this is 21st Century America. Who needs credibility?

By FatMoose

October 7, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Kimberly,

I will step up and answer: Yes.

Given your question in it broadness: I do believe govmt shoud be (and is btw) involved in medical decisions.

Now answer my question: Do you think a person with cronic depression should be able to request (and recieve) a lobotomy?

By Renee

October 7, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Well you didn’t ask me Kimberly but IMO, yes, the government should stay out of medical decisions. Maybe I haven’t paid attention but what decision do you want the government to make for you medically?

By Just Being Me

October 7, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

Not that anybody asked me…

My two cents on abortion and abortion rights:

I think abortion is wrong under any and all circumstances. I believe that it doesn’t matter at which point the fetus becomes a person, nor does it matter whether the fetus has a soul. The fetus has every right to be a baby, and that baby has every right to live. I don’t believe any woman should ever take that right away from the baby. Some babies are conceived by mistake, irresponsibility, bad choice, freak accident (like the rare cases where the pill didn’t work, or the condom broke and you really didn’t feel it, etc.)… some are conceived through no choice of the woman (i.e. rape). Either way, the fetus has the right to live, and even if the woman doesn’t want the baby, SOMEONE will. It disgusts me to my stomach that some people use abortion as their main source of birth control. I grew up with a girl who, as a teenager, had already had 9 abortions.

At the same time, I do not believe under any circumstances that the government should regulate abortion. I just can’t see how that has anything to do with the government, the people of America, or the welfare of the nation. For the life of me, I don’t understand how the very same people who cry for less government can pressure the government to enact laws that infringe on a citizen’s right to manage their own personal medical decisions. I am pro-life, I’m just not a “pro-lifer”.

By Ken

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

Sandy…

Social Security has NOT worked for 70 years, based on my definition of worked.

Social Security has evolved into the largest purchase of votes ever created by the Democratic party. When first created, it had 13 contributers for each recipient. In just a few years that ratio will be 2 to 1.

This program is a perfect example of how the vast majority of humans will only take care of themselves when they are forced to. Because people in the self-indulgent baby-boomers and their parents did not plan for retirement, I will now have to wait until I am nearly 70 to get any social security benefits.

What a scam. If you want social security to be accepted, it must be voluntary. Let me out if I want to get out. Let me in if I want to get in. Otherwise, it is nothing more than taking money earned by Peter and giving it to Paul.

I love how people talk out of both sides of their mouth… Please, please, please, get the big bad government out of my life. Don’t legislate my sexuality. don’t legislate my reproductive rights. Don’t tell me how to live my life. But, oh by the way… Pay for my healthcare. Pay for my retirement. Make sure I can get a job at a certain wage even though my skills don’t warrant it. Gimme. Gimme. Gimme.

By taboga

October 7, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

Renee,

Must you ask? It’s Abortion. It’s always Abortion. And then it’s - Abortion.

It goes like this: “Until you say it is ok for me to kill my baby - then shutup about anything else that is medical related!”

Even though Abortion is not medical related - that’s how the convoluted argument goes…

By Just Being Me

October 7, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

FatMoose, if that person has been deemed competent and stable enough to be his/her own guardian, why shouldn’t they be able to decide to get a lobotomy?

Chronic depression doesn’t unequivocally take away your ability to make rational, intelligent, informed, reasonable decisions… Other mental illnesses do, but chronic depression in and of itself doesn’t dictate a person’s mental capacity.

By kimberly

October 7, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

FatMoose: thanks for your directness. To answer your question, I thinks someone should be able to request a lobotomy for themselves, but if asked, I would try to talk them out of it!

Renee: I wasn’t asking anything of the sort. I was responding to a man who stated vehemently that gov’t should stay out of private medical decisions. I asked him if he meant that for men AND women equally, and then he went into some ramblings about the soul and its vessel across the river. He would not answer the question directly, which is my question, which is: if you want the government to stay out of medical decisions, do you mean for EVERYONE or just for men, (or perhaps other exceptions like white Catholic parents in Florida who can’t accept that their daughter is gone or that her husband has the legal right to make tube decisions.)

By Michael H.

October 7, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Kimbery, you posed an astute question. In answer,when one perceives mediately, one perceives one idea by means of perceiving another, for example, one perceives that someone is frightened by perceiving the paleness of her face. Empirically, the geometrical account fails, since one perceives neither the requisite lines, nor angles, nor rays as such, even though such mathematical computations can be useful in determining the apparent distance or magnitude of an object. So, what are the immediate ideas that mediate the perception of distance? First, there are the kinesthetic sensations associated with focusing the eyes when perceiving objects at various distances. Second, as objects are brought closer to the eye, their appearance becomes more confused. Third, as an object approaches the eyes, the degree of confusion can be mitigated by straining the eyes, which is recognized by kinesthetic sensations. In each case, there is no necessary connection between the ideas and distance; there is merely a customary connection between two types of ideas. A necessary connection is a relation such as that found among numbers in true arithmetic equations. It is impossible for 7+3 to equal anything other than 10, and it is impossible to imagine it to be anything other than 10. A customary connection is a relation found in experience in which one type of idea is found with or followed by another, but which one could imagine the situation to be otherwise. David Hume’s famous example is that experience shows that whenever one billiard ball hits another, the second rolls away, but the fact that one could imagine anything happening shows that there is merely a customary connection between the actions of the billiard balls. It is in this sense that ideas of touch and sight are merely customarily, and not necessarily, connected. The absence of a necessary connection between these ideas is further illustrated by the fact that nearsighted (purblind) persons find that objects appear less, rather than more, confused as they approach to the eyes. Since one perceives distance by sight mediately through the correlation of visual ideas with nonvisual ideas, a person born blind and who came to see would have no notion of visual distance: even the most remote objects would “seem to be in his eye, or rather his mind. Molyneux’s contention was that if a person were born blind and had learned to distinguish a cube from a sphere by touch, he would not immediately be able to distinguish a visual cube from a sphere if he were given sight.

By FatMoose

October 7, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this

What is so difficult to understand about the govmt being in charge of X but not Y, and only regulates Z?

That is how it has/does work.

Roads: Check How John dresses: No Check

And WE decide these on a item-by-item basis: Not wholistically.

So is it hypocritical: No; the govmt is involved WHERE we decide it is needed. Jeez.

By kimberly

October 7, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Um… you have a few IQ points on me there, M. Are you saying that my question was posed to someone who cannot answer it because he, quite literally, cannot tell his own a— from a hole in the ground?

By Michael H.

October 7, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

Ken, Ken, Ken, you miserable small little man. Surely you understand that perhaps the most central theme in Blondel’s work is the complex relationship between immanence and transcendence. For each order of phenomena, it is possible to carry out an analysis simply at the level of those phenomena or in terms of those phenomena, within certain limits. Such an analysis, while revealing the relative sufficiency and structures of one level, for instance, those of affectivity and the body on the one hand, or of political association, on the other, has as its goal the indication at what points at to what degree these levels are not self-sufficient and must make recourse, either overtly or covertly to something transcendent to that level and order, for example, intentional and voluntary action as transcendent to affectivity, or humanity and morality as transcendent to political association. This type of analysis does not nullify the reality of the phenomena treated as immanent, but rather exhibits their necessary co-structuring relationship with the orders of phenomena transcendent to them.

This relationship is often figured in terms of adequacy and self-sufficiency. The goal of Blondel’s analyses is to show that the order of phenomena treated as immanent from within the scope of that particular investigation is not sufficient unto itself, that is, that at least another order of phenomena, an order transcendent to the order under investigation. Philosophical, religious, and scientific doctrines function, never simply as representations of reality, simply within the range of speculation or theory, but also serve to orient the life, practices, and action of human subjects, and it is in this respect that adequacy as a criterion comes into play. A doctrine about the reality in which human beings live which does not sufficiently take into account and provide a reflective basis for action, by which a subject can come to understand their role and destiny within that life, a life shared by others, mediated historically and materially, and ultimately oriented towards transcendence, cannot but prove to be inadequate to the demands of the problem of action.

In this perspective then, the goal of Blondel’s life-work was three-fold: First, to examine the exigencies of human action in order to delineate the too-often neglected structures of this vital dimension of human existence. Second, to examine the doctrines of thinkers, texts, and movements, in order to assess the adequacy of their positions and to expose the inadequacies of their positions and practices. What Blondel carried out in his own time is what has come to be called, in certain circles, as set of “philosophical interventions”; Finally, the development of a more fully articulated “philosophy of insufficiency”, which would comprehensively treat the relationship of action to thought and being for the human subject oriented historically, socially, and in relation to the Absolute.

