AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2005 > November > 03 > Entry
Was the Miers’ nomination a carefully planned ruse?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The earth didn’t shake when President Bush nominated yet another conservative white male to the U.S. Supreme Court. After the Miers embarrassment, the nomination of Samuel Alito almost seemed planned. Now Bush can say he tried to nominate a woman but, hey, it just didn’t work out.
Before the debacle that was the Harriett Miers nomination, my opinion on confirming a female U.S. Supreme Court justice was neutral. I simply didn’t care. Politics were more important to me than gender. Well, that’s all changed. The Miers nomination hurt women, and gender means everything to me now.
Little political impact befalls men when the occasional buffoon is crony-appointed. Men have a history long enough to withstand even the recent top-level scandals. It’s not about being “male” when one of them screws up; it’s about being corrupt or inept.
The same doesn’t hold true for women. As the recent “Saturday Night Live” comedy skit egged us to consider, why is it that Harriett Miers is the only Bush crony who has to admit she’s a fraud? Well, maybe because she’s female.
As most women in positions of power know, the first impression a woman makes could be her last impression. I suspect President Bush knew this when he overlooked the many qualified women in favor of an unqualified sycophant.
“The Miers nomination was seen as an affirmative action pick,” says Dr. Crystal Hoyt, Professor of Leadership Studies at the University of Richmond. “Her nomination only served to reinforce the biased perception that individuals associated with affirmative action are less competent than those selected on merit alone.” And to women’s detriment, Hoyt explains, “this affirmative action perception of Miers’ nomination only serves to strengthen the bias that women are presumed to be less competent leaders and less worthy of elite leadership positions than men.”
Thank you President Bush, for taking women back a decade. And thanks to the women who helped get Bush elected, thinking that he wouldn’t get the chance to stack the deck in conservatives’ favor. We’ll have many years ahead to contemplate the disintegration of women’s rights as a steady reminder of your choice.
Rebuttal
The disastrous Miers nomination was a carefully-planned ruse? Oh, that makes me feel so much better. I thought it was just an embarrassing mistake. But now that I think about it… what a nifty strategy, to nominate an under-qualified woman to the high court! The president could set back women a decade by cleverly reinforcing the idea that they need affirmative action help! And he could anger his conservative base just when he needed it most, and tank his approval ratings at the same time!
Such a ruse would clearly be as much of a stroke of genius as the idea that it existed in the first place.
It is indeed unfortunate that the under-qualified nominee was a woman. But let’s be honest here: in 1981, retiring justice Sandra Day O’onnor wasn’t exactly the most qualified pick, either. She’d been a state judge for a few years, and a state legislator before that… and had never once handled a federal case. But Reagan had promised to nominate a woman if given the chance, and nominate one he did.
In contrast to Diane’s charges of bias, I’m thankful that Bush does women the respect of not viewing the empty seat as “the woman’s seat.” I’m thankful that he resisted the pressure to nominate another woman, and instead put forward the eminently qualified Samuel Alito.
Where O’Connor let public opinion and desire for consensus color what should have been strictly constitutional decisions — in one 1989 case she found “evidence of a national consensus” on the topic at hand — Alito has made multiple rulings that conflict with both his presumed personal beliefs and public opinion. Including, Diane will be interested to know, multiple pro-choice rulings where legal precedent was clear, even though his mother tells the press that he’s “against abortion.”
In these contentious days, we desperately need a Supreme Court justice who strictly examines legislative actions under the Constitution, not a token to fill the “woman’s seat.” As Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel for Concerned Women for America, told me, “It makes a farce of equal justice under law if we’re going to enforce affirmative action on the Supreme Court.”
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By bonus
November 7, 2005 04:20 AM | Link to this
submodules infantile:justifications?canvasser:carefulness multiplexing unwritten?goose aggregating.shrivel game juego casino linea http://www.casinos4spain.com/juego-casino-linea.html#-game-juego-casino-linea http://www.casinos4spain.com/juego-casino-linea.html#-game-juego-casino-linea folds:kimono
By Gary Harrison
November 7, 2005 08:08 AM | Link to this
Who cares? Will ya”ll still be debating non-relevant stuff like this when the Eastern sky rolls up at Jesus’ imminent return. You need to make up your mind: is Bush mentally challenged or not? And how important is THAT compared to eternity and where you will spend it?
By Brian Curtis
November 7, 2005 08:23 AM | Link to this
Well, I usually agree with Diane, but I honestly think it was a case of simple clueless arrogance. That would be well in keeping with Bush’s prior decisions. No “conspiracy” is needed to explain his choice of another unqualified crony.
By Jack
November 7, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this
No. Bush is not that smart.
By SUZAN
November 7, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this
Okay this could not be a more boring subject.
By Billy
November 7, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this
I don’t know if it was a ruse or not. The Bush administration could be so full of itself that Bush & Co. truly believed Meiers would get through without a problem. Then they’d have a justice who believed Bush could do no wrong. But I’m not so sure that this is the case, that it wasn’t a ruse.
If it was a ruse, then I don’t think it was aimed, as Diane thinks, at Affirmative Action. No, it was geared toward us being more accepting of the “second choice”. This is like when my wife goes shopping. I ask her when she gets home how much she spent. “$240,” she says. “Really?” I ask. “No,” she says. “Really $140. But don’t you feel better about it now?”
The Democrats let Roberts waltz onto the court without much of a fight. They were holding back their “political capital”, to use a term Bush loves, so they could make a stand against the nomination for the second spot should he/she be unqualified/wacko. They did that, though much of the Meiers resistance
By Billy
November 7, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this
I don’t know if it was a ruse or not. The Bush administration could be so full of itself that Bush & Co. truly believed Meiers would get through without a problem. Then they’d have a justice who believed Bush could do no wrong. But I’m not so sure that this is the case, that it wasn’t a ruse.
If it was a ruse, then I don’t think it was aimed, as Diane thinks, at Affirmative Action. No, it was geared toward us being more accepting of the “second choice”. This is like when my wife goes shopping. I ask her when she gets home how much she spent. “$240,” she says. “Really?” I ask. “No,” she says. “Really $140. But don’t you feel better about it now?”
The Democrats let Roberts waltz onto the court without much of a fight. They were holding back their “political capital”, to use a term Bush loves, so they could make a stand against the nomination for the second spot should he/she be unqualified/wacko. They did that, though much of the Meiers resistance came from the right. Now the questio in whether or not the Democrats will be willing to put up a fight on the Alito nomination.
By Billy
November 7, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this
Dammit…
By DeltaX
November 7, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this
I think that Rove has been to busy to make the decisions for the last few months with his own leak drama; therefore Bush is having to make it up as he goes along and doesn’t have the smarts for it.
Rough time to take off the training wheels.
By The72John
November 7, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this
Using a stalking horse is not exactly a new political tactic. Bush has shown that, if nothing else, he’s good at the political game. I don’t put it past him, or at least his staff, to pull out a tried-and-true method of difusing opposition to a potentially objectionable candidate.
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this
Suz, don’t let Lozen or Whiley hear you say that…
By Steve SC
November 7, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this
It was no ruse. What’s been demonstrated over recent weeks is that Bush talks, but doesn’t listen. I think he was genuinely stunned by the reaction of religious conservatives. Alito should be confirmed easily enough, but a really inspired choice would have been Lindsay Graham. He is strongly conservative, would have gotten 90 votes in the Senate, and would have removed a potential running mate for John McCain in 2008.
By blablabla
November 7, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this
Diane says that it wasn’t about gender when the Miers nomination first came up. That’s BS. With Diane, it’s all about gender. Remember, this is coming from a woman who takes every possible chance to bash men, regardless of the politics involved. For her to say politics was originally more important than gender is laughable, and a flat out lie.
Nobody in their right mind would think that a President with such weak standing as Bush has presently would want to nominate a disaster, regardless of their gender. To even insinuate that Bush nominated Miers so that she would fail, and that her failure would “set women back a decade”, and give Bush the chance to nominate the staunch conservative that he really wanted to nominate all along is such a weak grasp at straws, it’s pathetic.
One thought on the quote from the Dr that Diane uses…“Her nomination only served to reinforce the biased perception that individuals associated with affirmative action are less competent than those selected on merit alone.â€? Aren’t the people chosen “on merit alone” the most qualified and competent since they were chosen purely on merit? By definition anyone else selected for any other reason is less qualified and quite likely, less competent.
By 2D
November 7, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this
We’ve has other nominees rejected (see Robert Bork), so does it really matter…?
I would rather see what folks think about Judge Alito.
By Whiley
November 7, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
lol ! Just Being Me !
:)
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this
Borrrrr-ring!!
Okay, I’m changing the subject for a minute. (For those of you who are still hanging around)…
My 9th grader came home with a (hideous) “diamond” cluster ring from her new boyfriend on Friday. My initial reaction was to tell her that she has to give it back to him b/c boys only give you something when they want something in return. Not to mention, the thing is HIDEOUS!!!
My partner thinks I should let her keep it. I say she’s too young to be receiving presents from boys - especially a ring.
What say you?
By DeltaX
November 7, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this
Well, I say b/c boys only give you something when they want something in return.
Is a crappy thing to put in her mind - or to have in yours.
I would bet that it disapears soon enough, and would not make a big deal of it. But that is assuming you have a relationship with your daughter that alows her to talk to you about whats going on in her life openly. If so, just stay tuned in and monitor her feelings regarding the boy and herself.
Also, 9th grade is a little old to be taking things away so abrubtly, and I would bet it would not do much for your relationship - except that she will hide the next ring. And if you use that b/c boys only give you something when they want something in return, you would be damaging her perception of guys [do you want her to question every gift from every guy?That is what she will learn, and miss out on the genuine ones] and repect for you.
By DeltaX
November 7, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
repect = respect
By Whiley
November 7, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this
9th grader ?? They’ll be broken up by the end of the month. Make sure you tell her again he’ll try to get something else in return for that ring. Keep her schedule busy till he loses interest.
Or, he’s a sweet young boy & it’s all innocent, & they’ll break up in a week or so.
By Renee
November 7, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this
~~waving~~ hey JBM.
I agree with you JBM. My daughter is in the 9th grade and I would definitely make her give it back. Boys do usually give gifts wanting something in return but even so, I send her to school for education, not to be receiving gifts.
I agree with you totally!
By 2D
November 7, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this
Sounds pretty cynical to me. Whiley’s right… They’ll be broken up in a few weeks, a couple of months tops.
By The72John
November 7, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this
Geeze, people, lighten up a little bit…
9th grade isn’t really THAT early to be giving gifts. Not ALL boys are sex-crazed maniacs just waiting to deflower your innocent virgins, and frankly not all 9th grade girls ARE innocent virgins. It may surprise you, but there actually are decent 9th grade boys out there. And school is as much about socialization and the development of social interaction skills as it is about education, hence why home-schooled kids tend to be far less socially adept than their public/private-schooled peers.
I mean, if you’ve raised your child properly then there shouldn’t be anything to worry about. Don’t be so quick to cast aspersions on someone’s motives when you don’t know what they are.
By 2D
November 7, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this
Renee.. Are you trying to tell me you didn’t have boyfriends in high school…? Gimme a break. “Going Steady” or whatever they it call it these days is part of high school.
By FatMoose
November 7, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this
Make sure you tell her again he’ll try to get something else in return for that ring.
I say you tell her she should flirt with him while explaining that she deserves the ring on his mothers hand - and should steal it. Then, after she gets it, break up with him, and flash it around to get with one of the football guys to take care of her.
That would give her the equal but manipulation of girls too - you would not want to leave out any of the stereotypes, now would you? That way you can recreate what you fear - thats what you are shooting for, right?
What a backwards thing to say!
By Renee
November 7, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
No, not at 14. Yes, later in high school, but not at 14.
In my personal opinion, I don’t think at 14, boys or girls, need to be focused on dating, on who likes who, or any of that. I think that brings other problems. My daughter, I’m sure talks to boys at school, and if she has a “boyfriend”, she’s not dating him, talking to him on the phone or anything else. If they see each other at school, and want to call each other that, then whatever.
By DeltaX
November 7, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
The72John
Not ALL boys are sex-crazed maniacs just waiting to deflower your innocent virgins, - Yes, the girl blogers that replied do believe this is either the case in all instances or that the guy deserve to be suspect bc he is born guilty of what other guys do/have done.
and frankly not all 9th grade girls ARE innocent virgins. - Watch it buddy, the girl bloggers on here do believe that the girls/women are innocent all the time.
By Renee
November 7, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this
DeltaX -I don’t believe either one of those. I think teenagers put in positions with other teenagers with raging hormones anything can happen. I am responsible for my teenager, and mine only. So if I choose to raise her in a manner that I find to be agreeable what is the problem.
I raise her to let her know that a boy does not make you. You don’t need a boys attention. What you do need is an education, your parents approval, and to make it in life. If ever my daughter chooses to stray away from whatever morals and teachings I have instilled in her, it isn’t due to me. I let her know every line a boy will tell her to get her panties down. If she pulls them down, it’s not becasue she was nieve and didn’t know, it’s because she wanted to.
By chuck
November 7, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
The plain truth of the matter is, this was not a political ploy…at least in the manner described by Diane. The President wanted to choose another candidate that had no paper trail. He wanted to avoid a huge fight with the democrats. He assumed that those of us who are CONSERVATIVE would just trust him that she was a strict constructionist. That was not going to happen after the Souter and Kennedy debacles. While I much prefer President Bush over either Kerry OR Gore, he has done some things that bring into question his commitment to conservatism. THAT IS WHY THE MEIER NOMINATION WAS QUASHED. I think he finally realized that his base was not as strong as he thought it was and needed to shore up his relationships with conservatives to have any hope of achieving what is left of his agenda. Now if he will just admit he was wrong on NCLB, Medicare prescription benefit, increased bureaucracy, and Katrina spending, we can go back to giving him our full support.
By The72John
November 7, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this
Good Christian values, Chuck. Let those Katrina victims rot. Jesus loves them!
By chuck
November 7, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this
72….bite me
By Jack
November 7, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this
99% of teen boys have only one thing on their minds when it comes to girls. It is NOT good conversation. To think otherwise is foolish. If gifts don’t work next it will be the biological need act. “Yes we should. I’m soooo worked up I need to do it or I may get permanent damage”. Let her keep the ring and her to just say no.
By The72John
November 7, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this
Clever retort, Chuck. I notice you are unable to respond to the substance, however. Tell us, Chuck, in your infinite Christian love, where were the BILLIONS of dollars needed for Katrina relief supposed to come - churches like yours?
I helped raise over $2000 at my office alone. What did YOU do, Chuck, other than b*** about “big government” and “goddless heathens?”
Your compassion for your fellow man is, as always, OVERWHELMING, Chuck.
By Billy
November 7, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
You know, I’m a huge cynic and even I think that’s a cynical attitude to have. I never really dated in high school apart from school dances, but if I did you can be damned sure that had I given a girl any present, be it a ring or a piece of candy, it would have been out of my feelings for her, not out of a desire to get in her pants.
By chuck
November 7, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this
Helped raise over $3000.00 from middle schoolers. Our church sent over $20,000.00 and 75 volunteers. I spent 2 weekends helping cleanup efforts myself.
By The72John
November 7, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
Well Zing. The first sign that you aren’t a complete bastard. Tell me Chuck, how many people did you refuse to help, and how much proslelytizing did you tie in to your help?
By Whiley
November 7, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this
“And if you use that b/c boys only give you something when they want something in return, you would be damaging her perception of guys [do you want her to question every gift from every guy?”
or….don’t tell her & she’ll find out herself that’s usually the case. (like we all did lol)
By chuck
November 7, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
Not one person was refused help by ANY CHURCH GROUP THAT I KNOW OF. There were absolutely NO STRINGS attached to any help given.
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
Geeeez, things were so quiet, I went to play Hearts and didn’t bother to check back! I missed out on all the convo! ~waving~ Heyyyy Renee! Long time no see!
DeltaX - Actually, I’m teaching her what my Dad taught me. It didn’t jade my view of boys (or men) one bit. The truth of the matter is that at that age, most boys generally do want something in return. C’mon, we’re not talking about mature 36 year old men, we’re talking about a 14 year old boy!!! Did you forget about what your hormones were doing at 14?
Whiley/2D - I expect that they’ll be broken up soon too, and as it happens, she’s grounded, so it’s not like they’ll be hanging out or anything.
And, Delta, we are very close and have a VERY open relationship (sometimes, too open). She’s quite comfortable to tell me anything.
Renee, I completely agree.
FAtMoose, I didn’t understand what you were saying. Can you rephrase for me?
By 2D
November 7, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
John’s right… School, high school in particular, is as much about socialization as it about academics.
You want to make your daughter’s life REALLY HARD… Tell her she has to give back that gift and tell her she can’t “date” or have “boyfriends”. If she’s like any teenager I know, that’ll make her go do exactly the opposite.
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Hey, Billy, if you had to take a wild guess, what percentage of today’s 14 year olds do you think could say the same thing? Just take a wild guess. Humor me.
By Jack
November 7, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this
A piece of candy????
By RF
November 7, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this
Oh please, I teach 14 yr. olds all day. All the boys are after is some LOVIN’—-well, most of the girls are too. That’s what’s scary now. The girls actively pursue sex too, especially among poorer students. The girls can be as obvious about it as the boys.
By Chilao
November 7, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this
a Carefully planned ruse? That would connote a certain level of intelligience and we know that does not exist with our current President. If you doubt that, I can send you a pic with Bush carrying a yellow book, labeled The Presidency for Dummies. I have had the pic since late January, 2000. LOL
American continually being ‘dumbed-down’, TV, etc, probably finally fitting we have a President that fits the bill as well.
Now this is a white male country, founded on white male principles, so why shouldn’t the nominee be a white male. (that is dripping sarcasm for those who might not ‘get’ that statement.)
By Renee
November 7, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this
I have told my daughter she can’t date, under any circumstances, no boyfriends nothing! Not at 14. When she gets of age, which for me is 16, she can go on dates.
I guess under your philosophy 2D, that means she’s giving it away as fast as she can.
JBM we really have to talk more on a personal basis since I have been so busy. I love playing hearts too! My rating is really sucky right now though lol.
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this
2D - I never told her she couldn’t have a boyfriend. Actually, Renee’s explanation is exactly how I see it. She can have a boyfriend all day long. In fact, she can have 2, 3 or 4 boyfriends. She can change them each week or each day. That’s her choice. However, at the age of 14, she will NOT go out on a date. She will NOT accept expensive gifts (or cheap gifts that are relatively expensive for a 14 year old). She will NOT have male company, nor will she visit a male at his home.
When she turns 16, we will revisit this, but until then, these are my rules. Now if that makes her life really hard, then so be it.
I guess my four sisters and I had a really hard life, too. Fortunately, we all turned out great!
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
Renee, I play on Microsoft, so i don’t have a rating. I started playing on Pogo but would lose all the time, so I stopped when my rating got ridiculously low! lol. On Microsoft, it doesn’t matter if you lose b/c you’re playing 3 computer players! ;-)
RF, I completely agree. Mine came home a few weeks ago and told me that she thinks she’s “ready.” GOD HELP ME
Back on what 2D said… the only thing that makes it hard on them is that other parents are much more lenient (for whatever reason) and make the kids of strict parents feel like they’re missing out on something. Like my mom always told me, if you do everything now, you’ll have nothing to look forward to. If I let her wear makeup and date boys and accept ugly diamond rings now, what will she want to do at 16? She’ll have done it all already!
My toughest parenting times come when my teenager doesn’t understand why she can’t just go “outside” like the other neighborhood kids do. Or why she can’t wear super-tight pants. Or why she can’t have an 11 o’clock curfew, or go out on a date, etc. These parents who let their kids do whatever they want to do are the ones who make it hard for me.
By Stewie
November 7, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
Who cares about Miers, she’s long gone now. This is a stupid subject.
How about a new one? Is this balmy weather due to global warming and if it is, what’s so bad about it?
Or how about the vampire woman, Anne Rice…and her re-embrace of Christiananity? How does this affect her relationship with gay son and author, Christopher Rice?
By The72John
November 7, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this
JBM, I guess my question for you would be: Did you spell this out for her already, or are you kind of springing the “You have to give the gift back” thing on her?
And what, exactly, is too expensive for a 14-year old?
I’m just curious - obviously, your daughter, your rules. I guess I’m just curious why you asked our opinions since you’re so obviously set on your course of action.
By Jack
November 7, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this
I read some Ann Rice. That woman is really into rape.
By 2D
November 7, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this
JBM… Actually, that sounds like a great way to raise your daughter. However, yours and Renee’s initial statements came off as much more cynical and never made mention of your daughters simply being too young to date. That is totally understandable, especially since y’all know your children better than we do.
Personnaly, I was still scared of girls when I was 14, so maybe I have a different POV than 14 year olds today.
By The72John
November 7, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this
Not all Christians are rampant, vicious, mean-spirited, cruel homophobes, Stewie. In other words, they ain’t all Chuck.
By Billy
November 7, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
JBM — Very few, most likely. But it’s probably the same percentage of boys that aren’t scared to death of humiliating themselves that first time. It’s a rite of passage in many guys’ minds. They just want to get it over with at first.
For the record, I only had one thing on the brain. We think about sex all the time. That’s just how it is. Whether or not we act on it is another story. And regardless of whether a girl sleeps with her high school boyfriend, the first time she has sex it’s going to suck. Either the actual event or the fact that she finds out later that the guy’s a bastard. One will happen. I have yet to meet a single girl who didn’t wish her first time was at a different time/with a different guy/in a different place, etc. It’s not going to be fun.
That’s not to say she should just go give it up because it’s going to suck anyway. She definitely should wait. But you can’t protect her forever, and teaching her that guys want sex in return just turns her off to all of us. I’ve been that “nice guy” that girls always say they want. Should I teach my son that women will tell you they want a nice guy but really want a “bad boy”? Just because that’s been my experience? No. I’ll hold out hope that he finds someone that likes him for who he is. And if returns his gifts because “guys want something in return”, I’ll tell him not to worry about it, that the girl was probably just raised to expect nothing but the worst in a guy.
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this
John, there are some rules that I just won’t change. But, the gift accepting thing isn’t something that we’d previously discussed. She knows that there will be no dating or male company until she’s 16. We never discussed the gift thing. I brought it up because in the past, I’ve gotten some good advice…
OHHHH, I almost forgot to share my good news with you guys! I followed your advice and started interviewing with the idea that if something better came along, I would consider leaving my 401(k) behind. Something WAYYY better came along. I gave my two weeks notice last week!
Back to you, John. I didn’t tell her she has to give it back yet. I took it from her, and told her we’d talk about it later. We haven’t discussed it yet, but my partner thinks it’s no big deal and that I should let her keep it. She says that they’ll break up sooner or later anyway. I disagree, but I’m open to other ideas. For all I know (and this has happened before) someone might raise a point that I hadn’t considered yet, and change my mind. So far, no one has, so I still plan to make her give it back.
And, to answer your question, I can’t really give an amount that would make a gift too costly for a teenager. But, anything that’s more than just a “token” is too much for a 9th grader, in my opinion.
By Whateva
November 7, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this
no more Beauty trilogies from A.N. Roquelaure? (‘Anne Rice in cloak’)
By Jack
November 7, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this
Girls say they like nice guys but their actions are much different. Nice guys stay at home while the bad-asses are out getting some.
By RF
November 7, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this
JBM- kids mature much, much faster today. It’s one of the byproducts of the “information age” we’re in. They also see a lot more stuff on TV than we were ever allowed to see. I have to monitor what my 9 and 7 year old boys watch. It’s definitely not easy having a teenager in the house today. Be up front and honest with yours about her options and what she’s in for with the boys—no commitment, no maturity, and promises of ANYTHING to get in her pants.
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
And regardless of whether a girl sleeps with her high school boyfriend, the first time she has sex it’s going to suck. Either the actual event or the fact that she finds out later that the guy’s a bastard. One will happen. I have yet to meet a single girl who didn’t wish her first time was at a different time/with a different guy/in a different place, etc. It’s not going to be fun.
Billy, ~extending hand~ I’m Just Being Me. Nice to meet you. Looks like I’ll be the first girl you ever “met” who doesn’t wish her first time was at a different time with a different guy in a different place. It didn’t suck and I have no regrets.
I guess I’m the exception to the rule.
By DeltaX
November 7, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
JBM;
It didn’t jade my view of boys (or men) one bit.
How can you reconcile that with your first point of concern: That the boy must want something in return?
When you and your daughter are talking, if you cover what is important to her; she will talk about her crush - and how he makes her feel. That is what is important and is also what will indicate the guys intentions. There are too many situations to explain each one - so teach her to check for character.
Otherwise you/she will be running off every guy who gives her a present: Boy: “Here sweetie! I got you this!” Girl: “What do you want?” Boy thinks: ‘Well, I guess mom was an idiot saying that bringing suzie [whatever] would be sweet…” Boy never calls girl again; girl assumes her mom was right that he was after only one thing.
I have, more than a few dozen times, ended a first date with a girl bc she was looking for the negatives than what I had to offer. Oddly, many girls [and their mothers] who have knee-jerk reactions about this stuff - end up with exactly what they are paraniod about.
Maybe bc to evade something, you actually need to understand it?
By Jack
November 7, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
My boys were disappointed that we didn’t live in Rockdale county.
By Whiley
November 7, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
Here’s the problem, bad boys are most always very attractive, while most all the nice guys are geeks & difficult to look at.
The only saving grace is most geeks eventually hit puberty & some turn into handsome men. (Of course this doesn’t help the 14 year olds lol)
With SUPERVISION teen interaction is fine. Those can be fun years. P.S. Absolutely every generation has been accused of being too far ahead for their age,maturing too fast.
By Renee
November 7, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this
Congrats JBM!!!!!!!
Basically what you don’t teach your daughter, the boy next door will, or vice versa as the case could be. I don’t allow make up, other than lip gloss, I have never allowed red nail polish. I don’t allow shirts with writing on the chest (my daughter is a 44D).
I don’t see any good reason a boy would have to give my daughter a present, other than being invited to a birthday party. Kids want to grow up too fast. Childhood should be cherished. If I could, I would love to be a teenager again.
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
RF, yeah, that’s pretty much what I told her. Men aren’t all bad, but teenaged boys are usually hormone-driven. It’s not male-bashing, it’s the truth.
By NativeAtlantan
November 7, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this
Sorry I’m late…hope everyone had a good weekend!!
Quickly…. I doubt Miers was a ruse since it would be easily recognized as one. I think this administration has fallen into a habit of nominating people they are comfortbale with rather than the best qualified.
JBM - Not having been in that situation as a parent yet, I wouldn’t pretend to tell you what I think you should do. From what I have read, however, it sounds like you are doing well raising her
By NativeAtlantan
November 7, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
Sorry for the typos
By Billy
November 7, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
Would the advice change if the ring weren’t “HIDEOUS”?
By The72John
November 7, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this
I guess the real question you should ask yourself is “What’s the harm?”, and I mean that in both respects.
Is your daughter going to have sex with a kid because he gave her a (I’m guess) cheap paste ring?
Is it going to embarass your daughter AND possibly humiliate the boy she gives the ring back to?
I just think that a little token isn’t as serious as you’re making it out to be. Maybe you’re reading too much into the symbolism of a ring?
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
DeltaX, I still stand by my comment. My view of men is not in the least bit jaded. My father was a good man, my grandfather and great-grandfather were both very good men, my pastor is a good man, my uncle is a good man, as is my male best friend. I know scores of good men, and so does my daughter.
None of that is changed by the fact (or at least my perception) that the majority of teenaged boys is after one thing and one thing only. My great-grandfather, grandfather, and father all said the same thing about teenage boys. It was true in their generations, it was true in my generation, and it holds true today. THE MAJORITY OF TEENAGED BOYS ARE EXTREMELY HORNY AND AFFECTED BY PEER PRESSURE AND LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO STICK THEIR SOMETHING INTO!!! Why is that so hard to accept? A vast majority of adults, male and female alike, acknowledge this as the truth. Even if it’s not completely factual, it is the overwhelming perception that crosses racial lines, social lines, gender lines, etc… which implies that there must be some truth to it.
Furthermore, any 14 year old boy whose mother tells him to bring a girl a diamond ring is questionable; and if that boy’s mother had seen that hideous ring, I KNOW she wouldn’t have let him bring it to her.
Renee - Thanks!!!
By chuck
November 7, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this
BTW, 72J, The reason that I am against the Katrina spending is NOT because it is helping the poor. The exact opposite is true. The whole situation is rife with possibilities for corruption. The amount was a knee-jerk reaction to the criticism that Bush was getting at the time because of the PERCEPTION that the federal response was too slow. There was no thought as to ACTUAL need, there were no safegaurds put into place to prevent fraud, and companies were given contracts without bidding on the jobs. In addition, no policy was put into place to favor hiring the victims themselves for the jobs that are being created with this massive effort. Infact…it has already been shown that many of the workers hired for the cleanup operation are illegal aliens, and some of the contractors are getting them to work weeks at a time WITHOUT paying them. Some of the contractors have disappeared with OUR money and left jobs undone or poorly done. FINALLY, an article appeared this week that the state of Louisiana was decreasing its commitment to the relief effort by $431 million dollars…that being announced by the DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR BLANCO. So maybe John, you ought to THINK before you criticize…but then what kind of liberal would you be if you did that?
By RF
November 7, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this
Jack brought up an important point I see every day in high school. The girls SAY they want a nice guy, but they always end up with the ‘bad boys’. Those boys seem to know more and appear more mature. The girls also seem to think they can “save them” and make them into good guys. My sister threw away her life, literally and figuratively, trying to fix the men in her life, and it started as a teen.
By Jack
November 7, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this
J72. If you don’t agree about the teen-age boys motives, you may want to take your head out of the sand/a* and look around.
By TvViewer
November 7, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
wow, the liberal “slur”. Anyone see The West Wing last night, when Jimmy Smits went into the “Proud to be a Liberal thing, after all, look at all that Conservatives have opposed over the years?” (Conservatives opposed the woman’s right to vote, for example) and then asked “What happened to the Liberals in the Party of Lincoln?” (paraphrasing)
By RF
November 7, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Also, most boys grow up and grow out of the “bad-boy” mode. Some stay (my sister found plenty!), but one they’re over the awkwardness of puberty, they become decent guys. I remember those days and all I worried about was who I was ‘going with’ and how to get past second base.
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
Billy - Not at all.
John - Is your daughter going to have sex with a kid because he gave her a (I’m guess) cheap paste ring? I hope not, but I’m not 100% sure, hence the concern. Girls at that age, regardless of what they’ve been taught, are more susceptible to peer pressure. She may believe, as I did at her age, that this boy really loves her because he gave her a ring that she probably doesn’t even realize is cheap. Fortunately, at 14/15, I was determined not to have sex until I was married. My daughter is not as determined. This ring, as innocent and meaningless as it seems, might be just what she’s looking for.
Is it going to embarass your daughter AND possibly humiliate the boy she gives the ring back to? If she returns it tactfully, he won’t be humiliated. If she gives it back to him because she believes what I tell her, she won’t be humiliated either. Truth be told, either way she’s not going to be humiliated. Here’s why: if she doesn’t believe that she should have to give it back to him, she won’t. She’ll pretend she did, and hold on to it until whenever. If she does believe that maybe he’s moving a bit too fast for her, and she returns the ring, she’ll believe in her decision and probably be proud of herself, not humiliated. I would hope that she can communicate that to him in a way that he won’t be embarassed either.