By FatMoose

October 7, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

JBM-

why shouldn’t they be able to decide to get a lobotomy?

Well, currently you cannot- along with a slew of other things (suicide). So, it seems - if one is pro-choice - precidence FOR ALL should be made; not just for women!

Whiley? Others? Why is it only “pro-choice” for women, and not ALL HUMANS?

By Just Being Me

October 7, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Michael, was it your intention that people would be able to read and comprehend what you just wrote? I consider myself fairly intelligent, so that must’ve been written for people with exceptional intelligence.(?)

FatMoose: If the government regulates the alphabet, it should regulate the entire alphabet, not just X and Y. If it chooses not to regulate the alphabet, then it should avoid enacting any laws pertaining to any parts of the alphabet. Your tone was a bit condescending, and I’m not sure if you intended that. But, for the record, I don’t think there’s any misunderstanding as to how the government does work. I think the question lies with how people believe the government should or should not work.

By kimberly

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

FatMoose: so your answer is NO. The government should stay out of YOUR private medical decisions, but not mine, because I was born without a p***. If this is wrong, please say so. If this is correct, please be forthcoming and stand behind your belief that women and men SHOULD NOT have equal protection under, or from, the law.

Only when we are truthful can we have meaningful discourse.

By Michael H.

October 7, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Well JBM, at least one of us considers you to be fairly intelligent. I don’t understand your reticence to participate in a debate on the philosophical question at hand. It is clear that perhaps the most central theme in Blondel’s work is the complex relationship between immanence and transcendence. For each order of phenomena, it is possible to carry out an analysis simply at the level of those phenomena or in terms of those phenomena, within certain limits. Such an analysis, while revealing the relative sufficiency and structures of one level, for instance, those of affectivity and the body on the one hand, or of political association, on the other, has as its goal the indication at what points at to what degree these levels are not self-sufficient and must make recourse, either overtly or covertly to something transcendent to that level and order, for example, intentional and voluntary action as transcendent to affectivity, or humanity and morality as transcendent to political association. This type of analysis does not nullify the reality of the phenomena treated as immanent, but rather exhibits their necessary co-structuring relationship with the orders of phenomena transcendent to them.

This relationship is often figured in terms of adequacy and self-sufficiency. The goal of Blondel’s analyses is to show that the order of phenomena treated as immanent from within the scope of that particular investigation is not sufficient unto itself, that is, that at least another order of phenomena, an order transcendent to the order under investigation. Philosophical, religious, and scientific doctrines function, never simply as representations of reality, simply within the range of speculation or theory, but also serve to orient the life, practices, and action of human subjects, and it is in this respect that adequacy as a criterion comes into play. A doctrine about the reality in which human beings live which does not sufficiently take into account and provide a reflective basis for action, by which a subject can come to understand their role and destiny within that life, a life shared by others, mediated historically and materially, and ultimately oriented towards transcendence, cannot but prove to be inadequate to the demands of the problem of action.

In this perspective then, the goal of Blondel’s life-work was three-fold: First, to examine the exigencies of human action in order to delineate the too-often neglected structures of this vital dimension of human existence. Second, to examine the doctrines of thinkers, texts, and movements, in order to assess the adequacy of their positions and to expose the inadequacies of their positions and practices. What Blondel carried out in his own time is what has come to be called, in certain circles, as set of “philosophical interventions”; Finally, the development of a more fully articulated “philosophy of insufficiency”, which would comprehensively treat the relationship of action to thought and being for the human subject oriented historically, socially, and in relation to the Absolute.

By DeltaX

October 7, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Micheal H.

Cutting and pasting paragraphs of text? I am disapointed.

Or is it that little crap taboga.

I am betting on an idiot posting at M…

By kimberly

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

I CALL BS! That’s not Michael H. That’s Toober face cutting and pasting from an Internet encyclopedia. Michael consistently makes sense, and does so in his own words.

I’d say “nice try Toob” but it wasn’t that good.

By Sandy/Sanhan

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

Delta, is is really so hard to understand that something, in this case, a reproductive organ, can be a curse and a blessing within the same body but at different times in one’s life? Fertility can be wonderful if it’s a choice, and sometimes even if it isn’t a choice, things may work out, but there is always a risk.

For some, fertility can be a death sentence. I’m thinking specifically of a friend with uncontrollable hypertension in her early 40s,(can’t use birth control, rhythm method does not work due to hormone fluctuations due to perimenoapuse, broken condoms, cystitis with diagraphm) and another with multiple sclerosis who has been told that subsequent pregnancies will take 10 years each off her life, and yet another friend with severe Crohn’s disease. All of these women would love to become pregnant and have another child, are not particularly afraid of dying itself, but fear leaving their other children and husbands orphaned and widowed. Anecdotal, maybe, but very real.

Men do not feel the physical affects of any pregnancy, wanted or unwanted; while women may try to take every precaution, we have to trust them to do so, there are things that happen that are beyond anyone’s control, both before and after pregnancy. Medical science can predict some, but not all, necessitating the need to end a pregnancy.

That the current trend to roll back abortion laws does not include the safety of the woman’s life makes her a second class citizen to the fetus, and disregards her desire to continue her own life for not only her own sake, but the sake of those who depend on her.

By Just Being Me

October 7, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

FatMoose, you keep referring to what currently is or currently is not which leads me to think you may be missing my point. It matters not what is or isn’t for this particular discussion. The point Kimberly (and others) are making is what should or shouldn’t be. Not what is.

Now, in my opinion, anyone who is deemed mentally competent and has the mental capacity to make any decision about their personal life (within the realms of the law) should be permitted to.

By Dusty

October 7, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

What caused Whiley to go off like Mt. St. Helens this morning? Was it the possible confirmation of Harriet Miers? I can’t see Miers riding into the Supreme Court on her painted pony, shooting her shotgun into the ceiling and declaring that Roe vs Wade is dead. It is still the law. Indeed, if people want to discuss their reproductive organs, please write a letter home to Mother. I get a little tired of hearing about who is scratching what, or removing something or measuring this and that. You are making Miss Manners quiver with indignity. That’s not NICE!

By FatMoose

October 7, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

Kimberly,

Why ask a question if yu are going to later tell me what I think?

Now, what about my position that: Why is it only “pro-choice� for women, and not ALL HUMANS?

Should it not ALL be under a notion of “I can do with my body what I want?” Why is that not the message then? It only pertains to women and their reproduction.

By kimberly

October 7, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

Sandy, you’ll never convince people to stop hatin’ on women, even though I agree with you. These religious folks seem to believe, from what I can see, that a woman’s misery is always her own darn fault, and if it isn’t, then TOO BAD. Then they pat their bibles as they walk by, and feel better about themselves. “MS? Chron’s disease? Brutal rape? Too bad. Give it to God; Hallelujah, and don’t be knockin’ on MY door for a handout!”

By Just Being Me

October 7, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

Yeah, and I don’t think Michael would’ve said “at least one of us considers you to be fairly intelligent”… I think you two may be right.

Disappointing, but not surprising.

By kimberly

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

I agree with you, FatMoose. You should be able to do whatever you want with your body. I’m sorry if you inferred otherwise. Your body; your choice, be it vasectomy, hernia repair, labotomy, or breast augmentation.

By Michael H.

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

Kimberly, I am shocked that you would attack me like this. Must I now place you in the same category as the intellectual midget, T-Sauce? Surely you understand that Blondel’s theses is especially appropriate to the question of choice. Consciousness is not something which sorts out the vagaries of the unconscious or operates upon it afterward; rather it is a node of clarity and lucidity which is at the same time, a shifting off into regions of shadow. Blondel asks why the will has to incarnate itself in materiality. The answer to this is not simply a matter of the interaction between formal and material causes, so that in order to have a form, there must be a matter in which the form resides. Nor, in a variation on this, is it simply a matter of efficient causality, so that the essence of the will be that it act upon and through the body. Instead, there is a relationship of final causality which includes these others but surpasses them. For, more is gained by the will than simply the locus of its externalization in its incarnation, precisely because the will is something which takes place temporally. The will allows itself to be worked upon, to be unfolded, to blossom open, only though its thoroughgoing ebb and flow into and out of materiality. Hence, in order for the will to be, not simply what it wills, but what it will be, what it would be, that is, for it to move towards its final end, it must allow this incorporation and materialization in the body.

This means that the will has to incorporate itself in habitual processes, where there is an interplay between the conscious and the unconscious. The permeability of the conscious and the unconscious to each other is what allows them to interact.

By Just Being Me

October 7, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Kimberly (not that I’m owning up to being one of “these religious folks” you refer to), I do not believe that a woman’s misery is always her fault. And, I would never echo the sentiments that it’s just too bad if a woman became impregnated as a result of rape, or has MS or Crohn’s or HIV or whatever.

You’re putting a number of different beliefs into one category and giving one label to all those who oppose abortion, oppose abortion rights, and/or are “religious”. What about those of us who fall into one or two but not all of those categories?

By taboga

October 7, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

Delta and Kimberly,

If you two had any idea as just how stupid you are…

Michael H has been fooling you idiots since he first came out here! You dim-wits never have figured out that none of his postings have been original - they have all been cut and paste jobs. My goodness!

Now he goes out and finds some psycho-babbling about some “analysis” that you freaks don’t understand - and you little clowns think that I am posting it…

Do you little rubes ever think about anything?

By the observer

October 7, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

naw you guys all got it twisted. that couldn’t be Tab because surely Tab wouldn’t call Joe juvenile for allegedly posting under Tab’s name and then turn around and do the same thing just a few hours later. furthermore i found it strange that the person who posted yesterday allegedly under Tab’s name used italics, which Joe never does. and I found it strange that Tab had been unusually MIA for so long, then all of a sudden as soon as “someone” appears saying that he hates black people Tab suddenly returns to see what was going on on the board?????????????????????????????????? -sniff sniff- smells a lil fishy to me.

By Whiley

October 7, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Because I don’t want to birth or raise children does not mean I hate my sex or my womanhood. I can’t believe you implied that ! lolol ! So I only love being a woman when I breed? Ah hem, it’s 2005 people. I highly respect my reproductive biology, which is why I have always chosen my lovers well & I, & only I, dictate when or if I birth.
OK back to the Govt. owning my sex organs, I think we should have good looking, young fixed men guarding us to make sure we aren’t having unregulated unprotected sex. That way we can’t get pregnant & run off to get those exciting abortions we love so much. May I have two uterus body guards?

And ditto everything Sandy just said.

Are we really this backward & sexist? Why are we even discussing should women have high paying jobs instead of being home baking?
Do we ever ask this of fathers? Once again Woman to Women is trying to debate topics that to me were asked in the 50’s.
Should educated men only strive for part time janitorial work so they can be home when Jr. gets back from school? Why are women still pressured with all this BS everywhere we turn?

By kimberly

October 7, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

JBM, I’m sorry; I should have expressed that I APPRECIATE that you feel as you do about it, but that you do not advocate government regulation of our bodies. I do. Your feelings and perceptions are your own, and certainly you’re entitled to them. As a mother, I know that powerful, core emotions and beliefs are attached to the process. I too think it’s unspeakably tragic on many levels when a woman has that procedure. In my mind, I see it as a balance to other unspeakable tragedies, and not really that different from the millions of times a year when pregnancies end without interference, smashing the hearts and hopes of the parents. We’ve all seen that, haven’t we? Are all those little babies damned to hell? I don’t believe so. I believe they are gently lifted into new “vessels,” (but that’s just my own superstition and not something I’ll argue.)

Yes, I appreciate you position as rational and very American in spirit, and I wish more people held it.

By Whiley

October 7, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

“What caused Whiley to go off like Mt. St. Helens this morning?” lol ! Because people won’t shut up about abortion. The anti women groups won’t stop until they own us. Makes me mad as hell.
But it’s friday so I’ll bounce back quickly.

By DeltaX

October 7, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

tab,

No, I understand the post by MH fully (if it was him). I studied under a prof that made it a basis for his arguement during my cognitive science grad days, and worked heavily in mind-in-mind theories as well - idiot.

Kimbery, I did not infer anything - This is what you are not getting:

To choose what should change, one HAS to know what the state is! The state is that we (all people - if you aknowedge this or not) are tied by the ropes you describe.

Then why is it not the position to legislate the grader function: People should have a choice over their body. Not men only or women only; but all people?

That way it is inclusion, and not exculsion!

By RF

October 7, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

Lord, I’m trying to keep up here, but you guys all definitely need a few days off to get over the crankies!!

Nothing personal Michael, but have you been drinking this morning?? I haven’t heard that much rambling since the last trip I took to N’awlins before Katrina swamped the place!!

JBM—isn’t it frustrating when you have to defend supporting part of an issue? I always hate getting lumped into a category. It’s really not that hard to understand your point. I agree with you, except for the rape part.

By Just Being Me

October 7, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

Posting under someone else’s name is SO second grade.

By taboga

October 7, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

Observer,

You need to retire your alias. If you really were observant, you would notice that I don’t hide behind anything.

I know that might be hard for a little goober liberal like you to comprehend - but I don’t need to play the childish leftists games.

And I am not so sure that Observer is not the little kid who posts out here under the name of: Joe or Billy…

But I will give you credit though. These little simpletons out here will probably agree with you. That should make you feel better…

By FatMoose

October 7, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

Delta,

I believe it is because most women want it to be exclusionary.

Look at whiley’s post. There is nothing but division in her posts.

By Whiley

October 7, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

Division? What division? Where’s my bodyguard?

By Just Being Me

October 7, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

RF, yes it is very frustrating. I’m kind of on the fence about the rape part, but I still lean towards being completely anti-abortion. Same thing with the death penalty (for me). I’m against it, but still on the fence because I don’t know how I’ll feel if a violent crime that could warrant the death penalty occurs close to home.

By taboga

October 7, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

No, I understand the post by MH fully (if it was him). I studied under a prof that made it a basis for his arguement during my cognitive science grad days, and worked heavily in mind-in-mind theories as well - idiot.

Delta,

You need to stop - you’re embarrassing yourself…

By Ken

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

Michael… How dare you call me a small little man. I am actually a very large powerful man. Not because of my physical stature but b/c I have my own opinions, consider them rationally and put them out into the world for discussion.

When you can put the ideas and works of Blondel into your own words and apply them to real life situations rather than cutting and pasting three large paragraphs(http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/blondel.htm) please come talk to me. Until then, please refrain from inundating us with regurgitation.

By taboga

October 7, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

I think Kimberly may have finally figured it out!

She’s been taken for a sucker by Michael H and I think she’s now realized it…

By FatMoose

October 7, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

I could not comprehend the sexism that must be held in ones mind to say: I think we should have good looking, young fixed men guarding us to make sure we aren’t having unregulated unprotected sex.

Is the men-guard/woman relationship not a division?

Why are you unable to simple state all people should have freedom over their body? Why is your adjenda - being appied to only women - so sexist?

By Dusty

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

Oh that was definitely Michael H. Nobody else could be that boring. He wants SOMEBODY to read some of his graduate studies and I am afraid it is going to be us. Dear Blondell, wants us to choose between consciousness and unconsciousness. In the case of Michael H., ‘tis best to choose the latter.

By RF

October 7, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

JBM—I was back and forth on that one until after my sister was killed. IF they ever find who did it, I don’t think I’ll have a problem asking for the death penalty. I tend to lean a bit more right on that one. Abortion isn’t something you can legislate, in my opinion. All you can do is require clinics to make sure ALL the options are explained and the woman signs for her choice. They do that anyway at most places, don’t they? I don’t like it, but it’s kinda like closing the barn AFTER the horse is out. I don’t think we could really go back to before Roe v. Wade, and I don’t think I’d want to (medically unsafe procedures back then).

By DeltaX

October 7, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Taboga,

Lets meet. Seriously.

By Whiley

October 7, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

“I’m kind of on the fence about the rape part, but I still lean towards being completely anti-abortion.”

THAT’S the kind of opinion that amazes me. The eye’s wide- mouth open- don’t know how to respond- kind of thing. But then the Proud to be an American kicks in & I think, “ok, that’s their opinion, the way they live their life”. But then, our govt. & lawmakers say it, religious leaders. (all the control your life leaders)

By taboga

October 7, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

And all the little self-proclaimed “intellectuals” have suddenly gone silent…?

They’ve been in such admiration and praise of a fraud - that his exposure is a cross to heavy to bear!

Cheer-up Kimberly and Delta - he’ll come back out here under a different name. Then you can praise him all over again!

By Just Being Me

October 7, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

Whiley, as I’ve stated I am pro-life, but not a pro-lifer. In other words, I am anti-abortion, and pro-choice (yes, I believe you can be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time). I do not believe in abortion under any circumstances, but I believe a woman should have the right to make that choice on her own. Now close your mouth, dear.

RF, Yeah, see that’s exactly what I’m talking about. I am SOOO against the death penalty, but I just don’t think it’s fair to have formed an opinion if I’ve never been in a situation that could shape my opinion. I’m willing to bet that if anything happened to my mother, sisters, nieces, nephews, partner or child, I’d change my mind quickly. I think. I don’t know. LOL

I totally agree with what you said about the abortion thing. By the way, I think you’re a really cool dude.