I just think that a little token isn’t as serious as you’re making it out to be. It’s not a token. If it were a token, I wouldn’t make such a big deal of it (as I mentioned earlier). If this was some bubble-gum machine ring, I’d let it go. But, this is a real gold ring with real diamonds in it. It’s cheap, and it’s ugly, but it’s still real gold and real diamonds.
Maybe you’re reading too much into the symbolism of a ring? Now that could be true…
By chuck
November 7, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
RF, Your last post was a little naive. First, the VAST MAJORITY of the boys ARE thinking about SEX at 14, but not nearly as many are EXPERIENCING it. Those numbers are increasing and girls are instigating more of the instances we are seeing at school. Most of these boys are not “bad” at all. Most come from decent families and do the right thing a good bit of the time. Those hormonal urges are pretty strong at that age and they ARE going to look for opportunities to act upon them.
Part of the reason for this is the totally lax attitude of society in general and their parents in particular about sex. They are constantly bombarded with sexual images on tv, in magazines, and in the music they listen to. Very few parents limit their time OR the content on the internet…I know this from teaching internet classes for parents. Very few parents use the content locks that are available on the cable box.
THEN, of course, EVERY MORAL PERSON WHO TAKES A STAND ON THESE ISSUES IS ATTACKED BY MORONS LIKE 72JOHN, WHO THINK THAT OUR SOCIETY IS WELL SERVED BY AN “ANYTHING GOES ATTITUDE” TOWARD SEXUAL PROMISCUITY AND DEVIANCY. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?
Insanity is defined as “doing the same thing over and over again in the vain hope that the results will somehow change.” It is past time to rein some of this garbage in and return to what were once widely accepted moral standards…until hollywood started running things.
By RF
November 7, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
Depending on the boy, he may really think he loves her too. Boys at that age don’t realize they’re basically controlled by the brain in the other head. They can be as ‘in love’ as the girls. Sounds like the boy your daughter is dealing with, JBM, may just be as in love as they can be at that age. They’ll both look back one day and laugh at themselves, but right now it sounds ‘serious’ for both of them. I’m not looking forward to those days, and I have boys!
By Renee
November 7, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
well put JBM
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this
RF, but they just started “going out” on Friday! From what I gathered, it went like this:
Boy: So, what’s up with me and you? Daughter: Whatchu mean? Boy: I like you, so what’s up? You like me? Daughter: Yeah, and? Boy: So, you wanna go out? Daughter: What do you like about me? Boy: I like your personality. Girl, do you wanna go out or not? (laughing) Daughter: (laughing) Don’t be rushing me. Yeah, I’ll go with you.
Boy gives Daughter ring.
DOES THAT SOUND LIKE LOVE TO YOU????!!!! And just last week she told my sister she was in love with some other boy she was “going with.”
By The72John
November 7, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this
Corruption is inevitable whenever large sums of money are distributed, regardless of who is doing the distributing. No matter how many safeguards you put into place, some fraud is going to occur. How would YOU suggest we help the victims? It would take 50,000 churches donating your $20,000 EACH to generate ONE Billion dollars in relief. Even the most conservative estimate places the damages in the $15 billion + range.
And to be honest, I wonder, Chuck, what qualifies you to determine the amount of relief that is appropriate? I’ve got a Masters degree in Business and I work in the Insurance industry, and I wouldn’t BEGIN to hazard a guess as to the appropriate level of funding to properly handle the relief effort. What is it about teaching Middle School that gives you such insight?
You’re correct - there have been instances of undocumented workers being hired, though I have not read anything suggesting that wages are being withheld. I’m certain you have a source you can cite for that claim? But, there are also many residents working on the clean-up and rebuilding efforts as well. There have been a number of reports concerning the number of former minimum-wage earners from the New Orleans areas who are not only making substantially more money now, but are also learning new skills that will allow them to continue in construction, etc. once clean-up and rebuilding finally ends.
And FINALLY Chuck, did it ever occur to you that Louisiana might be relaxing its contribution to the cleanup simply because it can’t afford that money? MUST it be some Democratic plot? Perhaps the revenue loss resulting from the storms is so substantial that Louisiana is going to allow the Federal money to pay for the reconstruction while it keeps the government running.
By Jack
November 7, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
Chuck. Every generation speaks about the moral decay of society. I hear myself say the same things my parents said. Society is going downhill. It won’t be long before full frontal nudity is on prime time network programs. It will implode one day. The Hollywood ilk will be getting their asses burnt in Hell and the meek will inherit the Earth.
By RF
November 7, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this
chuck- It’s not naive, it’s what I see every day. There are some ‘good boys’ who aren’t having sex, and aren’t socially mature. They generally don’t get the girls. The boys who are have already been ‘busy’ if you know what I mean. They are what I call the bad boys- the one who have drug habits and sex by the time they’re 12 and 13. There’s a vast difference between the two. And yes, some boys are definitely bad by reputation and bad in deed. They just are and you can spot them a mile away.
By The72John
November 7, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this
I don’t have an “anything goes” attitude towards anything, Chuck. I realize you religious freaks think that morality only comes from some hostile, punishing brutal father-figure, but those of us who are more emotionaly mature make moral choices based on something a little more substantive.
It’s obviously not appropriate for 14-year olds to be having sex. It’s not appropriate for ANYONE who isn’t capable of dealing with the possible repercussions of sex to be doing so. I don’t need the fear of Hell to tell me that.
And oh, touche on the DEVIANT comment Chuck. You’re such a typical little Christer bigot.
By 2D
November 7, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this
72J… It is unfortunate that there will be opportunists at every turn when trying to help others. But shouldn’t we, at the very least attempt to stop it…? And what would be the best way to do so…?
Also… Since you’re in the insurance industry maybe you can educate us as to why the government and not the insurance industry, is footing a large portion of this bill. Why aren’t those companies outlaying a good portion of the funds to repair the damage…? I can’t believe that those houses/buildings/etc. didn’t have hurricane or flood insurance.
Shucks, I wanted to by a house not too long ago here in Atlanta and was required to buy flood insurance so those folks had to of had it.
By Jack
November 7, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this
John72. Please tell everyone again how many degrees and level of education you have reached. You sound just like Michael H. Are more like N.D.
By kimberly
November 7, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
I think both Diane and Shaunti are wrong. I think the Meiers pick was yet another example of the President not giving a darn. WHY should he cause his head to ache by pouring over stacks of resumes? Gee whiz, not another difficult pres’denchul task! Doggone it! I wanted to play golf and ride my bike! Well screw ‘em. I’m in charge. They’ll do whatever I tell ‘em to! Heck, I pick Harriet! She’s been loyal all along. We need more people like Harriet — loyal to ME. I’m in charge. Make it so. I truly honestly believe he does NOT give a rat’s fuzzy a— about the American people, and he cannot be bothered to sully his mind with thoughts of what really is best for our future. Nothing I have seen him do if five years has given me the slightest inkling that he cares.
By RF
November 7, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this
JBM—nevermind. We were right earlier. He just wants in her pants!! OH, I don’t envy you right now! Are you letting her still talk to him? I know you aren’t sleeping at night. Do what my mom did while helping raise my neice—she put a recorder on the phone line and kept track of things. She found out some things she didn’t want to know.
By The72John
November 7, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
Jack, do you have anything substantive to offer, or are you just doing the best immitation you possibly can of the grumpy old guys off the Muppets? Not enough prune juice in your diet? Chuck-the-schmuck brings up HIS education often enough, so obviously your comment is driven by something other than a sense of fair play. If you don’t agree with my opinions, then by all means, jump in and argue. But seriously - your random sniping is becoming tiresome.
2D - many, many people don’t have flood insurance. It’s likely that your requirement was driven by the terms of your mortgage, as many mortgages now include full insurance requirements. Additionally, the only source for flood insurance is the Federal government. Private insurance companies do not offer flood coverage, and are very careful to word contracts so as to eliminate as much as possible. They can even be so picky as to differentiate between storm surge (often covered) and general flooding caused by something such as the levies breaking (not covered).
Regardless, the insurance carriers WILL be paying out substantial claims as a result of Katrina. Federal coverage fills in the gaps.
By Jack
November 7, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
72John. You have brought up your education many times on this blog. As if we give a s**. Needle dick
By The72John
November 7, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
Oh yes Jack - calling me NEEDLE dick will do it. Much like my telling you to blow it out your miserable, backwater ear is constructive. Asswad.
By DeltaX
November 7, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me,
I agree and understand your position about boys being directed by hormones.
Yet, your statement was absolute: ‘My initial reaction was to tell her that she has to give it back to him b/c boys only give you something when they want something in return.’
It did not read: So, I want to make sure I do not damage her perception of guys; yet would to relay to her that one must check the character of the person.
To do that, you could say: A gift is nice, and it is nice that he gave it to you so freely - then pause for effect [watch her body language and reply for uncomfortable signs]. IOW - have a conversation.
It didn’t jade my view of boys (or men) one bit.
If you really did not feel that way, you would have simpley said: “Yeah. That was harsh - I should have worded it better.”
But instead you want to act as though your words mean something different than what they are…
By Jack
November 7, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
I would feel better if I could tell you in person. Too bad.
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
RF - Fortunately, she’s been grounded so she hasn’t talked to him outside of school anyway. But when she gets off punishment, I’ll certainly let her talk to him within the limits.
I don’t think I could handle the tap on the phone line. I’ve already found out too many things I didn’t want to know just by snooping around her bookbag…
By The72John
November 7, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this
Aw, Jack…is that a threat? Let me guess…you were the big bully in high school who beat up ALL the smart kids, but now, you’re just a big dumb schlub who has someone 20 years your junior as a boss, and you resent people who were smart enough to go to college. Is that it, little Jacky? Do you need to “revisit your inner bully” to make your little self feel like a man?
By Billy
November 7, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this
JBM, it sounds like it’s a lost cause. What could you have found out but not wanted to know that’s worse than sex?
By RF
November 7, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this
JBM— OOOH, Good job! That’s the other best way to find out what you don’t really want to know! It’s hard to do, but you have to in order to know what to watch for and how to help her. Keep it up!
By DeltaX
November 7, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
RF,
Do what my mom did while helping raise my neice—she put a recorder on the phone line and kept track of things
Great advise. Destroy the trust/relationship completely!
72John; We were talking about how to raise kids to be adults instead of big kids last week. Well, this is a prime example of how not to raise a child to be an adult…Instead you get a big kid that inherits your fears and reacts to them - instead of acting on them.
By chuck
November 7, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
Don’t you think it would be more prudent to wait and figure out what the federal role SHOULD BE and then determine what amount of the loss is going to be covered by insurance? Certainly, some projects should have begun immediately like interstate highways and bridges, and damages to military facilities, but even on those, there should have been a bidding process. When we cut all of the spending we can and still spend more than necessary on Katrina, what happens when the next one comes? I’m not willing to arbitrarily throw money at “katrina” when we have no idea yet how much may be needed.
By Jack
November 7, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this
Hehe. Oh Needle one. LMAO!
By DeltaX
November 7, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
JBM— OOOH, Good job! That’s the other best way to find out what you don’t really want to know! It’s hard to do, but you have to in order to know what to watch for and how to help her. Keep it up!
Absolutely sick.
I am out of here. I cannot condone such bad parenting.
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
Delta, you’re obviously going to think what you want to think and I can’t change that, so there’s no point in trying. Let me give you some factual statements and you can take from it what you will:
JBM believes that most teenaged boys are hormone-driven and peer pressured.
JBM also believes that most teenaged boys primarily want one thing from girls: COOCHIE. JBM believes that some teenaged boys may enjoy friendship, laughter, movies, etc… but at the end of the day, all they want is SEX.
JBM has an overall high opinion of men, and their role in society.
JBM learned from her grandfathers and father, that usually when teenaged boys (especially 13-16) give you something, it’s because they want something in return.
If these facts lead you to believe that I have a low or jaded opinion of men, fine with me.
By RF
November 7, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
DeltaX—it was a question of what was more important- find out if she was lying about drugs (she wasn’t) and sex (she was). My mom never told her, and she wasn’t proud of having to do it. But for a full-time parent it was one way to deal with the problem.
By Scalia
November 7, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
Why didn’t I ever have the hot boy next door? I hear that reference often, and wish that I could have been lucky enough to have it.
As for what was brought up about bad boys: yeah, that’s true. One of my friends that had straight A’s, scored 1490 on the Sat, etc. chose to change his image from good boy to bad boy following freshman year of high school. The amount of girls that showed him interest increased dramatically. All of the best looking girls (just as smart as he was if not smarter) took interest in him.
By The72John
November 7, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
That’s a far more reasonable position than you first stated Chuck. You originally said that you objected to Katrina spending - period. I can certainly agree that a more prudent approach to spending should be taken, though I personally feel that human concerns should take precedence over highways and military facilities.
It’s interesting that you mention bidding. Bush has often been criticized since the beginning of the Iraq reconstruction for giving out contracts to the companies of his friends without going through the bidding process. In fact, receiving a juicy contract from the Federal government for being one of George’s buddies has become an institution in the Bush White House. Are you equally as concerned with that practice?
By 2D
November 7, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
72J… How could folks living in New Orleans NOT be required to have flood/hurricane insurance…? would there be an area more ripe for a catastrophe like that…?
Not to mention, how could an insurance company be allowed to designate between a flood or a storm surge…? That sounds like a system with lots of fraud potential.
Sorry for the questions, but I’m just not that familiar with all of the ins and outs of the insurance industry.
By kimberly
November 7, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me: Since you aired it, may I offer a suggestion for some strategy? From what I remember of the teen years, whenever my Dad forbid me to hang out with another kid, boy OR girl, it just made me more loyal to the other kid. “You just don’t understand them like I do! You’re not being nice! You’re SOOOO judgmental!” So I decided I would employ reverse pychology. (Thankfully haven’t had to yet… to a large degree, but it has worked in subtle instances.) But when my daughter brings home a boy I can’t stand, I’m going to become his NEW BEST FRIEND. I’m going to invite him to dinner every night. Any time she’s not with him, I’ll ask where his is, and be disappointed that he’s not around. If she wants to do something, I’ll ask how Bubba-Bob feels about it. I’ll be so all up in his face with a plate of cookies wanting to know EVERY detail of his life and his future plans. Tell momma all about it! I could be wrong, but I predict this may be an effective strategy in the age of imperative rebellion.
By RF
November 7, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this
DeltaX—not to be combatant, but how is it bad parenting to snoop on your child? I behaved as a kid because I knew my mom would look. I trust my sons, but I don’t it’s bad to read a few notes or whatever and know what’s going on. I’ve seen too many devastated parents as a teacher whey they find out what little Johnny’s REALLY doing in his spare time. The always say “I wish we’d paid more attention and seen the signs”. You better bet I’ll violate ‘trust’ if it means saving my kids from doing something stupid.
By The72John
November 7, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this
2D - insurance packaging with mortgages is a relatively new practice, so a lot of people wouldn’t necessarily have that arrangement. And yes - there is a lot of room for problems with the semantics involved in distinuishing between storm surge and flooding. Hopefully, that’s where the state DOI’s and Insurance Commissioners will come into play.
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
Delta, and anyone else:
I strongly believe that it is VERY important for a teenager to believe he or she has total privacy.
At the same time, I believe that it is VERY important that a parent knows what is going on in his/her child’s life - the things the child divulges, and the things he doesn’t.
Therefore, I believe in “snooping” as long as the child never finds out about it.
You don’t have to believe in it. You don’t have to like it. You can be repulsed by it. I couldn’t care less.
Countless lives are saved because parents uncovered suicide attempts, drug use, unprotected sex, incestuous relationships, statutory rape, and God knows what else. I will NOT learn about my child on the television news or in a newspaper. It’s CULTURAL and I don’t expect you to understand it.
Go and be repulsed.