By taboga

October 7, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Taboga,

Lets meet. Seriously.

Why Delta, please don’t scare me like that! Who did you learn those theatrics from?

Have I sent your pathetic little behind off the deep end? I think so. So now you want to prance out here and show everybody how tough you are?

What are you thinking Delta: “Everybody on the blog will admire me - because I want to kick Taboga’s a*”!

Everyone give the little rube Delta a big round of applause - she’s so brave!

By Ken

October 7, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Sandy… I can assure you that men do feel physical and emotional affects during and after pregnancy. I know I have. Those feelings are tied to the very fact that I love my wife and feel many of the same things she does, though not to the same degrees.

One other question… If there are folks out there where pregnancy can be a death sentence, why do they not simply get their tubes tied…?

By RF

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

JBM—thanks. You’re pretty cool too and level-headed, which isn’t something the world seems to have a lot of these days. I get kicks out of watching the digital fur fly around here. So why do you suppose we moderates tend to irk others so badly? I do know I drive my friends absolutely crazy with my differing opinions.

By DeltaX

October 7, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Tab,

I said nothing about fighting dipsh!t (thats just your idiot notions again - it also shows your mindset).

But I would like to meet you; I will even buy lunch.

By Whiley

October 7, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

“Is the men-guard/woman relationship not a division?”

Oh I was just kidding around with that one. But I would like to think that if the Govt. regulates our sex organs & sex life, couldn’t our body guards be handsome & fixed?

“Why are you unable to simple state all people should have freedom over their body? Why is your adjenda - being appied to only women - so sexist?”

Because men already have freedom over their own body. For the most part they have almost complete freedom from sexual assault (almost). If they use birth control themselves they have complete control when or how they reproduce. And it never ever directly affects their health or body when they do reproduce. But that’s just biology. We need special rights & care because we ARE affected directly.

Things have improved greatly since I was a teenager. Birth control is better & abortion is mostly available. But it’s been quite a battle to get these necessary things. I hate to see such walls constantly put up around women when it concerns their uterus & sexuality. The Govt. must not be allowed to interfere. They already do in many cases, like not promoting better newer & safer birth control one example.

And silly topics like this one promote outdating opinions on what women should be doing & how. Should educated women become leaders in the workplace instead of breeding? lol

By kimberly

October 7, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Ken, that’s part of what makes you a good husband, a good daddy, and your family very blessed. This is not everyone’s reality, Dude. I’m happy for you, but we can’t just order up our reality like a pepperoni pizza, skip the onions. “Why don’t they just get their tubes tied?” Um…. many do… WHEN they can, IF they can, IF and WHEN they can afford it, and IF they can get it done in time. Why do you assume it’s all so simple, when it’s not even your life, and you know nothing about someone else’s life? Hey, I’m glad there are men like you who love their families! Wish there were more, actually. Can YOU make that happen?

By Michael H.

October 7, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

Tabasco, you of all people, idiot that you are, should understand intellectual superiority when you see it, especially since you see it so often. It is clear that I am wasting my time here.

I cannot understand the inability to make the connection between Blondel’s argument and the perceived sexual slavery of women. Did you notice that there was a historical progression in the emancipation and subsequent development of Modern thought, not progress simpliciter, however, but rather a condition for progress, a condition that would be satisfied only in the evaluation, critique, and reappropriation of Modern thought by the integral philosophy he elaborated. Blondel also maintained that the proper attitude for the Catholic Church to take in the face of the effects, and even dominance, of Modern thought in recent time was not one of retrenchment, or return to an idealized Middle Ages dominated by Thomism, in part because of the progress to be realized through the confrontation with Modern thought, but also in greater part because there is no humanly historical origin-point to be returned to, which means that those advocating such a return are in effect covertly relying upon a form of idealism. In History and Dogma, Blondel takes up this problem more explicitly, arguing for a middle position between and critical of historicism and extrinsicism.

It is clear to me that many of you need to take a refresher course in logics. Well enough of this blather, I must return to class, my last before the fall break. I hope that over the weekend you will reread my posts Kimberly. I think that you will see that we are in total agreement. I would hate to think that you have turned on me.

By Michael H.

October 7, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Excuse me, “LOGIC”

By RF

October 7, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

reading Michael’s stuff today is like watching C-SPAN when Ted’s fillibustering…..

By Just Being Me

October 7, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

RF, I think it’s simply because moderates are a bit more difficult to label and categorize, and for some reason people are more comfortable when they can determine on which side a person falls on any subject just by “reading” their label.

By Just Being Me

October 7, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

RF - To me, it’s like watching C-SPAN in German… lol

By RF

October 7, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

LOL—I even went back to this morning to see if I missed something that was the key to it all. NOPE Makes me realize I don’t ever want to be that smart!

By Sandy/Sanhan

October 7, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Ken, I won’t refute your experiences regarding what you have felt with your wife before, during, and after pregnancy, but the chances that my husband needed to have a hysterectomy with a bladder suspesnsion some years down the line because of a forceps delivery and two 9-pound babies was pretty slim.

As for tube tying, sometimes it’s an issue of timing in relation to when they are diagnosed with their particular ailment. Sometimes it’s about insurance coverage of the tubal ligation, or the desire to retain fertility in case a cure is found or miracle performed…. One friend is a very devout Catholic. Also, tubal ligations can lead to increased risk of tubal pregnancies, which could be disastrous for women with clotting disorders, etc.

For the record, if one asked why their husbands don’t have vasectomies or forego intercourse, I’m sure there would be a variety of reasons as well.

As we’ve discussed before, there is no one cookie cutter solution, that this is about choice and privacy.

JBM and others state that they dislike being grouped ideologically, rightfully so. The law, if it cannot bend for every circumstance, must trust every individual to make their own informed decision. When it’s a matter of a woman’s life and death, her reproductive organ should not trump other biological necessities, such as treatment for disease. Her gender should not intefere with her life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Her ability to procreate or not should not become her legal destiny.

By lozen

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

This is catch up: FatMoose obviously from your first post this morning you’ve never been a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. If you had, you would understand how a woman can view her uterus as a traitor organ. That’s why men should just shut the f*** up about abortion. There is no way a man can understand the factors involved in that decision!

By taboga

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

That’s why men should just shut the f* up about abortion. There is no way a man can understand the factors involved in that decision!

What’s so hard to “understand” about it - Don’t want baby - kill baby.

Pretty simple actually.

By Dusty

October 7, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Taboga, as I scoll back and read, the words of Louis Grizzard come to mind—“Delta’s ready when you are.”

(Ooo, that’s corny!)I’m still celebrating last night’s great game for the Braves.

Please keep posting. Michael H. has said he is wasting his time here. Don’t want him to lose that train of thought.

By taboga

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

Dusty,

The wife was at the game last night and said the place was rockin’! I really thought it would be rained-out so I didn’t go.

Oh well, I only missed two of the greatest pitchers of our time going at it - and our guy won!

Are you and I the only Braves fans out here?

By lozen

October 7, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

That is not MichaelH posting - it could be Chuck or the one who picks his nose with his toes.

By lozen

October 7, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Taboga, “The wife….” Not even “My wife….” let alone “My wife Booger Toes….” Typical, don’t you think Whiley?

By Sarah

October 7, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

So question: do wifes/girlfriends get a say in whether men can get Viagra, Cialis? Are they consulted? All Men should be made to wait 24 hours before getting Viagra and have to to come in with their wives/girlfriends.

By taboga

October 7, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

Just make your posts and let them stand on their own. You don’t need Kimberly or Whiley to validate them for you.

Try that.

By Dusty

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

Taboga, you are right. Two great pitchers. I wasn’t at the stadium either but I really enjoyed that game. Smoltz was a steady warrior making it look easy. And the rookies made it so much fun, ‘specially since they contributed like “crazy “and were real winners. Let’s hope that Sosa keeps the good stuff going. (I think RF is a Braves fan.)

By FatMoose

October 7, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

Lozen, That’s why men should just shut the f up about abortion*

Whiley, couldn’t our body guards be handsome & fixed

What sick language you two use and ideas you have! I would never use such degrading words; for my own respect as well as others. My oldest girl is doing a research paper on comparing/contrasting womens rights in early america and current america; she is also shocked at your gross depiction of femininity and men. She is going to use your prose for her arguement of the difference bw the struggle then and now. You got her flaming mad at you girls (her words not mine) - btw: we all (mom/dad/2grls/1boy) attended the prochoice walk in DC.

Shows her why a decent arguement is necc along with the ability to stay on topic.