By Billy
November 7, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
It’s cultural?
And what exactly did you find in your daughter’s bookbag?
By RF
November 7, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this
DeltaX- they’re also KIDS—get it? They don’t KNOW how to be grownups yet, and I prefer not to have mine learning it all from the wrong sources. I watched my sister go down the spiral into drugs because my parents trusted her as a teenager and she flat-out lied to them. She was a crack addict by the time she should have been graduating from high school because we ‘trusted’ her. Because we ‘trusted’ her, she was killed at 32 by her ‘friends’ in the crack world. Had we snooped, we might have known soon enough to stop her, but no, we trusted her. I know one example doesn’t make a case, but at least maybe you’ll see why I believe it’s not “sick” to snoop and know what your kid is up to. I intend to be the “anti-drug” in my house, and if it means I have to snoop a little, I will. I will also search their rooms when they’re not home and listen around corners if I suspect something. How sick is that?? I’ll do whatever I have to to keep track of my kids and know if they’re up to something they shouldn’t be.
By DeltaX
November 7, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this
But for a full-time parent it was one way to deal with the problem.
Yes, It is a bad way - look it up or ask a therapist.
I have a connected relationship with my girls. They confide in me because I do not violate their trust. You have missed the boat on this kind of relationship if you are considering/acting on the snooping.
Kimberly has a better notion - not to violate/ but to welcome and get IN THERE! And get her friends in your life! If she does not bring them around - you have already taught her that you are not to be trusted.
Buy a book before procreating! This should be known before you have a 14 year old!
JBM - It was your statement - not mine or my interpretation of words: My initial reaction was to tell her that she has to give it back to him b/c boys only give you something when they want something in return.
What part of your communication do you not understand?
By Billy
November 7, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
RF — What if you have a teenage son and in your snooping you find porn? Just out of curiosity…
By RF
November 7, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
I’m with you JBM. And it isn’t cultural, it’s good parenting. I’ll be snooping too!
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this
Uh. I guess I could’ve said it as kindly as RF did. I apologize for all the attitude. I got a little ticked.
Again, my apologies.
By Just Being Me
November 7, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
Delta, RF referred to the niece his mother was raising. I’m referring to the 15 year old daughter of my cousin that I’m raising.
Neither of us gave birth to these children, or “procreated” as you put it.
And, I completely understand my own communication. You obviously don’t. As I said, that was my INITIAL reaction.
Good night all.
By kimberly
November 7, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this
JBM, I’m with ya. But like I always tell my child, “There’s NO EXCUSE for getting caught!” Haha!
By Renee
November 7, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this
I have been off for a minute so I have missed everything. Not only do I agree with you JBM, but I snoop on a REGULAR basis. My daughter has NO privacy until she pays bills and has her own home. I am liable to pick up the phone at any time, check a book bag, a drawer, under the mattress and YES, read the diary! I have that right to and will continue to do so.
And who gives a flip about what some educated therapist writes in a book??? And yes, it’s pretty much cultural.
By DeltaX
November 7, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this
RF,
Where did I say blind trust?
NM. If you need to make it complicated by what if’s [that do not apply to what I or you said]; I do not have that kind of time or tolerance.
It is simple: Put as much conversation/bonding time in as you do on this blog. IOW - Have a relationship! Do stuff with them - or are you tabboo? bc that says a lot about how you have done so far.
I get invited to more parties by my girls and their friends - and not because I am merely the cool dad [although that too;)]; but because I am a resource that they all appriciate!
All kids have one or more resource [but they are often too casual] - and they are usually disconnected from the family unit meaning you have no idea what THEY are telling them.
Bottom line: You break trust and she will keep her personals somewhere else; talk to someone else…etc…
By RF
November 7, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
DeltaX- I’m proud of you for being able to trust your girls. I hope that works out for you. I’m basing my opinions on my experiences. Also, I didn’t procreate either. I’m raising the two sons of my murdered sister who I had to take from her before she died. I don’t intend to snoop automatically, but I will be ready to if I suspect they aren’t telling me about potentially threatening things. They have a high probability of trying drugs and were both born with crack in their systems, which will make them more likely to become dependent if they try drugs. You bet, I’ll snoop if I suspect anything they aren’t telling me. We have a very strong relationship based on communication and love. But I know how kids act at school too when parents aren’t around. You’d be surprised.
Let me ask you a question. If you noticed one of yours exhibiting signs of having used drugs, would you snoop if they denied it? Would you trust them if they said no, but their behaviors indicated otherwise? I hope that never happens to you, and from what you’ve said, it probably won’t. But would you if you felt the need?
Billy— depends. I’d probably make sure we’d had the ‘sex talk’ by then and make sure he wasn’t trying to have sex too young. I don’t know. I worry more about drugs and unprotected sex than I do a magazine.
By RF
November 7, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
DeltaX- YOU started it by calling me “sick”. You’re allowed your opinion, but just be ready for the questions when you judge someone and pronounce them wrong for not agreeing with your opinion. I’m glad you’re the cool dad. I don’t give a flip about whether or not mime invite me to the parties. Like Renee said, when they’re out on their own, I won’t be able to snoop and know what they’re up to. Until then, it makes perfectly good sense to me. YOu do it your way, and I’ll do it mine. I’m sure both sets of kids will turn out fine.
By DeltaX
November 7, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
And who gives a flip about what some educated therapist writes in a book?
Yeah. Those damn educated people! Always finding a better way to do things!
Beating with a switch was cultural too - you adhere to that?
By RF
November 7, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this
Renee— I must have more multi-cultural heritage than I think. I was raised the same way by my parents, and I’ll be the same way with my boys. I don’t think it’s cultural, it’s just smart!
By DeltaX
November 7, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this
Let me ask you a question. If you noticed one of yours exhibiting signs of having used drugs, would you snoop if they denied it? Would you trust them if they said no, but their behaviors indicated otherwise?
Ask me this tomorrow if you still want my reply - I doubt you do.
By RF
November 7, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this
Gotta run—I’m out of belts to tear my boys up with! Who said anything about switching ‘em Delta? Do you just enjoy picking arguments, or what? Just so you know, I believe in spanking(up to the age of 6) and I have a Master’s degree. I read about it in a book, and a professional child psychologist wrote it. I’m also white- does that change anything??
By RF
November 7, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this
Go ahead and answer in the morning. I’d actually like to hear-not so we can argue, but just to compare your parenting techniqes with my own. I’d like to know—can we do that civilly? I will if you will!
By Renee
November 7, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this
I do believe in spankings, in younger children, though I don’t think a switch is cultural. When I was raised EVERYBODY, black and white was beat with a switch and/or a belt.
As far as books on child rearing, my mom bought those Dr Spock books. Too bad there is no text book child. Children and situations are unique, but a parents job is to be a parent, and uphold rules and regulations to make them a productive member of society, not let them run rampid.
The parents of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold didn’t want to invade their childrens privacy either. They asked no questions and look what happened!
By Lyrazel
November 8, 2005 07:13 AM | Link to this
No, the Bush Administration does not nominate scapegoats to the Supreme Court in ruse to get real nominees. Meirs failed on her own lack of merit—why cant Diane see that? Odd suggestion.
JBM: you know, you have an opportunity with your daughter! I think you should contact the parents of the sweet 14 year old boy, invite them and son to a lovely dinner at your place to bring this joyful union into the open! Why, what boy would not want to sit for 2 hours watching his mom and his girlfriends mom jabber about them? Or sit and listen to partners discuss the political turmoils of the PTA elections? I cant think of a better way to make sure your daughter understands dating!
By 2D
November 8, 2005 07:16 AM | Link to this
I love how some of these parents have gone “Patriot Act” on their children…!
By Randy
November 8, 2005 07:55 AM | Link to this
Since we are off subject already this week, I had an interesting observation over the weekend on the subject last week(evolution). I love it, most scientists want us to believe we have a similar ancestor as monkees, then the scientists do their research and tell us that human life orginated in the area of what is now Iraq, that area. Then it occured to me, if we have the same relativesas chimps, wouldn’t human life have evolved everywhere(Africa, Asia, South America, etc) just like monkees did. Instead the scientific show, showed how human life started near the Tigris river, which is much more like the bibical stance. You evolutionists need to get on the scientists for contradicting themselves, guess they needed more research money.
By Billy
November 8, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this
Randy, once again you’re calling us “evolutionists” as if it were a religiong. It isn’t. And your logic is off, I think. If you can post a link to whatever it is you read, that would be good. Iraq was a “cradle of civilization”, but that doesn’t mean that is where our evolutionary path diverged from apes’ paths or even that the first examples of what we would call “humans” today were there. It just means that that was one of the first places in which humans were able to settle down and develop a civilization.
Your logic is definitely off, though. “…if we have the same relativesas chimps, wouldn’t human life have evolved everywhere(Africa, Asia, South America, etc) just like monkees did.” That logic could actually support evolution. We could say that humans evolved differently from apes because they were in a different region with different environmental factors.
By Billy
November 8, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this
Religiong?
Religion.
By Lyrazel
November 8, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this
O Randy! Monkeys not monkees….Take the last train to Clarkston and I will meet you in Valdosta… I do not believe humans are capable of evolution. Seems to me we are still dumb as we were eons ago and profoundly digress every opportunity. Maybe sanitary conditions have changed but is there such profound difference between StoneAge mankind and MTV generations? We just have more trash…is that evolving?
By Jack
November 8, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel. You South Georgia peach you :)
By Just Being Me
November 8, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this
Yes, I do believe in spanking, although not with a switch. I was spanked with a switch growing up, as were my 4 sisters. As I’ve said before, we all turned out fine. I don’t believe we were abused, nor do I harbor any ill feelings toward my parents. I think they did the best they could with the information they had in those days. With the information that I have, I wouldn’t use a switch to spank my children, but I do believe in spanking. And, like Renee, I don’t care what the therapists have to say about that either!
RF, there are exceptions to every rule, but it really is cultural. That doesn’t mean that it’s only ascribed to the black culture, but parenting styles do tend to differ across cultural lines. My best friend is white, married to a black man, and I tell her all the time that she’s “blacker” than I have ever been! I say that for a number of different reasons, but as it relates to this conversation, she parents her children just like black people (stereo)typically do. I consider her (and you) the exception.
Delta, I too, would like to hear your answer to RF’s question.
It is simple: Put as much conversation/bonding time in as you do on this blog. IOW - Have a relationship! Do stuff with them - or are you tabboo? bc that says a lot about how you have done so far.
Well, I guess I’m doing something right by you since I spend about 8 hours a day (or 40 hours per week) on this blog - on and off of course; and I spend about twice that much with my daughter. We have a really good relationship, and we do lots of stuff together. Whoopeee!!! I passed Delta’s parenting test!
By Jack
November 8, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this
People that have not raised children mean well when they offer advise but they have no clue at all. Reading books sounds good, but books don’t raise the child. JBM. You go girl.
By Jack
November 8, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this
I meant “advice” sorry.
By Renee
November 8, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this
Jack great statement. And you know JBM I’m always behind you.
I can’t imagine finding a book that would have begun to let me know what motherhood was really going to be about. And if there was a book covering everything, I would have never had time to read it. Being a parent is a learning experience, at which errors will be made.
I’m sure 2D’s comment was directed at either JBM or myself or perhaps even both of us. So I will address it.
My daughter is the love of my life, we have a great relationship. She shares so much with me and I wouldn’t trade our relationship in for anything. Having said that, do I believe everything she tells me? NO Do I think that other kids influence her and she may not divulge all pertinent information to me? YES. Do I think that I as a mother have a moral obligation to know what goes on with my child. YES!
I’m kind of old school in some ways. Everything my daughter has is a privilege. A privilege which can be taken away at any time. For instance, I allow her to close her door and have her time in her room to do whatever she likes to do. If she ever abuses that privilege, for instance, bringing boys in the room, while her door is closed, she will have lost that privilege. If she does drugs in that room, the door will be open at all time. This is in addition to whatever else I deem necessary.
She’s on the dance team, she has a little after school job for about 6 hours a week. All this can go in a blink of an eye. Just by not following the SIMPLE rules of the house.
I think letting kids dictate their rules and their privacy, and alwasy tiptoeing around children for fear of them being upset is a recipe for disaster. I say be mad at me now because it will pay off later.
By Just Being Me
November 8, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this
Jack, I totally agree.
Renee, thanks and ditto! Sounds like we’re a lot alike. It’s funny that you should say that. Just last night my daughter and I were discussing rights and privileges. I told her that everything she has in our house is a privilege and that the only thing that is NOT subject to being taken away is food. I’ve even had to go as far as to take her bedroom away and clothes too (I know, I’ll catch hell for that one, but it’s the truth).
2D/Anyone else: I consider myself to be a very strict, but very fair parent. I certainly don’t have all the answers, and don’t pretend to (heck, ain’t I the one who asked advice yesterday??). But, I’d say I’m doing a darned good job raising a child who came to me fully loaded with baggage and more issues than Jet Magazine.
We’ve developed a wonderful relationship. We talk about everything. She’s never had a parent-figure before, so she took a few months to feel me out, testing the waters a bit. She trusted me easily and quickly, and now there isn’t a single subject that she won’t raise with me - including sex, pregnancy, drugs, disease… you name it, she’s raised it. However, as Renee said, there are (or will be) things that she will not mention to me. As much as I wish I were (smile), I am not the only influence in her life. It is my duty to stay on top of her, and I will do that until she moves out of my house.
My baby sister is in her last year of college, and although she lives in an off-campus apartment, she is still a resident of my mother’s home. They have the closest relationship of us all (I guess b/c she’s the baby). To this day, my mother does not hesitate to remind my sister that until she moves out of mom’s house, she is to follow mom’s rules no matter where she is, regardless of her age or location.
I tell my daughter the same thing every day.
By RF
November 8, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this
My nine year old made the mistake one day of saying “you’re not in charge of me”. Now, after I finished dealing with the attitude adjuster (located just behind the back pockets of his Levis, I told him that if he wanted to be “in charge” then he could work, pay the bills, clean, cook, do laundry, and rock ME to sleep when I didn’t feel good. He said “never mind”. He likes to try the limits every now and then, but like I told him, you have to live in a world with rules, so you’re learning how to do it now. I think kids, even into early adulthood, need the structure and security of knowing who’s in charge and what the rules are. My sweet mom popped my face at 20 for saying a cuss word at the kitchen table. I was shocked, but I got what I had coming, and it reminded me that her house still ran by the rules. I needed that reminder and I’m a better parent for it.
By raylene
November 8, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this
My parents took everything out of my bedroom except my bed and some clothes one time. I learned real quick to behave myself.
JBM- your daughter isn’t allowed to have friends that are boys at all? if a bunch of her friends are going to the movies, can she not go if a boy will be there(other than her “boyfriend”)?
By E. Lewis
November 8, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this
It wouldn’t surprise me. For a president and administration that rode into office promising to restore honesty, integrity and ethical behavior, they have surely gone into the opposite direction. After the weapons of mass destruction and subsequent war in Iraq, Saddam Hussein and 9/11 connections, Plamegate etc. etc. all of which have been proven to be lies sourced from the White House, I can’t believe anything that President Bush and company tell me. If tomorrow Mr. Bush were to hold a press conference and tell me the sky was blue, I’d have to go outside and verify it.
By Renee
November 8, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this
I know for myself, that my daughter is only allowed to go out with a group of girls, that I have already met each and every one of the parents. No groups with boys, which I may allow at 16, but definitely not now.
By chuck
November 8, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this
To answer your question from yesterday 72John, you said:
receiving a juicy contract from the Federal government for being one of George’s buddies has become an institution in the Bush White House. Are you equally as concerned with that practice?
I don’t know how common the practice is, so while I would DISAGREE WITH YOUR PREMISE, I can say without reservation that any practice that leads to taxpayers paying more than the value of any item is WRONG. It goes back to the 60’s when defense contractors were charging $700.00 for a toilet seat. If a maintainance guy can take a government card and go to Home Depot and buy a toilet seat for $4.00, why would we spend $700.00? The reason is that there is no oversight…or at least not enough oversight. All gov’t employees who spend tax money should make every effort to get the best price for the items they purchase for gov’t. use. All large expenditures (anything over $2500-5000) should go through competitive bids. An even better arrangement would be for vendors to post their prices for anything they sell to the gov’t on a gov’t. web site that would allow employees to immediately compare prices. There is a great web site that does that for college textbooks. You put in the title and it gives you a comparison of all the places on the web that are selling the book with prices and shipping costs. I’ve saved thousands of dollars on books over the past 7 years.
By Jack
November 8, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
I want to apologize for my behavior yesterday. I’m not a bully but N. D. John got under my skin. Sorry.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this
My comment would not support evolution. Evolutionists say we had the same ancestor as apes, that means we would have started cultures everywhere in the world like apes did. Not just started near Iraq. This is just one of thousands of problems with evolution. Why can’t they reason, why didn’t they evolve and start talking also. There is a thousand contradictions. Let’s face it, macro-evolution is a joke.
By Just Being Me
November 8, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this
Hey RF, my family knows all too well that the best day of my young life was when my mom was combing my hair and ignoring my cries of “ouch!!” My grandmother told her to comb it from the ends, not the root, and my mother replied that she had been combing my hair for 10 years and she knew what she was doing. Before my mother could get the sentence out, Nana popped her right across her mouth and told her not to ever disrespect her like that again! LOL! That just makes a 10 year old kid’s day! ;-)
Raylene - the first time it happened, I took even the bed out of the room. I left her bed frame and a whole lot of blankets. It broke my heart to see her sleeping on a palette in the middle of a bed frame, but I wouldn’t bend. I thought she had learned a lesson, but months later we had another episode. This time, I locked her bedroom door, and everything in it. That was just a couple of months ago, so it’s too soon to tell. But, so far, so good. I don’t think she’ll be saying what she said any time soon.
To answer your question, she’s definitely allowed to have male friends. She can even have a male friend that she calls a boyfriend. She cannot go out on dates with a boy, nor can she have male company or visit a boy at his home. We haven’t had the issue of a bunch of friends going to the movies and a boy being there - yet. I’ll have to cross that bridge when I get to it. As of today, I don’t know, but I’d probably either say no, or insist on dropping her off and picking her up.
By Just Being Me
November 8, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this
Hey Renee, do you also insist on dropping off and picking up, or making sure that another parent will? That’s one of my issues… I refuse to let her out unless one of the parents or I will be providing transportation, and she thinks I’m babying her. I agree with her, but so far, I’m unwilling to change. I feel badly about it, but I just can’t bring myself to let her out on her own like that. She’s not the most responsible kid…
I know when I was her age, my cousins and I took the bus anywhere it would take us… we had a lot more freedom than my daughter has.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this
Not to join Randy’s digression, but apparently Randy is not familiar with the timeline of evolution, nor is he familiar with the concept of continental drift.
Homo habilis, the first ancestor of “modern” man, is believed to have lived around 2 million years ago, just a few years before the first city-states sprung up in ancient Persia. Habilis and its subsequent descendants would have migrated via land bridge to other continents, or been separated by continental drift.
Attempting to equate the rise of civilization with evolution is basically flawed. The first city-states mark the transition from a hunter-gatherer society to an agrarian one, and rose up many, many years after what we would label Homo sapiens arose.
The sapiens part is still in question for some of us. Randy.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this
Oh Jack. You just can’t handle it when someone else is as abrasive and dismissive as you are, can you.
By Renee
November 8, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this
Definitely. I pick up and drop off, unless I meet and speak with the parent who will be involved. There are too many kids that come up missing, that the parents will be like “she left here a couple of hours ago to go somewhere with her friends”. Anytime she leaves the house there will be a plan, a check in time and a time I expect her to be home or that I will be picking up. Of course, where we live now is not as dangerous as Atlanta can be, but I still have that mentality. And I think things can happen anywhere.
I also think the worse thing is an idle teenage mind. Or teenagers wandering around with no place to go in mind. They will find somewhere to go or something to do and it won’t be good.
By Whiley
November 8, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this
Jack can handle it, he’s talked to ME before. lol
By The72John
November 8, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this
Chuck, it’s not a premise, it’s fact. Katrina - Fluor Corp, the Shaw Group, and Haliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root ALL got no-bid contracts straight from the White House. Iraq - Halliburton got no-bid Firefighting contract for KB&R in addition to other no-bid contracts for other subsidiaries. Bechtel - infrastructure rebuilding contract, also no-bid. It’s another sign of the corruption affecting the President that you are so quick to defend.
I’m just curious - what DO you like about him? He’s expanded beuracracy, increased the size of the federal government substantially, spent FAR more money than the gov’t has taken in, borrowed BILLIONS of dollars from foreign competitors…many of his policies are absolutely the opposite of what a true conservative wants, yet you still support him. I find that unfathomable.
And the textbook website - every student should use it. Saved me a ton of money myself.
By Just Being Me
November 8, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
Renee, I’m glad I have company! LOL! So now when she tells me I’m the only parent in the world that… I can say, “No I’m not!” lol
By Renee
November 8, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this
yeah JBM! LOL!!
I think the funniest things that my daughter says is “things have changed since you were in school” or “I have no idea how it is to be a teenager”. I think she thinks I morphed into a mother or when I went to school we had a wood stove and slates.
By Renee
November 8, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
Oh one more thing JBM. I actually wished more parents of children that she wants to be friends with felt like me. I always call to meet the parent, and sometimes they act like why am I calling. Like they don’t have time to discuss the whereabouts of the children. It’s very frustrating.
By Jack
November 8, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this
Thank you Whiley. Sweet thing.
By Billy
November 8, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this
Randy, your logic is flawed. Ancient cultures sprang up not only in Iraq, but also China, India, Egypt, and the Americas. Not that it matters, because it is asinine to say that we should have communities wherever apes/monkeys have communities.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this
Saying that Randy’s logic is flawed is like saying that water is wet.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this
Well the scientists need to keep their story straight, if they want to keep getting the atheists money. So they can live free and go experiment and research things they couldn’t possibly know. I was watching another show on dinosaurs the other day and they were saying how the dinosaurs sounded, everything they did etc. How do they know that from bones??? Face it they make up alot of stuff, I can see where they would know how long the dinosaurs were by the bones and a few other things but, what they sounded like and if they were a predator or not, I don’t know??? Sounds very creative to me.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this
Here we go again, trying to explain basic science to Randy.
It’s VERY simple, Randy, really it is.
Not only do paleontologists occasionally find fossilized remains that contain stomach contents, but there are basic physical characteristics that are typical of predators, and other that are typical of prey animals/herbivores.
For instance - eyes in the front of the skull are the mark of predator animals generally. Depth perception allows predator’s to kill more effectively. Conversely, eyes on the SIDES of the skull give prey animals a broader field of vision. Tearing claws and incisors are a sign of predators, while flat teeth and hooves or tough nails are typically signs of prey.
As for sound - have you ever heard of modeling? If one knows the basic shape of the vocal apparatus - throat length, bone structure, etc., it’s possible to approximate the sound made by said apparatus.
It’s really sad that you live in such a tiny little world, Randy. Even MOST Christians live outside of your box, though you seem to think that belief in evolutionary theory is the mark of an atheist.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this
That’s what I want to do, I’m going to go get a science degree. Then I can go out look at some rocks and bones, say they are 65 million years old. That I know that from the books I read and the unflawed scientists who wrote them, and collect thousands or millions of dollars for research. Then I can prove God doesn’t exist and I can live any lifestyle I choose(doesn’t matter who you hurt), that there is no meaning to life. Oh no, problems, who created the first day, set the sun just so far away, created the first seed and where is the missing link and a million more. Makes me mad.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this
Randy, I doubt you could pass an elementary school science class.
By Billy
November 8, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this
Randy, the lifestyles (gay) that you fundies are always harping on about don’t hurt anyone.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this
Oh, here we go…
By Brian Curtis
November 8, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
Randy: No, most scientists don’t “want you to believe� anything. They could care less what you believe. It’s what can be supported with logic and evidence that matters. That’s why evolution is a science, and ID is not. And atheism has nothing to do with it (how many times do we have to repeat this explanation?).
And monkeys didn’t “evolve everywhere� any more than humans did… you really don’t bother to learn about science before criticizing it, do you?
Let’s face it, Randy is a JOKE. But since he’s demonstrated total immunity to incoming information, that statement shouldn’t bother him.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this
I can pass one, I just don’t believe 80% of what they say. Common sense tells me that they don’t know what they sounded like, one bad idea(missed conclusion) from any scientist(along the way) builds a string of wrong conclusions, from all scientists that follow him. They can know certain things but not all they say.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this
They can know certain things but not all they say.
Hmm…just the things that don’t threaten your literalist Creationist viewpoint, hmm? Everything else is OK as long as you don’t feel threatened?
By Randy
November 8, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this
I listen to incoming information, but unfortunately for the scientists, I look at it from a view of common sense and their findings are not logical in alot of cases. Again, these are men who read books by other men and they take what those men say, as absolute truth. Science is good to a degree, with some medicines, but quit wasting money and time looking for the missing link(it isn’t there). Love ya Brian.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
Save us from “Common Sense”. “Common Sense” is the refuge of the fool who can’t understand complex thought. Randy, a representative of Homo inferior peasantus, dismisses the work of scientists because he doesn’t think their work makes sense. He actually thinks that HIS conclusions are more valid than those of someone who has studied a particular area for DECADES.
Randy, you are truly a moron.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
Well I do belive in the creation viewpoint, I think God’s taking 6 days to create the universe, was 6 of his days(could have been billions of years). But the more I read and see on scientific shows, keeps pointing back to Adam and Eve being the way it really happened.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this
No I not a moron, just someone who has common sense, someone who sees things from a logical point of view. But then I don’t have to justify my lifestyle to myself. I’m married, to one wife for 18 years now and have great kids and I don’t feel the need to call other people names. I’m not that weak.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this
But the more I read and see on scientific shows, keeps pointing back to Adam and Eve being the way it really happened.
yeah, Randy - are you sure you aren’t confusing the Discovery Channel with The 700 Club? Or maybe one of those religious cartoons…
By The72John
November 8, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
It’s not a matter of weakness, Randy. Your wilful ignorance disgusts me. People like you are a cancer on society.
By Brian Curtis
November 8, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
Randy: You must be disgusted with relativity, too, since it violates your precious “common sense.” For that matter, of course, so does the idea of an invisible magical being creating the universe for the fun of it… but I see that doesn’t cause you any qualms.
Common sense is a good guide to dealing with people and society. But “common sense” also fails us on a regular basis when it comes to understanding how the world works. Common sense taught us the world was flat, the sun revolved around it, and that black were an inferior race… it took science to prove all those “common-sense” notions wrong.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
I mean, No I’mnot a moron(well maybe a little bit).
By Jack
November 8, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this
Randy, do you believe that one’s body will change over time to accommodate living in a specific environment? IE Bigger nostrils for the desert, cave fish that have no eyes since they see no light, countless other examples brought up last week.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this
By the way, Peasant Randy, what am I trying to justify, just out of curiosity? You keep saying that, and I’m not really sure what it has to do with your scientific ignorance.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this
You see 72John, my view is people like you are a cancer to our society. But we will continue to defend your rights, at least until the muslims take over(due to people like you weakening our society). After they take over, you can deal with them. They are already big in europe, see France.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this
Peasant hu, 72John, I can buy and sell you.
By Stewie
November 8, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
Randy’s opinions are the same I have for people in the real estate business…I just don’t trust them…they are all crooks. And why should some moron realtor get 7% for selling a five million dollar house…they don’t do anything to earn it…besides unlock the door. Real Estate is the biggest con job market in existence.
Oh..except for the realtor that found my house.
By the way, I’m not in the real estate business, but I had a course in real estate in college, and I own a house so I think that proves I know what I’m talking about..hahahahahahahaha.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
Jack, that’s micro-evolution and yes I believe in that, but not macro-evolution.
By Jack
November 8, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
John. Oh N.D.! Your condesending posts are a cancer on this blog. There are plenty of people that lack “common sense” and are book smart and life dumb.
By SUZAN
November 8, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this
John72 are name calling again, shame shame….. Hey guys I want to talk about france…… and the new curfew think it will help, I dont really understand why people that riot burn diwn thier own homes and work places…. suz
By Randy
November 8, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this
I have no problem with what you said Stewie, Real Estate has been very good to me. Usually, on a 5 million dollar house some compromise occurs on the commission though. The secret though is buying the 5 million dollar house for 2.6 million and putting 2.4 million in your pocket.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this
Oh Randy. Are you defending my rights or trying to have them destroyed - make up your tiny little mind. As to your supposed ability to “buy and sell me”, wooooo! Only the Republican party measures a person’s worth by their financial standing. Many a mongoloid has inherited money.
Your personal fortune, be it real or imagined, in no way changes the fact that you are a stupid man with a limited intellect and very little in the way of redeeming qualities. At the end of the day, you’ll still be a bigoted little Christian fundamentalist determined to make everyone else act exactly like you do, and dedicated to the elimination of anything that dares to conflict with your tiny world.
By Whateva
November 8, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this
check out the book, 1491, all that was going on in the Americas before Columbus “discovered” America. Cultures that had their own, culturally-created, Adam and Eve story.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140004006X/102-8805411-1380110?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
By Randy
November 8, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this
72John, Again, I don’t have to justify my lifestyle to myself. I think you have alot of built up rage. Wonder Why.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this
Well, I certainly don’t have the lock on condescenion, Jack. You’re pretty good at it yourself. But really - I don’t care because I look down on you, too. Every time you poke at me and ignore everyone else who is being condescending, yourself included, you just show more and more that you’ve got it out for me personally. You’re hardly objective, Jackie.
I’m sure you consider yourself to be “Life smart” Jack. Does that make you “Book dumb”? Or just plain dumb.
By SUZAN
November 8, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this
john72 honey cut back on the caffiene. you know that is no way top treat others. everyones opinion is bad and we all know that, but we are allowed to have them and goodness lighten up on the Christianty stuff huh we dont pick on you for being and athiest…. so… are we still on the id and school thing this week
By The72John
November 8, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Well Randy, it’s probably from the abuse I’ve endured from people like you. Ever stop to think about that, you little fundy SOB?
By Randy
November 8, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Yes I am a Republican, didn’t use to be. Actually my father was a diehard Democrat. But when I found out what Republicans and Democrats stood for, there was never any doubt after that. Really comes down to, following God’s rules or thinking you are God and following your rules. I’m not God, so I’m a Republican.
By Just Being Me
November 8, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Renee - I know! Earlier Lyrazel suggested inviting the boy and his parents over… While I appreciate the suggestion, I was thinking, “HA!!!” The parents are the WORST. I always say that my biggest problem is not my child, but the parents of her friends. They allow the children to come and go as they please, hang out all times of day and night with whomever they please, and then the parents who monitor their kids closely get a bad rap!
By Randy
November 8, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this
With posts like the ones you do, you brought any abuse you get, or have got on yourself. Yes, I will defend your rights, with my life if need be(even if I disagree with them). Jesus doesn’t want robots, free will. I will fight for freedom, free will and God.
By Billy
November 8, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
Whateva, what are you saying about 1491?
By The72John
November 8, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this
You know, there’s no point in rehashing this argument. I don’t feel like degenerating into an insult-spewing rageaholic, so, Randy - I don’t like you, I think you’re narrow-minded bigot, but I hope you live out your life in happiness and die surrounded by brain-washed grandchildren. Shalom.