Lozen, Referring to your comment above: You see that is not how it works: I have a say. And given that your side is not my side, by your assertion, I will proceed as such.

I will adhere only to a adjenda that takes in consideration ALL PEOPLE - not just women.

By Renee

October 7, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Nope, I watched the entire game.

By taboga

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

That is not MichaelH posting - it could be Chuck or the one who picks his nose with his toes.

Lozen,

No matter how hard I try to help you - you just refuse to pay attention!

Do you not notice anything just a tad-bit odd, that when you have a poster who suddenly appears from nowhere and seems to be fully aware of all the goings-on on this blog?

Why, the little freak has only been posting things under my name for about 2 months now!

When I first saw him doing this I thought it was the most childish thing I have ever seen - and the most obvious. But I guess I have to give the little turd credit - you folks are totally oblivious to it…

By FatMoose

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

Sarah, Let me get this straight:

You are asking this: So question: do wifes/girlfriends get a say in whether men can get Viagra, Cialis? Are they consulted?

And your belief is this: All Men should be made to wait 24 hours before getting Viagra and have to to come in with their wives/girlfriends.

Correct? If not restate clearly please.

By Sarah

October 7, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Exactly. They just passed a law requiring women to wait twenty-four hours for an abortion. The same thing, since the government is acting on behalf of our bodies, should be required for men. It seems to be okay to regulate our bodies, but not men. It’s okay for you to be seventy, sixty, or a hundred and still take viagra.

By DeltaX

October 7, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

taboga,

A reply? Face to face talk.

It will be in public so, no - you do not have to worry about getting your little a$$ whipped. I am not into that testosterone stuff.

By RF

October 7, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

The Braves were spectacular last night. I watched almost the whole game, except for when I was driving home and then putting the little ankle-biters to bed. Smoltz just makes it look too easy for his age. Do you realize he’s been a Brave since ‘87?? He and Chipper both looked good last night for all that they’re considered OLD in the sports world!

By Scott

October 7, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Lozen - You certainly express your opinion about race, but your not a minority…which expressed by others on this blog, means you don’t have the proper perspective. So since you don’t have the proper perspective, shouldn’t you, by your definition, “shut the f* up”? I was really surprised to hear you say that. You usually give good arguments

Kimberly - which would you rather have? govt intervention or the govtr out of your life? Thats the problem with govt. if you let ‘em regulate one thing, they want to regulate everything.

By taboga

October 7, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

Delta,

Please stop begging - it’s unbecoming.

By RF

October 7, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Sarah—not to be a butthead (I do see your point), but if a seventy year old has a reason to take Viagra, more power to him!! Now, I don’t think 24 hours is too long to wait. Don’t you think such an irreversible decision might be better made after a little thought? A friend of mine has lived for years with regret because she didn’t wait another day or two to decide. You should have the right to do it, but I think a day isn’t too much time to take to really make sure. Abortion is a very emotional decision-those emotions can plague you for a lifetime.

By Scott

October 7, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

RF- I agree, they looked great! It was nice to see them light up a guy who can shut down a game like Clemens can. Smoltz definitely brought his “A-game”. Oswalt is just as tough though, and they [Houston] seem to give him more run support. The Braves still have to play lights out to win this thing, but I think they can do it. I listened to Game 1 on the radio (couldn’t watch it) but Hudson just seemed really off during that game. I hope he gets it together real soon

By Just Being Me

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

Scott, very good point.

By Whiley

October 7, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Oh me Oh my ! Lozen said F_ ! I am shocked at our lack of femininity. Where is my knitting & my bible? All I care about is cooking cleaning & my husband. lol FAtMoose are you kidding? Please don’t raise your daughter to be one of those “teehee” little wimpy girls that ends up pregnant & beat up because they can’t speak up.
Tell her it’s ok for a woman to speak out & get angry about a system that until recently been very anti woman. Tell her it’s ok to not accept the bs that will be handed to her on a daily basis. What till she gets a little bit older & realizes exactly what’s going on. Then she’ll be Fing p**. lol And, what Sandy, Sarah & lozen said. I also think those who want to frequent strip clubs & prostitutes should be required to have a special permission ID. This ID is registered with the state & proves his family knows about his dwiddlings. Informed consent right? Anyone purchasing porn must get a porn permit, must be renewed every year. (it’s fun to have others take over your sex organs isn’t it !)

taboga, a fetus isn’t a baby, & I’m on my way to your house to drop off about 10 thousand kids in foster care.

By RF

October 7, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Scott—it’s encouraging for those of us in the 40-somethings to see that at least one sport hasn’t been taken over by the barely-past-puberty crowd. I was just amazed at Smoltz’s control and precision last night. To go that many innings hitless is awesome for any pitcher. We are definitely going to have to play tight and tough in Houston—they aren’t giving an inch, but I think we can do it. This is the smoothest I’ve seen the Braves in a while. They’ve got bats and fielding working great for them.

By Renee

October 7, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Thats the problem with govt. if you let ‘em regulate one thing, they want to regulate everything.

Exactly!

By FatMoose

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

Sarah,

Apples and oranges.

And hate that it will sound condesending, but if you can compare the two; Your opinion really is not worth looking into.

Do you really need a comparison disecting your point to show it’s inane?

And once again; it is also excusive: which weakens your possible comrads - bc, like DX, I am pro-choice for humans with a body; not JUST females.

But you are only pro-female and even put guys on the ‘your not welcome’ list.

It is fine that I am not welcome, but do not act as though I should have some stake in what you are making your exculsive issue.

By Bruce

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

I wasn’t at the game last night but my wife had to tell me several times the holfd it down because the kids were in bed asleep. I couldn’t help myself when McCain hit that homer. Can Smoltz pitch again tomorrow night please……..

By Put Up

October 7, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

DeltaX,

Tabooga is one Terry M. Adams of Cummings, Georgia.

Some of you might remember that Cummings was in the news in the late 1980s for it’s incredible tolerance toward African Americans ( that’s sarcasm for those that don’t remember).

Tabooga by his own admission once posted as Terry, whose email address was the same as a Terry M. Adams, who for some reason has had several letters published in AJC.

Google “Terry M. Adams” and you will find that he spends a lot of time as an opinion giver. You will recognize the similarities in rhetoric.

By kimberly

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

Scott, good question, and I am happy to answer. My preference is for government to regulate that which affects communities, economies, and the environment, like manufacturers, big businesses, and so forth. What those businesses do affects the lives and communities around them. (Remember the de-regulation of natural gas in Georgia, on the basis it would increase service and lower prices via competition? Remember the subsequent wallet RAPE the following January?) I don’t think having money should entitle people to walk all over everyone else for the purpose of making more.

Conversely, I think the government should stay OUT of the lives and decisions of individuals. As long as they’re not infringing on anyone else’s rights, I don’t care if gay people marry, if you smoke pot in your living room while watching porn, or what your t-shirt says on the front of it. I think privacy is a pivitol part of the right to persue happines, and that government should butt out of private, individual behavior.

What we have now, in my observation, is the opposite, where the super-rich are free to do whatever they want in the interest of making a buck, but the religio-crazies and nationalistic zealots are taking over what individuals are allowed to do. That is my PERCEPTION of the world around me at the moment.

By Ken

October 7, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Kimberly… Unfortunately I can’t make all men be better husbands/fathers the same that I can’t make women be better wives/mothers. However, I can say that I beleive we should promote prevention of a problem rather than simply treating the symptom.

Sandy… I apologize, but the point was we should do everything to reduce the perceived needs. Of course $h1t happens, but those should be exceptions, not the norm. Also… If your friend was a Catholic devout enough to not get her tubes tied, she would also be devout enough to not have an abortion.

I would never outlaw abortion, but I would hope we could reduce the need, real or perceived. That can be done through contraception and making better decisions about our sexual partners. That will NEVER eliminate the all situations where folks perceive the need for abortion, however, should we not make every attempt to reduce it to it’s smallest amount.

By lozen

October 7, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

Scott, if someone of another race told me to shut up about race because I didn’t know the first little thing about what I’m talking about, I would shut up! And if you, as a man were talking about having a vasectomy and I started telling you vasectomies should be illegal and you should not be allowed to have one because you do you’re a murderer killing babies, then you would be entitled to tell me to shut up!

By Whiley

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

“Your opinion really is not worth looking into.” FAtMoose, Your daughter will feel a lot different than she does right now after hearing & feeling that for the next 30 years. Oh yes I remember the good ole days before I realized what was really going on around me.

I’d like to see the comparison on this research paper, now, & later. lol

Ask her why aren’t men being questioned about staying at home or having a high powered career? Ask her to find out how many guys she knows who will be trying to figure out how to balace a career & children?