By Whateva
November 8, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
Billy, The convo about continental plates came up, I was reminded of the book, 1491. People in Mesopotamia created the Adam and Eve story, other cultures created similiar stories. Are we all descendants of the Indians’ perception of the beginning? Were they not named Adam and Eve, maybe they were named Tonto and Pocohontas. (just to throw out some American Indian names) And maybe those two were really the descendants of the she-wolf that lived in the forest. Since apparently BELIEVING it makes it TRUE. And they believed.
By Billy
November 8, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this
Ok. Many religions/cultures also have a flood myth. I wasn’t sure if you were proposing that “Adam & Eve” is a true myth since other cultures had similar myths…
By Just Being Me
November 8, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this
So, Suzan, what were you saying about France and their curfew? I didn’t hear about that…
By Renee
November 8, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this
Yeah JBM. I find it truly amazing how many parents let their children do what they please. My daughter has friends who do all kind of things which I can’t even fathom allowing. Much less the way they speak to their parents. I’ve never seen anything like it. I know growing up, we didn’t curse in front of ANY adults, and we were always respectful. Too many kids nowadays lack that respect for adults.
By Just Being Me
November 8, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this
Can’t we all just get along?
lololololol!!!!
By RF
November 8, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
Renee and JBM— when did we, as a society, lose the idea of respecting adults? I wonder how parents, raised like we were, are allowing their kids so much free run in life. Most kids growing up when we did were basically respectful. Not anymore!! I wonder when it became wrong to be in charge of your kids and teach them to have respect. I’m having one of those days when the kids in the room seem to think they make the rules and procedures. Nothing like having to treat freshmen in high school like kindergarteners!! :- )
By Jack
November 8, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this
Oh that hurt John. How I wish that I was as smart as thee! Sure your name isn’t Michael? Your posts are quite similar. You rip republicans but offer no solutions to our problems. Is that all you can do is bash Bush? Yes he is screwing up but I hear nothing from the libs as to how to better solve our problems. If you guys can’t come up with someone better than Mr. Heinz, you will continue to lose. BTW, yesterday was not a threat on my part. Just wishful thinking.
By Young
November 8, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this
Randy, I have a question for you. Do you question anything that you read from the bible or just believe what it says? Do you believe that Adam and Eve had Seth when Adam was 720 years old? Where did Cain and Abel’s wives come from? If Adam and Eve had children and nobody else was on Earth, did Cain and Abel marry their sisters?
What about Lot? Do you remember his wife turning to stone after Sodom and Gomorrah burned down? His daughters got him drunk and had children by him. Would that fly today in society?
By The72John
November 8, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this
Makes specific points and I’ll be happy to discuss solutions, Jackie. Just be sure you aren’t like the average Republican, with your fingers stuck in your ears shouting “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” over and over.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this
Young, Actually, Adam had Seth at age 130(Genesis 5:3)he did live another 800 years. Do I believe this YES. All the rules changed after the great flood and Noah. I believe, that when God decided to create man, time was so quick to God that 1000 years would be like a day to us. So when he created man he decided to give us 1000 years to decide to accept him as lord and savior. But, after all the people except Noah turned wicked when given that long to decide, God reduced it to what it is now. If you read the bible which was written 1800 or 1900 years ago, you will see how close it has come to our actual life expectance now. On Cain and Able marrying their sisters, again YES. It’s in Genesis also. Marrying relatives has been tabo, mainly because of the kings of England doing it and becoming insane. The great Flood changed many things.
By Just Being Me
November 8, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this
Young, Lot’s wife turned to salt.
RF - I wonder the same thing! I just don’t get it one bit. But, as silly as it sounds, I think at least part of this lack of respect can be attributed to too much education. You see, these educated therapists write these wonderful books on how to raise your children. Then, the eager-to-do-well parents read these books and follow every principle taught, less discipline, more freedom, fewer restrictions, etc… it results in a disrespectful society. Of course television, music, movies, video games have a lot to do with it as well…
By The72John
November 8, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this
So…let’s get this straight. First - the Bible was written…1800 years ago? 200 years after the death of Christ? Uh…huh…O…k.
And then the taboo against marrying one’s kin is entirely due to “The kings of England did it and became insane.”
I don’t know where to begin.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Another point on the bible, I’m just a man, I’m not God, I don’t have the right to question the bible, it was written by men inspired by God and who do I think I am to question that. Really, it doesn’t change things, a creator exists, he has made himself known and you must develope a relationship with him and have faith in him, or you are in trouble. You have to have faith in everything you do in life, why would God be any different?? What I have found in business is, if you think you can, you can. God’s the same way, if you think and want him and want to go to heaven, you’ll get your wish.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this
New testament Johnny baby. Emperior Constantine in 325ish solidified it.
By RF
November 8, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
JBM—we had our share of social rebellion in the teenage years. Think about the music we were listening to in the seventies (I just showed my age!!!). A lot of it was anti-social. Not as much sex and booty shakin’, but rebellious at times(I don’t let mine listen to the radio unless I’m in the room). But it’s funny that we knew the limits still mattered at home. That’s what’s changed the most. There’s not nearly as much structure for kids. Too many tv’s in the house and no family time. I actually make mine turn the idiot box off and play board games. Now they beg me to play games. I just hate the fact that so many parents miss out on the fun of just sitting in a chair and making up silly songs with their kids so they can watch the reruns of “Jerry”….GAWD I hate that show!
By The72John
November 8, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this
Well, it wasn’t WRITTEN then, Randy baby. Not if Paul and the other apostles are supposed to have been the writers.
Duh.
By Jack
November 8, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
Who said I was Republican? Just cause I think W is better than Mr. Heinz doesn’t make me a Republican. Like all the other elections, pick the lesser of the evils. I guess Hillary (the socialist) has your vote in 08?
By Randy
November 8, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
What difference does it make, the old testament was written by different Jewish leaders, before Christ, as soon as Christ rose from the grave, the new testament was started to be written by Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. Emperior Constantine solidified it in the early 300 AD. at the Counsel of Nicea. Who doesn’t know this??? All you do is attack without backing it up with any logic or evidence.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Why “the socialist”? Because she spearheaded a nationalized medical plan? I’ll tell you why I think you’re a Republican - because you say things like that. Black and white - all absolutes.
Studies show that a majority of the people in this country want some kind of national health care program. It’s only when it’s painted in “socialist” terms that those numbers drop off. Do you even know what socialism is? Do you think that Hilary, or any OTHER democrat honestly is a Socialist? Hell, they and every other politician in national office are way too rich to be socialists.
Admit it Jack - the only reason you don’t like Hilary is because she’s a woman and she isn’t in the kitchen making you breakfast.
By Brian Curtis
November 8, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
Hillary, a socialist! HAH! She’s not even liberal, and only recognizable as a Democrat because of how far rightward they’ve drifted (abandoning their principles as the party of the working class).
Hillary’s a long way from getting my support.
By Donald
November 8, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
72John, I was about to come in and defend Randy and some of his positions, at least his right to enspouse those positions. But as I continued to read, it became clearer why the abuse from you was so ravenous! Randy, between sales, read more books man. Nothing wrong with an attempt to live a God filled life but where does right wing fundamentalism end and other’s right begin.
Randy, I would venture to say if your group were to prevail,it would not be long before the serious killings would start. As soon as someone disagreed with a text from your leader he would surely be put to death.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
Actually what Constantine did was threw out anything that wasn’t extremely well documented(In the New Testament). If there was anything that didn’t have 100% proof, like between 500 and 600 eye witnesses to Jesus rising from the grave, if there was only one or two witnesses, it was thrown out. As they didn’t want any doubters or any problems. I see why, with people like you wanting to justify their lifestyles and others wanting to discredit it because they don’t want to give up their sin.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this
I think you’re getting a little confused, Randy. The Council of Nicea was in response to the Arian heresy, the idea that Christ was separate from God. Constantine was involved in the drafting of the Nicene Creed, which is still used in many churches today.
Who doesn’t know this stuff? I DID go through confirmation classes, you know.
By Whateva
November 8, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this
So the Navajo Indians prohibition against breeding with your siblings or even close relatives had to do with the Kings of England and not the genetic deformations that resulted when ‘in-breeding’ occurred?
Learn something new everyday. Good Golly!
By Brian Curtis
November 8, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
Randy: “Following God’s rules…�? And that makes you a Republican? How does that work, exactly? Is it “God’s rule� that we ignore the poor and cater to the wealthy? Did God command us to conquer the world and destroy those who disagree with us? Was Jesus actually teaching us to cheer on the free market ahead of all other considerations? To abandon education, food, housing, and healthcare for those in need? To let blacks drown and starve in the wake of natural disasters?
Because that’s what the Republicans are all about… screwing the common man and serving the rich, despite Jesus’ clear command to serve the poor and feed the hungry. That’s their take on “God’s rules.� And you AGREE with them?
Hypocrisy, thy name is Randy.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
I guess the confirmation classes didn’t work?? I’m not Catholic.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
It’s so funny Randy - you’re always saying “You just want to justify your lifestyle”. You are SO RIGHT. It’s not the illogic of your positions that offend me…I’m just trying to JUSTIFY MY SIN!
And you wonder why I think you’re a codsack.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
I’m a republican because of abortion and the murdering of innocent babies(some as they come out of the womb). Bush didn’t attack Iraq for religious purposes, he did it because his father didn’t the first time. George Bush senior probably sat around saying “I should have taken Saddam out the first time” and Jr. just looked for a reason to finish the job. Jesus was/is God, he did everything right, me and Bush are just human, we make mistakes. Your right, Jesus could have stopped his own death at anytime, but turned the other cheek. Probably where we modern day Christians fail the most.
By Young
November 8, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
Thanks JBM!
So Randy, why is it okay to not question the bible, but okay to question science? Is it okay not to question Constantine’s motives by taking certain things out of the bible?
Is it okay to have children with your daughter? Is it okay to have multiple wives, concubines, all of that good stuff? Soloman did it. Jacob married sisters, had children with them both, and a daughter named Dinah by somebody else. Being a man, you have got to love the bible. Wives are submissive. They are happy with you having concubines. Most of them do nothing more than have children for you.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this
72John, Saying you went to confirmation classes makes alot of sense now. Down deep you believe in God, but your lifestyle is so against the bible your have to fight it(bible). That’s why you have so much rage. Let your conscience tell you the truth.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this
Constantine did not set the canon of the NT…he DID commission a number of bibles which may have represented the first time the books were all pulled together, but he did not have anything like the role that Crazy Randy has suggested.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this
here we go again…No, Randy, you sad, pathetic, worthless piece of filth, my enemy is you, not God. It’s You and your kind who make God such a patheticaly childish, spoiled brat of a juvenile deity. It’s YOU who are so steeped in superstition, so desperately in need of someone else to tell you what is right or wrong. God doesn’t have the problem, Randy - you do.
By Jack
November 8, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
Randy. Wasn’t Jesus the SON of God?
By Randy
November 8, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
Believe me Young my wife is not submissive, really a partnership and I like it that way. The bible was inspired by GOD, science is man trying to answer the questions of the universe, if no creator existed. Not all, but some. Some science is good, medicine, for example, if God didn’t want us to know how to cure a disease. He wouldn’t give us the knowledge. So all medicine is to be used.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this
I figured that would hit you where it hurt, 72John. The truth hurts. Jack, I’m not Catholic, so I believe that Jesus, God(the creator), the holy spirit are all the same good entity. If Jesus is the son of God, that works for me to.
By Guesser
November 8, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
So if God did not want us to clone people, he would not have given us the knowledge?
If he did not want us to kill people, he would not have allowed us to discover the finer aspects of metallurgy, for sword making, or the eventual discovery of gunpowder?
If he did not want us to abort babies, he would not have given us the knowledge to know what to do?
Can anyone guess where this could be going? Just trying to follow the ‘logic’ there.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
is man trying to answer the questions of the universe, if no creator existed
Science, you insipid, crazed loon, is man using his brain to understand the world around him. It has NOTHING TO DO with the presence OR the absence of a creator. .
By Renee
November 8, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this
Maybe I’m wrong, but using that logic, you find medicine to be “good” because it is beneficial to you. Therefore, if you don’t find an aspect of science to be what you may think is beneficial, then it’s not good.
By Randy
November 8, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
I’ll have to say, I haven’t had so much fun with anyone in a long time as I have had with 72John today. But I’m going to have to do some rent collecting. Everybody have a great day.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
Randy, you wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked you upside the head. You are an ignorant little bigot and you will always be an ignorant little bigot. I don’t care HOW much money you claim you have, you are garbage.
By Just Being Me
November 8, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
Down deep you believe in God, but your lifestyle is so against the bible your have to fight it(bible). That’s why you have so much rage.
That’s ridiculous.
By Jack
November 8, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
72John N.D. BTW I wouldn’t want Hillary in my kitchen anymore than you would. In some aspects I am chauvanistic in some things such as no women in combat but women don’t play a submissive role in my world. You arrogant piece of dirt. I think you are envious. You could never find a woman who would put up with your drivel.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
That’s ridiculous.
Maybe now you understand why I froth at the mouth whenever Randy starts talking.
By Stewie
November 8, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
Randy,
Don’t you mean you need to do some “money changing”…hahahahahahaha.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this
Sorry to disappoint you, Jack-Smack. I’m about as jealous of you as I am of a three-legged mule.
Arrogant I may be, but dirt I am not. You, on the other hand, are pure trailer.
By Zack
November 8, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
Sorry to have been gone lately, but allow me to pop in quickly with a few comments.
Don’t tell me Creationism or even intelligent design shouldn’t be allowed in schools. To say that Creationism is based on faith and not science, as our friends at the dreaded “The West Wing” would have you believe (not that I watch that show, but I heard a soundbite—they’re not getting a rating from my house). Science DOES support Creationism and refute evolution, but we have this liberal agenda being imposed on our public school system, and Christians aren’t doing enough to stop it.
Tom Brokaw had a piece Sunday night concerning Christians and our influence on law, as though a vote for abortion, for stem-cell research, for gun control, etc., is NOT a religious vote. Unfortunately, he did not seek the true Christian community but instead the Rick Warrens, Joel Osteens, and the other moneymaking, power-seeking folks in the megachurch crowd, who throw truth out the window in an effort to appease the masses in an effort to, among other things, raise more revenue.
It infuriates me when people speak of “abortion rights” being threatened. By making this “negative” statement, it’s like complaining that civil-rights advocates threatened “slaveowners’ rights.”
Also, now we see “Commander in Chief” portraying a woman as being firm, in charge, and decisive. Women have many, many qualities, but when in comes to leadership, men inherently are better here, as it’s just part of our inherent gender role to lead. The fact that men are portrayed as fools on TV over and over and over is not just a classless attempt at humor but also a grassroots attempt to emasculate what society thinks of men and to pave the way for the feminist movement to push its sorry agenda on us, much like the gay community has done over the last three decades. Now, as the deplorable feminists portray abortion opponents as those who infringe on the Constitution, the casual observer is blind to the fact that such a statement is parallel to Hitler and Nazi Germany saying the same about those who opposed the Holocaust. These sick people are clever; they’re as trashy as they come, but they’re clever. Unfortunately, obviously, they abuse their cleverness.
Myth-busting time; let’s deal with facts: Evolution is NOT supported by science. Condoms do not work. Abstinence and in-one-(heterosexual)marriage-only sex comprise the only safe sex. Homeschooling is good, and the public school system is a joke. AIDS is not as big a threat to the heterosexual community as it is to the homosexual community. Having a gun in your home doesn’t mean the odds of a death occurring there triple. Egalitarianism is a stupid lie; males and females are just different, always have been, always will be. The feminist movement doesn’t believe in equality; they want to be granted special, undeserved rights and privileges. Their attack on men isn’t indicative of their true feelings of men. In fact, it shows how they feel about themselves. At 3:00 am, if the heat goes out in the house, who takes charge, and who buries herself under the covers? The feminist movement is as hate-filled a group as I’ve seen since, well, the gay-right movement, the anti-war groups, the pro-evolution in schools groups, etc., etc..