By FatMoose

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

whiley,

And that is what you do not get.

If they passed a law that I needed a permit to buy a porn mag; I would take up a freedom issue that included females (all people matter of fact).

For they too would be effected by the law in some way - so it would again be about ALL people, not ‘guys should not have to deal with a permit, but forgent others rights in this.’ That would be a selfish arguement and do little good compared to the greater function.

White women worked with black women regarding womens rights: That was a group being inclusionary as possible.

This follows the same function: People should have rights over their bodies.

(My daughter is 17 and laughing at you, but so is my 11yo)

BTW - Do you knwo what happens to a doctor that performs an illegal operation? Jail. So unless you want all the doctors performing abortions to be female (which starts another sexist issue); it does effect everybody in legal terms.

By taboga

October 7, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

I am a popular fellow!

Now, all the little rubes are scouring the internet - trying to find out!

Is Chris Matthews gonna interrupt his regularly scheduled program tonight - to report on this!

I like the way you put it: “Taboga is ONE…” The big detective just broke the case and has now revealed the great discovery!

I know I have said it before, but it is worth repeating: I should have to PAY for the entertainment that you nitwits provide!

By FatMoose

October 7, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Lozen, Yet, the below never happend(show me where DX or I said such!). I am not anti-abortion: it is that you have no reading comprehension.

Scott, if someone of another race told me to shut up about race because I didn’t know the first little thing about what I’m talking about, I would shut up! And if you, as a man were talking about having a vasectomy and I started telling you vasectomies should be illegal and you should not be allowed to have one because you do you’re a murderer killing babies, then you would be entitled to tell me to shut up

By taboga

October 7, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Delta,

In case you missed the post - I am one Terry M. Adams of Cumming, Ga. You know, that place where all the racists live!

In case you missed “Put Up’s” post…

By Whiley

October 7, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

“My daughter is 17 and laughing at you, but so is my 11yo)”

That’s good. She recognizes sarcastic humor when she reads it. But I’m serious about the other stuff. Give her a few years, then she will discover for herself. Then hopefully she will become rightfully angry & speak out like the rest of us. Good thing you are pro choice. That is a good thing.

Maybe she should write a paper on why there are so many sex offenders on the loose & why women are still not safe anywhere. Why is childrearing still a woman’s responsibility? Why don’t more young men use birth control? Why aren’t more household duties shared by both working spouses equally? (in most homes not all, but most) Why are there no religious groups that take all rights away from men instead of women? Why do 70 year old men using Viagra think anyone wants to see them naked anyway? So many papers to write.

By taboga

October 7, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

Put up,

You need break the news again - no one has noticed.

By Sandy/Sanhan

October 7, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Ken, I agree on both counts. Pro-choice people want to see the need and number of abortions reduced. I have never met anyone who rejoiced about getting an abortion.

I agree that my friend is devout and would never get an abortion, and that is her choice, which I respect. But imagine having MS and having to make that “Sophie’s choice” about her unborn child (per her beliefs) and having her life cut short and not being around to care for a special needs child. (She had a hysterectomy for ‘fibroids’; some speculate that this was a “padded diagnosis” to get her insurance to pay for it (she works for a church and they don’t have to pay for medical decisions based on birth control). I’m just relieved that this is one less anxiety she’ll have to face in an otherwise painful future…

The argument has become so politicized, that people forget that real lives are affected, and these decisions are best made privately.

This is an emotional flashpoint for women because we can’t imagine a man being questioned by the government regarding his fertility and saving his own life.

By Scott

October 7, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Lozen - Would I be entitled? Or rather should it be that you are entitled to your opinion and are free to express it. Doesn’t freedom to express an opinion fall to everyone? I would think that if you or I are free to express our opinions then everyone should have that right, and the respect of that right

By FatMoosesDaughter

October 7, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Whiley,

We are not laughing with u, but @ u.

You are seriously the most damaged female I have met. I speak up and am bolstered by BOTH my parents to do so.

You live in a very different world than I; maybe you should surround yourself with better people (men and women).

By DeltaX

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

taboga,

We all saw the post.

We just do not really care.

I already got it that you have no intention in proving your beliefs in an arena that you cannot run from and requires a spine.

Right on FatMoose and daughter.

By taboga

October 7, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Delta,

It wasn’t me who thinks you care - it was “Put Up”. Didn’t that scoop just set you back a bit? It was as if Osama Bin Laden had just been captured!

I am just curious as to whether you believe him or not?

I already know what the others think…

By Billy

October 7, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

We already knew that Taboga was Terry. Anybody that has been on this blog for a year or so, remembers Terry and his rantings. It’s the same rhetoric that has annoyed us for a year and will continue to annoy us.

Where is the infamous Boscoe that used to post on here all the time? That fellow lived an exciting life.

By Dan

October 7, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

I don’t know how it got to this subject but my 2 cents. The abortion subject certainly is amazingly political and as a man I usually refrain from it because it doesn’t seem to have a possible resolution. I believe that is because people on either side are arguing completely different questions. a pro choice poster said ( and I am not singling you out) that they can’t imagine the gov regulating the fertility of men. Well to pro lifers that isn’t even part of the argument. They are arguing when life starts. But from a personal perspective and I have experienced an abortion from the male side (I found out after the fact, one of those on again off again relationships) I cannot reconcile the the sadness and feeling of loss that accompanies a miscarriage with viewing an abortion in the same point of gestation, as a fertility choice. Either the sadness is an inane unwarranted feeling or the choice is no different than aborting a day old child. I don’t believe there is any objective logic that could say other wise. Not trying to say there is definitive proof one way or another, just throwing out a perception

By DeltaX

October 7, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

taboga,

It wasn’t me who thinks you care

Then why did you post about it THREE times trying to get peoples attention????

By Whiley

October 7, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

FatMoosesDaughter hello ! Love the name lol

Am I Seriously damaged? Because I speak out against obviously stupid things? lol hardly damaged at all. Do I have a few scars? Sure everyone does.

Is it considered dysfunctional to point out & acknowledge obvious garbage? Would you call a guy pointing out disturbing things damaged? I think not. Write a paper on that. I am happy to hear you speak out. Keep that up you will need it.
We don’t live in a different world, you just haven’t had the chance to live in it quite yet. You are still sheltered by your family. Enjoy it while you can :) The best thing parents can do for their daughters is just tell the truth. Get an education, get a good career so you can really live better, not just get by. Get educated on birth control & your rights. Family planning determines everything in your life. In the meantime you’ll have idiots judging you about everything, what you look like, your weight, your sex life, friends, jobs,etc etc etc you name it. You will discover double standards around it seems at times every corner. But if you are outspoken & strong, you’ll learn to ignore most of it like we all do. There really isn’t much choice.

Like I said, you’ll see, give it time.

By lozen

October 7, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

No woman should ever be forced to carry a foetus she does not want. No woman should ever be forced to become a mother if that is not what she wants. If women cannot control their reproductive lives, then they are not free human beings. In China women are told by the gov’t how many children they are allowed to have. In the US there are many who want the gov’t to tell American women they must have children they are not prepared to care for or simply do not want. Any time any gov’t, religious organization, or person tells women what they must do with their bodies, it creates havoc. Women are the only ones who can bring life into the world; they are the only ones who can decide when to bring life into the world.

By Dusty

October 7, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Putup, great cyber sleuth of everybody’s business, who asked you to go snooping around? I noticed in your great zeal for revelation you forgot to mention your name, your address, the racial climate of your locale and other pertinent information. I am sure that by next week you will reward us with all those missing facts and the glowing information about your illustrious self. In the meantime, Putup, MYOB. It is a concept of which you seem unaware. Another name for it is ignorance.

By FatMoose

October 7, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

Can I perform open heart surgery on my brother?

Why not? He agreed and it is his body.

(Someone want to engage this and go slowly, point by point?Lozen, Whiley - you are welcome, but stay on topic)

By Scott

October 7, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Kimberly - I couldn’t agree with you more, I think government should butt out of most individual decisions. That’s what I mean by giving them and inch and they will take the mile. You want them to leave you alone, but you want them to provide many social programs (e.g. SS, health care, etc.) It’s a double edged sword. The government never gives something for nothing or makes a decision that does not give them an advantage or benefit. The only way for you to truly be free of government infringement on your privacy is for them to have only the slightest power to regulate things for you. They will not intervene where you want and leave what you don’t. That is why voting and being aware of the candidates ENTIRE resume is so important. Our vote is the strongest power we have, yet so few exercise it from any political background, regardless of the rhetoric.

IMO, you have some good points and are generally well spoken, but the constant labeling and obvious anti-religious bigotry you display routinely on here detracts from the intelligent points you make. You don’t like “religio-crazies ” saying things or advocating what you disagree with. There are others that dislike being told by “commie pinko hippie liberals” what to do with their lives. Neither display of prejudice is helpful, but does hinder the free exchange of ideas and understanding because most people, once confronted with that kind of vitriol are tuning the other out and will miss any good information, or at least understanding, that the person speaking disrespectfully might have to offer.

By lozen

October 7, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

FatMoose and daughter (and I’m not sure it truly is FatMoose/daughter) : Whateva….

Whiley, isn’t it wonderful to be tough, old women who have gone through years of misogynist crap and know what we know? Amazing we’re still being faced with this stuff isn’t it? But Whiley, don’t say any dirty words darling! You know women aren’t supposed to get angry or curse. It is so unfeminine!

By Just Being Me

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

LOL DeltaX.

If Taboga=Terry, and Terry is an admitted racist, why then wouldn’t Taboga admit to being racist?

By FatMoosesDaughter

October 7, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Whiley, Am I Seriously damaged? Because I speak out against obviously stupid things?

No, because u say mean things that r not pertinant to the topic. Seems u have not written a paper in a loooong time. U have to have a point and stick to it.

I have no intention of ‘seeing’ the way u do.

And yes I do have years of learning, but being in my second year of college at 17; I believe I can use the words my dad used with his dad during a heavey talk: You see what u did wrong now, at 51yrs (guessing); I see it at 17 - so no, I will not inheret(sp?) ur wrongs and short-comings causing me to *see things the way u do.

I will transcend you.

By Whiley

October 7, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

“Why not? He agreed and it is his body.”

Can I force you to pass a lawn ornament out your anus (slowly for up to 24 hours) against your will because you had sex?

(It’s also against God’s will to allow you pain medication)

By taboga

October 7, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

That guy is been around under several different names. I think the last one he used was “Eriik” or something like that. He posts, runs away, then comes back out under yet another name.

I like to have fell out of my chair with his proclamation though: “Taboga is one…” He reminded me of one of those round and balding, self-important county sheriffs who gets his 15 minutes of fame by announcing that he’s apprehended the suspect - “The suspect is one…”

This stuff is too much!

By lozen

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

FatMoose, idiotic question about doing surgery on your brother; now who’s comparing apples and oranges. Why don’t you let him do heart surgery on you? I’m beginning to think Toe Booger is Dusty, and is posting under FatMoose today and under MichaelH and FatMoosedaughter! I don’t care who he is out there in the world. His opinions are unimportant. He is so stupid he’s not worth any thought or any notice. I don’t need to know his real name to know that.

By Whiley

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

“No, because u say mean things that r not pertinant to the topic.”

I forgot, ladies don’t raise their voice, speak out of turn, or get angry about anything. Who would want to marry us if we do that??? lol !

The original topic is stupid stupid & I’m sorry but SEXIST SEXIST SEXIST. Just wait, when you get a lifetime of this stuff you’ll understand. So, print all this out & put it away for a few years. You’ll see. lol

By taboga

October 7, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

If Taboga=Terry, and Terry is an admitted racist, why then wouldn’t Taboga admit to being racist?

That’s not what he said. What he was saying was that I admitted to being Terry - not a racist. He just threw that stuff about Cumming being a “racist” place back in the 80’s so that an inference would be drawn.

And I guess it worked, hunh?

By taboga

October 7, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

You need to go have a drink - I am not sure if you even know that you’re posting as Lozen.

Make it a double.

By Put Up

October 7, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Terry, are you as mouthy in person as you are online?

By Scott

October 7, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Whiley - yes the topic is sexist…but wait, written on by two women..hold on, women can’t be sexist can they? That can’t be right….

By FatMoose

October 7, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Whiley,

You cannot stay on topic for ONE post?

I really do not understand your ignorance. It was in plain words that I was offering up a discussion beginning, and you still want to post like a kid. And even though I nicely invited you to join; you chose to disrespect the two things I asked: stay on topic/go slow - which btw are usually NORMAL aspects of conversation.

My daughter (think what you want lozen) held her own; and with self respect and not to post like a fool.

By Just Being Me

October 7, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Oops. I misread Putup’s post. But honestly, now that I think about it, I wouldn’t even care if Taboga was racist. It’s not like I’d be surprisingly disappointed or shocked. Big deal.

By Whiley

October 7, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

“women can’t be sexist can they? “

Of course they can. They are the ones that just go along with any social rules & crap that’s around. OR… they’re religious OR… like on Women to Women, they really don’t realize the disservice they do to women readers.

By FatMoose

October 7, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I have not comapred anything yet. Did you OR Whiley EVER learn how to read directions? Reading comprehension?

FMsDaughter here,

Whiley,

The original topic was by two females! Whats up with complaining to the board about sexism with what u have posted about fixing male slaves!

You older ladies really are bitter and have skewed perspectives. Glad I have such open parents WITH intelligence.

By Whiley

October 7, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

FatMoose settle down. This is not a college course or contest. We are allowed to have a little fun now aren’t we? You need to read between the lines also. I am quite sure I am the only one trying to bring back in the discussion of should educated women become leaders in the workplace instead of choosing to become stay-at-home moms. Which by the way is a stupid rediculous sexist question.

By lozen

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

RF back to your 2:00 post. So you think it’s great for a 70 year old to take Viagra so he can get it up and get a woman pregnant. In other words, fine that he can still cause the problem even at 70! Fine if he’s dead in three years leaving her alone with the problem. She should then have to wait 24 hours to think it over to be sure she’s not making a decision she’ll regret if she wants an abortion! He never has to stop for a second to think it over although he’s half the problem if there’s an unwanted pregnancy. But she needs to wait 24 hours! Double standards reign! I know three women who had abortions who never regretted it for one second.

By Dan

October 7, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

If I didn’t know any better (and maybe I don’t) I would think this forum was a debate by our elected senators on the color of an Orange and wheter or not the name was insulting to oom-pah-loom-pahs and how many billion dollars we should spend to investigate. Geeze take a breath everyone

By Scott

October 7, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

Of course they can. They are the ones that just go along with any social rules & crap that’s around. OR… they’re religious OR… like on Women to Women, they really don’t realize the disservice they do to women readers.

OR they can despise men and blame every bad moment of their life on the male existence, OR they can be atheist, OR they can be agnostic,….

Sine misogynistic seems to be one of the favorite words on here, try this one…

Misandry, sometimes called Androphobia, is the hatred of men, for being men.

There are many different forms of misandry. In its most overt expression, a misandrist will openly hate all males, and will hurt them simply because they are male.

Other forms of misandry may be more subtle. Some misandrists may simply hold all males under suspicion, or may hate males who do not fall into one or more acceptable categories. Entire cultures may be said to be misandric if they treat males in ways that can be seen as hateful.

Misandry in popular culture The common perception of men as being sex-crazed and overbearing. The common view of men only wanting their wives to bear sons and not daughters. See female infanticide and male infanticide. The viewpoint that women are superior to men The typical sitcom male’s bumbling ineptitude (especially fathers) The tendency of men as unable to take care of themselves, but rather needing a woman (in the form of a mother or a wife) to take care of them. Gaston, a character from Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, is such a man, but husbands and wives in real life need to take care of each other.

By Scott

October 7, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Since, not Sine

By kimberly

October 7, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Scott, you have a point about my labeling of “religio-crazies.” I hope people don’t take that to mean anyone who goes to church. When I use it, I’m referrnig to people who proclaim that homosexuality is an abomination for which God will punish America if we don’t DO something about them. Or Pat Robertson who demands we all turn our lives over to Jesus, but then says we should just assassinate the elected leader of another country, or that feminism equals witchcraft and lesbianism, and so forth. Worship is one thing, but some people are just slap CRAZY!

By taboga

October 7, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

FatMoose settle down. This is not a college course or contest. We are allowed to have a little fun now aren’t we?

No you’re not! Absolutely not. This blog is where all the prestigious intellectuals meet to try and impress everyone!

By FatMoose

October 7, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

Whiley,

First, what part of ‘stay on topic’ do you not understand?

And you wrote: I am quite sure I am the only one trying to bring back in the discussion of should educated women become leaders in the workplace instead of choosing to become stay-at-home moms. Which by the way is a stupid rediculous sexist question.

Which is what everybody discussed/agreed upon on MONDAY.

Lozen, And what responsibility does the the women dating this 70yro have in preventing pregnancy?

Can you name all the choices she has to prevent fertilization? Then name all the options a guy has before fertilization?