I’ll stop here. Nice to return. Nice to speak the truth.
By Zack
November 8, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
My long parenthetical comment led to my forgetting to finish my started statement. To say that Creationism is based not on science but by faith is stupid, downright stupid.
It’s bigotry in its rawest form.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
And yet another colossal moron has entered the fray. Psychotic, child molesting, rapist, probably-in-jail-where-he-belongs, mysogenystic, down-right-evil Zack.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
Let’s count how many times Zack misuses words like “bigotry”.
By Brian Curtis
November 8, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
Randy: Deep down you know there’s no God, but your life is so set against reason and logic that you have to fight it. That’s why you have so much desperate condescension and insecurity. Let your brain lead you to the truth… if it hasn’t atrophied yet.
Zack: It IS nice to speak the truth… but how would you know? Did someone describe it to you?
By Renee
November 8, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Myth-busting time; let’s deal with facts: Evolution is NOT supported by science. Condoms do not work. Abstinence and in-one-(heterosexual)marriage-only sex comprise the only safe sex. Homeschooling is good, and the public school system is a joke. AIDS is not as big a threat to the heterosexual community as it is to the homosexual community. Having a gun in your home doesn’t mean the odds of a death occurring there triple. Egalitarianism is a stupid lie; males and females are just different, always have been, always will be. The feminist movement doesn’t believe in equality; they want to be granted special, undeserved rights and privileges. Their attack on men isn’t indicative of their true feelings of men. In fact, it shows how they feel about themselves. At 3:00 am, if the heat goes out in the house, who takes charge, and who buries herself under the covers? The feminist movement is as hate-filled a group as I’ve seen since, well, the gay-right movement, the anti-war groups, the pro-evolution in schools groups, etc., etc..
Says Who??? Who is the dictator of these facts???????
By Just Being Me
November 8, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this
LOL @ all these nutcases gathered in one place! What are the odds?!!!
By Renee
November 8, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this
LOL JBM!!!!!!!
By The72John
November 8, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this
Renee, welcome to Zack’s world. He actually hates pretty much everyone, but never hesitates to call everyone else a bigot. If you belong to any of the groups that he despises (and insists God also despises, by the way) and you object to his characterization of you, it’s because you’re a “bigot” and “full of hatred”. He ESPECIALLY has a problem with women, and there’s a good chance that he’s actually an imprisoned rapist. I’m guessing he’s been in solitary confinement for a while, which accounts for his absence.
Isn’t that fun to know!
By DeltaX
November 8, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this
JBM -
To answer your question [about thinking my child may be stoned or such] we have to go back a number of years.
The day after every birthday our [respective] children’s allowance and privlidges increase; depending on behavior and the outcome of last years rules.
We sit down and decide what we find fair. In the contract is what gets deducted from her allowance for not doing a chor, consiquences for disobeying (not allowance/TV/Phone during - different for each age), what we are able to do in the situation that we feel we must pull her aside (drugs,general attitude), grades…you get the point.
We decide all this with them, so they are a part of the rule system - and also know the rules.
So when we have run into issues, we all have something to adhere to - Any claims of unfairness are quickly disarmed with the contract we three decided on.
This is a quick run down; but give you the point.
By Renee
November 8, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
Just to add one more thing. Christians are supposed to be emulating Christ and exhibiting love. I don’t get anything like that from Zack’s statement, yet Christian is the first thing he wanted to be compared to. Maybe I’m missing something.
By Billy
November 8, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this
Zack — Shut up, go read the past two weeks’ forums in their entirety and then you can come here and spout your insipid drivel.
By blablabla
November 8, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
Some of the comments from Brian and 72John are as hilarious for their stupidity as those coming from the evolution nuts.
1) hillary isn’t a liberal. she’s barely a democrat.
2) republicans want to let blacks drown and starve in the wake of natual disasters.
3) i knew you were a republican because you deal in absolutes, you psychotic, child-molesting, rapist piece of trash.
4) its not my fault i’m an arrogant jerk, it’s somebody else’s fault. it’s due to all the abuse these awful fundies have given me over the years.
do you two make this up? are you trying to be funny? it really is high comedy that you prance around pretending to be the purveyors of rational thought and then open your mouths, ending any possibility for reasoned discussion.
Just Being Me had it right…it’s hysterical that we have all these nutcases on one blog at one time.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
Yes, you’re missing the “He’s insane” factor. I mean - he doesn’t even understand the ratings system…he thinks if he watches the West Wing it’s going to boost the show’s ratings.
By Billy
November 8, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this
blablabla, your name says so much i feel no need to read another one of your posts…
By The72John
November 8, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this
Hey, blablabla, before you shoot off your mouth, perhaps you should read Zack’s past work. Maybe after you read paragraph after paragraph of his venom being heaped on women, you’ll understand.
I’m willing to have a rational debate with anyone who isn’t a religious fanatic, by the way. But if you want to know why I become irrational and angry when I deal with them, then yes, it does have to do with how they have and continue to treat me. If you don’t like it, I don’t care. I also don’t care if you find me humorous - trust me, I find you equally so.
By Jack
November 8, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this
I’ve said this before Needle, I don’t live in a trailer. They don’t fair well in storms. I live under a bridge at Clairmont & I-85. Not as many children to scare here but the wi-fi is good. Boy it sure took long enough for Zack to show up! Now we need Taboga & Norman to enter the fray and all of the loons will be in attendence. A fun time will be had by all!!
By Renee
November 8, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this
toooo funny Jack!!!!!!!! lol
By Jack
November 8, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
Try the golden rule 72John. It really works. Karma is working against you. You reap what you sow.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
Possibly they don’t FARE well, either.
Seriously, aren’t you a little old to be making dick jokes? I mean…please, Jack. You can do better than that, I know you can. Pull yourself out of your dotage.
By Just Being Me
November 8, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
Delta, I leave at 4:30p, so I don’t have time to scroll up and find the question to which you’re referring. I don’t recall asking you about your kids being stoned, so I’m thinking you must be answering RF’s question?? But, if you are answering RF’s question, I have to say that I don’t see how your response really answers his question. (But, keep in mind that this is my going off memory - I have not scrolled up to see…).
In the regard you outlined, my house runs pretty similarly. We have a list of family rules that we came up with together, and discussed openly with input from everyone (although I had the final say so). Next to each rule is a penalty, and everyone is really clear that when a rule is broken, punishment will not be given arbitrarily, but based on whatever the rules sheet says. If she goes one month with only breaking 2 rules or less, she is eligible for a raise to her allowance.
Anyway, I don’t see how that responds to what you would do if you strongly suspected your child was using drugs, but he/she denied it.
By The72John
November 8, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
You’ve got no idea what I sow, Jack.
By Jack
November 8, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this
I like it here in my dotage. Please forgive my speling. I know I could never be as smart as you. Mr. Perfect. Do my jokes hit a nerve? Truth hurts huh?
By Jack
November 8, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
I see what you sow on this blog. If that is indicative of your everday life, I feel sorry for you. Bitter angry man/boy.
By DeltaX
November 8, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this
JBM -
Sorry, it was RF that asked; but: So you discussed with your kids that you will snoop?
Or did you leave those thing out?
Original Question: Let me ask you a question. If you noticed one of yours exhibiting signs of having used drugs, would you snoop if they denied it? Would you trust them if they said no, but their behaviors indicated otherwise? I hope that never happens to you, and from what you’ve said, it probably won’t. But would you if you felt the need?
We covered this in our talks with our kids: First time we trust them at their word. If we suspect further, we have a sit down talk and cover concerns - new material. If mom and dad feel there is a serious issue [suspect anything that may be dangerous]; we have the right to ask them to go through their stuff with us - and even tested if it gets to that point.
In all our years we ran into this once; and none of the supercede-parent stuff was needed - at all.
You two say you have tight relationships with your kids; but lying and theiving are not attributes of a trusting tight relationship. So, I figure we are just from different realities - good luck.
By DeltaX
November 8, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this
The72John;
Idiots keeping you busy today?
By The72John
November 8, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this
Angry and bitter? Sometimes - towards the people I vent on here. And rightfully so, by the way - no one’s going after YOUR civil rights or YOUR life Jack, so don’t even judge.
But if you think that the way a person behaves in a politically-charged blog is indicative of the way the behave in real life, then you don’t have a good grasp of reality.
By blablabla
November 8, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this
that’s cool, billy. read what you want. i guess i only need to read about 1/4 of your posts since you seem to have this silly habit of posting the same thing three or four times.
john72, i’ve read plenty of zack’s comments over the past months. i’ve been away for awhile, but i’m quite familiar with his rantings.
so you don’t like the zacks of the world who think women belong in the kitchen and should be subservient to their man. i don’t buy into that worldview either, but you don’t see me running around calling them child-molesting rapists either.
i think earlier in the blog you accused either republicans or fundies (i don’t remember which) of being the type that will scream “i can’t hear you” while they have their fingers in their ears. what you fail to realize is that when you call the zacks and chucks of the world the awful names that you do, you’re doing the EXACT SAME THING. through your name calling and unwillingness to have a reasoned discussion (“if you don’t like it, i don’t care”), you’re spewing as much hate and are just as wrong as the guy who called eaton a dirty f@g months ago.
i’m glad you find it humourous that i can piece together your own posts from this blog and expose you for an arrogant hypocrite. you’re probably the only one who does. i pity you. try to be a little less condescending smart-a$$ and try to be a little more balanced and you won’t be frothing at the mouth.
By InlovewithJBM
November 8, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
Ah how refreshing…Zack sputing bile and 72 John frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog lest anyone should disagree
By Jack
November 9, 2005 07:57 AM | Link to this
I said IF your post were indicative of your everday life. Who is going after your civil rights and life? Is that why you have that giant chip on your shoulder? Tell them to stick it. It is your life, not theirs. I’ve told my children many times; the best revenge is living well.
By Lyrazel
November 9, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this
JBM: Few kids at 14 want to be invited to supper with mom & dad or parent/partner at their girlfriends. It just is very SAFE to actually know the boy who would give a ring to your daughter—so its not a preposterous idea. Sorry you think I was being condesending to your parenting skills.
Zack: for someone who declares he does not watch foul television you certainly seem to know exactly which shows are giving contrary opinions to yours. I adore the misconceptions you routinely bring to the forum concerning science, women and belief systems. At 3:00 am when the heat goes out its me who gets up and lights the pilot. My hubby is not handy. I entered the relationship with the power tools and he is a poet, he keeps the house and I go to work. He is not effeminate he is just not into the machismo-male-stereotypes that you believe men should adhere to. Also, now we see “Commander in Chiefâ€? portraying a woman as being firm, in charge, and decisive. Women have many, many qualities, but when in comes to leadership, men inherently are better here, as it’s just part of our inherent gender role to lead. When Hollywood sells a show it needs sexy women. Would there be an audience if an ugly super-intellegent woman who looked frumpy in a dress: a Margaret Thatcher type was in power over her male subordinates? TV relies on prejudices and stereotypes rather than reality—but you call it feminist liberalism? Name one over 40 overweight actress on TV and yet most American women over 40 are so why not on TV? Indeed most actresses see their careers end at 35 because they are old. Have you seen a cop show recently without lead female character clevage? I bet few female detectives sport so low decoltage—but where are the camera shots? Yes…see the breasts how they swell when she pants and says: You are under arrest…pervert! Where is the grey haired old lady who worked 20 years on the force and is detective—or even grey hairs on any woman not in a comedy role? Wrinkles? Why do 20 year old models sell wrinkle creams and weightloss products? This is feminism? Is this liberal? In most ways—its the same old balderdash, the same crap tv has given us for the past 30 years? TV is fantasy land, Zack.
By Renee
November 9, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this
You two say you have tight relationships with your kids; but lying and theiving are not attributes of a trusting tight relationship. So, I figure we are just from different realities - good luck.
I don’t lie to my daughter and I don’t thieve. I can’t steal what is mine anyway. Everything in that house that she has is ultimately mine and I can take back at my leisure, should she not adhere to my rules. I’m sure you do take your children at their word, and I’m sure you believe they never lie and all is good in Oz.
But everybody has their opinion, my daughter is my responsibility, and I choose to raise her as I do. You continue to let Dr Spock or Dr Phil or whomever has filled your head with parental raising through meetings and trust.
By RF
November 9, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this
Delta- good answer. I’m glad your parenting style works for you. Your kids are lucky to have a parent who is so open-minded and communicative. Your children have obviously had the benefit of having stability all their lives, and that shows in the way you deal with them. Mine have a difficult history before I took custody of them, and didn’t have the stability and security children need at an early age. Because of their history and the high likelihood of drug dependency should they ever try, I will likely have to be a little tougher. I hope not, but I am simply trying to prepare for that possibility. What you need to realize is that not all kids are as good as yours, and many need stricter environments. I shower mine with love, communication, and education. We work together on chores, they have a chore chart with clear, mutually agreed upon expectations, rewards, an punishments. We play, read, and talk together every day. But, they know I can and will check on them and pry if I feel the need. I want them to know that I love them above all else, and because I love them that I have to watch and guide them carefully. I don’t, and will not lie to them. It isn’t stealing for a parent to go into a bedroom and check for inappropriate things. As long as I pay the bills and provide the home, I reserve the authority to enter any room when necessary. I respect their individuality and right to privacy, but only so long as I feel they are living within acceptable social limits. All children have to learn those limits, and we have to teach them in whatever way works best. You have yours, I have mine, and both have merit. I also teach ninth graders all day, and I see the kids in their social context. Much of what I see and hear would keep parents awake at night with worry. Perhaps some of my decisions as a parent come from seeing that reality and the heartache it can cause when parents find out what’s really going on in a child’s life that they never suspected.
Your constant insistance upon being so condescending to those who have opinions other than yours is just plain boring. A truly educated person realizes that there are other, equally valid points of view that may very well be based on careful thought and wise consideration of all available information. I willingly give you credit for your thoughtful parenting, and have learned from the comparison of your views to mine. There’s a lot of anger in your words which only serves to weaken the expression of your thoughts. You may certainly continue to cut down those who don’t agree with you, but realize it doesn’t make you look any more intelligent, just angry, and that doesn’t impress people at all.
By SUZAN
November 9, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this
John 72 if you dont quit this you are going to give yourself a stroke sweetie. I am just checking on you to see if you are okay since that ruling in kansas came down yesterday about id and darwinism being called a theory and all. I know that a lot of people are going to be very upset about this
anyway good morning to all and I hope to speak to yall a little later this am Suz
By Renee
November 9, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this
Thanks RF. You put it much better than I did. I didn’t have the patience nor the energy to type a well thought out answer. But then again I don’t have to explain anything to anyone anyway.
By Scalia
November 9, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this
I’m confused. How are gender roles inherent?
Hypothetically speaking, if a male and female baby grow up on a deserted island without parents or a society, how would gender roles appear? Along this same vein, suppose the girl grows taller than the boy. How would gender roles play out?
By RF
November 9, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this
Renee- you are soooo right. As long as my kids are happy and healthy, I won’t worry about changing the way I’m raising them. I guess it’s the teacher in me. I have to smile and be non-combative, even though inside I really just want to call ‘em like I see ‘em (or smack them like my mom would for ‘ugly talk’). ;- )
By DeltaX
November 9, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this
RF-
You adhere to view I see all the time; and they seem to be double standards.
As long as I pay the bills and provide the home, I reserve the authority to enter any room when necessary.
That for instance; does not ensure property and goes against your previous claim that if they are acting odd or inapppropriate; you will snoop.
I do not have any tolerance for parents getting all high-mighty on children. Although adults know more; they still shilt their part of their homework just as often as kids do. For example; I believe it is a shortcut, like cheating, to snoop - and like cheating [you say yourself] just do not get caught.