Name all the ways a woman has to prevent a birth after egg being fertilized. Now name all the ways a man has to prevent a birth after an egg being fertilized.

Seems pretty clear women have a near monopoly on control in this area; but you do not want to take responsibility for ANY of them, but the last.

By Scott

October 7, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

Kimberly - The reason I talked about that quote was to see if you actually meant everyone who has a religious faith or the extremists who use their religion as a battering ram. I did take it as you bashing anyone who has faith, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for clarifying for me.

By kimberly

October 7, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

Longstanding forumla for successful American sitcom: Wife is DEAD. Father must now raise children with the help of supporting characters. Alternate tender moments with awkward moments. Hilarity ensues. What’s up with THAT? Just wondering what that says about us.

By taboga

October 7, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Oops. I misread Putup’s post. But honestly, now that I think about it, I wouldn’t even care if Taboga was racist. It’s not like I’d be surprisingly disappointed or shocked. Big deal.

I have no doubt that you wouldn’t be surprised, no doubt…

By Scott

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

Kimberly - True, so true…of course we have shows like “Nanny 911”, “A Simple Life”, “stacked” and the like…talk about the dumbing down of American television….where’s the bottom?

By taboga

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

Terry, are you as mouthy in person as you are online?

Bobby, do you change your name as much in person as you do online? Do you play little childish tricks on people in person like you do online?

Or is it just us heterosexuals that you do that with?

By lozen

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

Whiley, I don’t believe that’s FatMoose today or his daughter. FatMoose makes sense when he posts and this imposter doesn’t. FatMoosedaughter, for someone who claims to be in her second year of college, needs quite a bit of help. Because I am nothing if not helpful, I will point out the following:
It is not pertinant sweetie, it’s pertinent. The correct spelling is not heavey dear; it’s heavy. At least you did catch inheret. Just to be helpful, it’s inherit. Spelling does count on those papers you know? Now I won’t tell you that it’s ridiculous for a 17 year old to think she can tell me (a woman old enough to be your grandmother who experienced life before women’s movement), or whiley who is much older than you also, anything about how we should act or speak or express ourselves. I won’t tell you you haven’t experienced enough of life yet to know what you’re talking about. I want to be kind but I’m very irritable today and not my usual reasonable self but I won’t tell you those things. I will tell you some societies have valued their old people and their experience and wisdom and in those societies a 17 year old would be ashamed to address her elders as you do.

By Whiley

October 7, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

Gosh Scott, that cancels out all the garbage we have to put up with. Clearly Misandry is a ramped epidemic that have men living in fear for their lives, bodies & mind. lol

Gosh, all those sex offenders that fill the registries are innocent victims of misandry. Misandry is what creates domestic violence. Come to think of it, the Atlanta shooter was just a victim of misandry. Lets let them all free.

“Some misandrists may simply hold all males under suspicion” You know you’re right, we should trust all men, especially the ones we don’t know in parking lots, or lets say all the ones we date. We should all start allowing them to babysit our kids too. I think I’ll start answering my door late at night when someone knocks. Tonight I’m going for a night stroll through a park in the dark.

By Shut up

October 7, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Put Up,

You are a pefect weiner. Let’s find out what you stand for. Tabooga tells it like it is. Why don’t you stop hiding out there and debate with some of the people on here.

By taboga

October 7, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

You need another drink. Now you’re out here arguing with a 17 year old. Give the girl a break - she’s just 17 and has a right to her opinion as well. Why in the world would that girl want to take any advice from a bitter old woman like you?

By kimberly

October 7, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Hmmm… I don’t do the “reality” shows. Yuck. Okay, sometimes I watch Trading Spaces…. With regard to gender roles in the family, I have wondered many times what it is about a widower with kids that equates to a good family sitcom in prime time. Andy Griffith, Courtship of Eddie’s father, Family Affair, My Three Sons, Full House…. I’m sure there are more. Oooooh, Dad has a date. That’ll be awkward. We’ll never mention the women who gave birth to these kids. Americans will laugh their tails off! Are any other women creeped out from this, or is it just me?

By taboga

October 7, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

There you go again - missing the big picture. You’ve taken a handful out of hundreds of sitcoms and are trying to make a point.

There are also several others with just the Mother, with the vast majority of them being with the full family.

By Scott

October 7, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

Gosh Whiley, how surprising you would miss the irony of the post. What was I thinking? Women are perfect. We men are just animals and barely worth keeping around. Life would be all roses without thorns if women could just eliminate all those pesky men. Women never drown their children. Women never leave their families. Women never cheat on their significant others. Women never murder out of anger, its probably just a result of male oppression or post partum depression. Women never lie, or steal, or manipulate. But if they do, shucks, men probably drove ‘em to it. Yeah, that seems fair and logical. What was I thinkin’? Well, I guess I wasn’t. How could I possibly be intelligent, fair, respectful, and empathetic. Heck, I’m just a man, and a straight one at that, so I don’t even get bonus points for being homosexually enlightened.

We should just trust all women, because darn it, their just super.

Or wait…maybe we should just not judge people based on their gender, race, sexual orientation, age…MAYBE, JUST MAYBE we should evaluate people based on their individual behaviors and actions, rather than on broad sweeping judgements of groups as a whole.

By FatMoosesDaughter

October 7, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

Yeah, I really do not worry about spelling online. If that bothers you (see, I will even spell ‘you’ for ‘you’), I can keep my spelling up to par. I have to do that for my papers anyways; I just normally do not worry about such little things in chat - neither do my friends.

You do sound like a crusty old lady, and I like the freedom that us kids now have to speak our minds - instead of your age when we were told to respect elders like you that deserved NO respect. Maybe you should exit the battle - it is no longer yours to fight, and you are not fighting for me.

Whats the derivative of the area of a sphere? Have to google it, dont you? Retire already;)

By whiley

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

“Why in the world would that girl want to take any advice from a bitter old woman like you?”

Well, if she doesn’t soon I’d say she’s on a path to 4 kids & a boyfriend in jail. Somebody tell that girl the truth how things really are before it’s too late !

By whiley

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

oops too late.

By taboga

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

Well, if she doesn’t soon I’d say she’s on a path to 4 kids & a boyfriend in jail. Somebody tell that girl the truth how things really are before it’s too late!

Whiley,

Pay attention. Do you and Lozen realize that you are arguing back and forth with a 17 year old girl on a blog?

And just what would you have her do Whiley - go through life hating men? Do you want her to feel like “Men are a danger to women and children” - like you once stated out here?

Do you draw no line between make-believe and absolute paranoia?

Unless she heeds the advice of the wizards Whiley and Lozen - she’s going to have 4 children and a husband in jail?

For crying out loud!

By FatMoose

October 7, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

Nice posts Scott.

Whiley,

You know what happens to the girl who’s mother constantly warns her of being on a path to 4 kids & a boyfriend in jail. and then tells *that girl the truth how things really are before it’s too late *

She ends up: on a path to 4 kids & a boyfriend in jail.

You do not even see your own cycle.

By lozen

October 7, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

Scott, a cartoon for you: A man is sitting watching the evening news: The reporter says “Six women were killed by their husbands this week.” He says, “Women, why do they hate men so much?” The reporter says, “Ten women were beaten by their boyfriends this week.” He says, “Damn, women are so hostile!” The reporter says, “Women make 73 cents for every dollar men make.” He says, “Women are just paranoid and crazed toward us!” Do you get the picture?

By FatMoosesDaughter

October 7, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this

Whiley and Lozen,

You are a dissapointment.

By Whiley

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

So if you tell her the truth, she’ll hate men. OK, then. Tell her to talk to strangers, get rides from people she doesn’t know, it’s OK if someone touches her, it’s ok to accept a drink from a guy you don’t know, my goodness, we don’t want to appear rude now do we !

lol Oh god we haven’t come a long way baby after all. Well, some of us have.

By FatMoosesDaughter

October 7, 2005 05:14 PM | Link to this

taboga,

Yep.

A 17yro handed them their crusty butts on a platter. Gosh it is disturbing to see women exist that think like that.

I feel I could trust a guy not to backstab me anyday compared to those two angry ladies. They really should have attended school, but that I understand was not as possible in their era; and do applaud them making that possible for me (or did they just complain I wonder and others did the work?). But at the same time, I am going to use my education, even if that means schoolin’ those two.

By FatMoosesDaughter

October 7, 2005 05:17 PM | Link to this

Whiley,

Its not if you tell girls the truth, but Your Truth.

Your not so smart, huh?

By FatMoose

October 7, 2005 05:25 PM | Link to this

Good topic, but you will still have no ability to stay on it.