Then there is the shame aspect. Doleing our shame [the ring is hideous and he only wants something - not your friendship, or nice company]; which is gross.
Do I have strong feelings about this? Absolutly! You find it caustic; I am not trying to help anyone here - only out discovering how backwards people are in the world. Kids that have been raised to thus far [past 3yrs]; are not going to have the benefit of their parents changing for the better - they will justify it more feverishly, or lie/rationalize what they are doing. Whipping bottoms also get you nowhere - and you are a teacher?
This left-handed style of raising kids is key to the problems this blog deals with on a daily basis between adults.
I do not plan on you liking this. Nor do I feel the need to always be liked - especially when it is serious like this: Beating bottoms? Snooping? Betraying trust? Learning/Feeling it funny to see mom get slapped by G-maw?
By Billy
November 9, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this
blablabla, I couldn’t do it. I read your post. Where have I posted things 3 or 4 times? Are you talking about the past two weeks? I have had to repeat things, like ID not being science, but that’s only to get through the thick skulls of people who refuse to accept the premise of teaching science in science class.
72John and I both have been guilt of a little name calling lately. It’s because for over two weeks now we have been explaining the ID/Creationism vs. evolution “controversy” to people like Randy who spout the same “God” crap without ever involving any critical thinking in his thought processes, then resort to criticizing “lifestyles” and citing scripture as if it somehow validates throwing science out the window. After 2 1/2 weeks of this, we get a little testy.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel - Noooo! I didn’t find your suggestion to be condescending at all, nor did I find the idea itself preposterous. My underlying statement was (in response to something Renee said) that too many parents aren’t actively involved in their children’s lives, and frankly don’t care who their kids make friends with. In some places and circles, that would work just fine. However, most of the kids my daughter associates with do not come from homes where the parents would accept a dinner invitation to the parents of some girl their son likes. It’s just unrealistic. But, I still appreciated your input, and there was no sarcasm in that sentiment at all.
We covered this in our talks with our kids: First time we trust them at their word. If we suspect further, we have a sit down talk and cover concerns - new material. If mom and dad feel there is a serious issue [suspect anything that may be dangerous]; we have the right to ask them to go through their stuff with us - and even tested if it gets to that point.
Unfortunately, it is not always prudent to take the luxury of taking their word the first time and waiting until you have further suspicions to talk things over again… I’m glad (sincerely glad) that this works for you and your family. But, in my house, if I suspected for one moment that my daughter was using drugs, I could never and would never wait a week, or even a day, to find out if I could trust her word. There’s no waiting period to OD on drugs. It only takes one time to get pregnant, or HIV, or chlamydia, syphillis, gonorrhea, herpes, etc. If I have to betray her trust to save her life, I’ll do just that with a clear conscience.
we have the right to ask them to go through their stuff with us - and even tested if it gets to that point
Here is an indicator of a difference of values. I don’t value my daughter’s privacy. I’ll admit that. But, I do value her belief that she has privacy until she forfeits that privilege. See, I wouldn’t ask her permission to go through her stuff, and I would never do it with her present, because I don’t value her privacy. What if I go through her things with her present and find nothing? Then, she believes I don’t trust her. She begins to think it’s necessary to hide things outside of the house, which could be even more dangerous. I think it’s far more important that she believes she has privacy, than that she actually have it.
You two say you have tight relationships with your kids; but lying and theiving are not attributes of a trusting tight relationship. So, I figure we are just from different realities - good luck.
Dude, why can’t you just disagree respectfully? Why must you take these condescending attitudes just because we have different opinions? Why be a jerk about it? Is that really necessary? Geez.
Oh, and the “figuring” you did that we must be from different realities, is that a revelation you had? Or did I not tell you two days ago that parenting is largely CULTURAL, and that I don’t expect you to parent the way I do????????
I choose not to debate or discuss issues with people who can’t do it without being disrespectful, so don’t bother to say anything else to me. Good day.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this
Oh, the second part of my 9:31a was for Delta, not Lyrazel. Sorry, I got carried off.
RF, very well said. I love how you can always keep a cool head. Just read Delta’s response and noticed that he didn’t even touch your last paragraph! Just reinforces what you said…
Poor debaters are so disappointing.
By Jack
November 9, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this
DeltaX. Are you saying parents should not disipline their children? Children that grow up without it generally have miserable adult lives when they find out that life is not a bowl of cherries and you can’t always get what you want.
By Renee
November 9, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this
Delta - maybe whipping bottoms have gotten you nowhere with yours, but it has gotten me somewhere with mine.
Ido not have any tolerance for parents getting all high-mighty on children.
I’m not sure what you mean by this commment, but I ask you, do you feel the children are the equals to adults. The children should dictate the rules to the adults. I’m not half as strict as when I was raised, children only spoke when spoken to.
Children are children. They look to the adults for guidance and rules. And yes rules are not fair, hence it being a rule. I snoop, and my daughter does not have to be acting odd or inappropriate for me to do so. I am always going to be two steps ahead of her (or try to be). I will render punishment as necessary. She is too old for whippings but not too old to get popped in the mouth should she choose to disrespect me in my house (yes, my house).
I see too many children nowadays that could have used a pop on their behind a couple of times. Disrespectul, mouthy kids. Kids who tell their parents how it is going to be and dare them to be combatted. If I didn’t care about my daughter I would let her run amuck, talk to adults as she deems necessary.
I guess you gave your kids timeouts Delta. I sure hope that worked for you and your kids aren’t the ones I’m telling my child she cannot be friends with. Yes, I have that right as well, to pick the friends. But fortunately, my daughter chooses friends that I don’t have to interfere with often. Beat bottoms - yes, I encourage others to do the same. Snoop - I don’t think I can snoop in MY House but if that’s the word we are using then Yes
By Jack
November 9, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this
Teenagers = God’s revenge for enjoying sex.
By chuck
November 9, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this
Yesterday Brian Curtis made this ridiculous statement:
And that makes you a Republican? How does that work, exactly? Is it “God’s rule� that we ignore the poor and cater to the wealthy? Did God command us to conquer the world and destroy those who disagree with us? Was Jesus actually teaching us to cheer on the free market ahead of all other considerations? To abandon education, food, housing, and healthcare for those in need? To let blacks drown and starve in the wake of natural disasters?
God commanded us as CHRISTIANS to feed the poor, clothe the naked, and encourage the weak. HE DID NOT COMMAND THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THOSE THINGS.
As a Republican, I have read the Constitution which outlines the role of the Federal Government. Those things are NOT IN THERE.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. These are the words of the 10th Amendment. IF ANY OF THE THINGS YOU DESCRIBE ARE TO BE DONE BY A GOVERNMENT, THE PROPER PLACE FOR THAT TO OCCUR WOULD BE AT THE STATE OR LOCAL LEVEL NOT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. All the Feds do is create a huge “poverty bureaucracy” that does little to solve the underlying problems. The welfare state was one of the most devious ploys ever conceived by the democrats. They knew that as long as they were writing checks to people, that they owned the votes of those people. In the mean time it also enabled the wealthy democrats to increase their own wealth, maintain their power, AND participate in the creation of loopholes for themselves so that they would not have to pay taxes on that wealth. At the same time they could look to their “constituents” and say, “Those mean Republicans are trying to take away your check.” That worked from FDR through Bush I, until the MIDDLE CLASS, the group that makes this country great, was being squeezed from BOTH ends of the political spectrum. WHY DO YOU THINK THE REPUBLICANS TOOK CONTROL OF ALMOST ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS? It started with the Republican Revolution when Newt was Speaker. The “Contract With America” was BRILLIANT. It attempted to bring this runaway welfare state under control and take the burden off of the middle class…but it didn’t go far enough. They should have used the opportunity to eliminate the program altogether and to look for solutions to the REAL causes of poverty. Gingrich and Livingston among others crafted this idea and then screwed it up by letting the power go to their heads and becoming LIKE the immoral scoundrels that they attacked.
The Republicans have a tenuous lock at best on the Conservative Evangelical Christians because at least publicly, they are PRO-LIFE. We supported Bush because he promised to select conservatives for federal court positions. As you can see from last week, he lost a great deal of that support when he nominated Meiers for the Supreme Court. His mistake was in thinking that our support was unshakeable. We can live with eliminataing social programs for 2 reasons: 1)We don’t think that the Constitution allows that role for the Federal Government and 2) We know that the Church is perfectly capable of meeting the actual needs of those in poverty and are commanded by our Savior to do so. It isn’t that hard to understand. The problem with our country today is that we look to government to solve EVERY problem and it is incapable of doing so.
By DeltaX
November 9, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this
I don’t value my daughter’s privacy.
I respect their individuality and right to privacy, but only so long as I feel they are living within acceptable social limits.
This is why it will not be a debate - like with your kids, the rules change on your mood and current belief. You are a hypicrit, and that is regarding your character - it is pervasive throughout your communication and being.
I answered your question, you aswer one of mine: What power does your kids have if YOU break a rule? What consiqueses exist that lets them know you are obligated to shooting them straight?
By Renee
November 9, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this
Good Morning JBM - amazing isn’t it?? I go back to your comment on yesterday.
LOL @ all these nutcases gathered in one place! What are the odds?!!!
By Renee
November 9, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this
What power does your kids have if YOU break a rule?
The fact that you even asked that question is AMAZING!! You probably should get off this blog before your children find out and put you on computer restriction!
By Jack
November 9, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this
Because I said so. One very appropriate phrase used by parents everday. The parents rule the house, not the children. It is the parents duty to show the children that there are consequences for every action. Some good and some bad. Don’t show them the basd ones and you as the parent will end up paying for it along with the kid. Wait and see.
By DeltaX
November 9, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this
The fact that you even asked that question is AMAZING!!
To you - I am sure it is.
It is a shared environment. And to teach them otherwise gives them false beliefs of what the world is really like. Therefore; you doom them to repeating your existance.
One very appropriate phrase used by parents everday.
Ask a professional if they agree [actually you are talking to a professional - but you do not have respect for us lernd’ folk]. Dolt.
So, if you get caught snooping - you just explain it is your right; breaking all trust that you find so important? Hypicrits.
By Bruce
November 9, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this
My kids do not have rules that govern me or my home. As long as the put foot under my table and sleep under my roof they follow my rules. It’s not the other way around. If they want to set the rules it will be when they have jobs and their own place to live. Look children need boundaries, they actually want them. It’s only when you let them feel they are in charge do things get ugly. I may allow them to have some input but my wife and I have the FINAL say. Even on the simple thing like the type clothes they wear, what they watch on TV or eat for supper, ect….
By RF
November 9, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
Delta- it amazes me how an intelligent person like yourself can’t seem to read without interpreting. Most of what has been said lately about parenting is quite simple and literal. Your spin on what we say only serves to show how angry and bitter you really are as a person. That scares me for you and your family. I really don’t see any impact from your reading something into what people say.
I am a devoted teacher and single parent. The energy, love, and compassion required for both those jobs is far beyond what you could ever comprehend. Perhaps I’m not as backwards as you believe. In any event, your attempts to provoke anger in others are childish and disappointing. Intelligent discussion is never possible with the likes of you who falsely believe they are above the rest of humanity. History clearly shows the outcome of such unmitigated nepotism.
As I said earlier, arrogance and condescension grow tiring. Save them for those who will roll in that muck with you. I’ll not go there today. Now, class change is over and I must return to reality and teach.
JBM and Renee- keep it up girls. You’ve helped reinforce and encourage a sometimes overwhelmed dad keep his focus. The diversity of my family and heritage makes for a mixed bag of ideas that often come into conflict with mainstream thought. It’s nice to know I’m not the only one out there who believes in “toeing the line” with kids.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this
Renee - I’m still stunned by it!
Jack - Hilarious!!!!
Delta - I’m going to answer your question, despite my inclination to ignore your disrespectful words.
like with your kids, the rules change on your mood and current belief. You are a hypicrit, and that is regarding your character - it is pervasive throughout your communication and being.
First off, I have one child, not “kids.” Secondly, you must not have read my post from yesterday when I stated that we have clearly defined rules in my house that are posted on the refrigerator to which all can refer. Next to each rule is a penalty (or consequence, if you prefer) for breaking that rule. I repeat, this prevents my daughter from ever feeling as though punishment is arbitrary and depends only on my mood. The punishments don’t change, you break rule #4, you get the corresponding punishment. Before we implemented this program, we sat down as a family and discussed the rules and the penalties. To my surprise, my daughter agreed with almost all of them, and actually appreciated the structure. This works out very well for my house. She also appreciates the rewards system, in which she gets a raise in her allowance for each month that she breaks fewer than two rules; and a bonus for good grades.
My mood doesn’t change the rules or penalties. If my “current beliefs” change, which I doubt they will, then we will revisit the rules and revise them, if necessary.
Like RF, I too am raising a child with a serious history of neglect, abuse, and major trauma. Why is it so hard for you to understand that not all children are the same, and accordingly, cannot be raised the same? It’s okay for you to disagree. That’s fine. I respect that. I’m a Christian, a people disagree with me and my beliefs all the time and I love them the same, and would never disrespect them for not agreeing with me. Why can’t you just accept that while you may be really good at raising YOUR children, raising mine is a totally different job? We’re not raising the same people, and there is no cookie-cutter way to raise kids.
Would you mind explaining how that makes me a hypocrite?
I answered your question, you aswer one of mine: What power does your kids have if YOU break a rule?
My child does not have any authority over me, therefore if I break a rule, there’s generally nothing she can do.
What consiqueses exist that lets them know you are obligated to shooting them straight?
If I understand the question, the answer is: the law. When discussing the rules and consequences, I often explain to her that I have rules to live by too. I explain to her that if my boss asks me to do something and I refuse to do it, or complain frequently, then I’m at risk of being fired from my job. I also explain to her (just yesterday, in fact), that if I run a red light, I might get caught and I might not. But, it’s not worth the risk because if I do, I’ll get points on my license, and I’ll get a ticket, I may have to take time off from work to go to court. And, even if I don’t get pulled over, I may cause an accident. Those are my consequences. I am bound by the law of the land, and she is bound by the law of my house.
She knows that the rules are preparing her for adulthood. She knows that in life, there will be rules that she appreciates, and rules that she hates. But, either way, she’ll have to abide by them, or face the consequences.
By RF
November 9, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this
Okay, I’m going into the muck momentarily….get my back JBM and Renee
you are a hypicrit. Where’d such a smart person learn to spell? Speaking of dolts…
In my classroom, the kids who are most successful are those from homes with plenty of structure and nosy parents. Give me a room full of them any day over those raised in supposedly democratic, ego-sensitive environments. Those are the kids with the snotty, I-can-do-no-wrong attitudes who believe (like many of their parents) that they’re better than everyone else.
I’ll check back in about an hour. Have fun everyone!!
By Renee
November 9, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this
Thanks RF. Ditto JBM.
Let me add one thing. My daughter does not have a history of abuse or neglect. I parent as I do to make sure she does not make other histories, or become a statistic.
By blablabla
November 9, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this
billy, i meant at the beginning of the blog you seemed to re-post the same thing over and over. on my screen i can see it three times. that’s what i was referring to.
the point i was trying to make, which it seems you grasp, is that throwing stones back at the people throwing stones at you doesn’t make you right. it also doesn’t promote tolerance, which i would guess is a goal of yours and 72john. by calling people morons and rapist pigs, he looks just as intolerant, bigoted and narrow-minded as those he criticizes.
honestly, why would you even bother trying to have a debate with people who don’t think critically and just quote various sources (regardless of what those sources are)? you can’t have a rational discussion with people that don’t think for themselves. and btw, evangelical christians don’t have an exclusive claim on that mindset, either.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this
RF - I can say the same to you and Renee. Parenting is a really tough job, and I’d guess that teaching is probably the next toughest job out there. It’s really encouraging to hear the woes, ordeals, trials and triumphs of other parents with similar values.
Delta, I don’t like to nitpick, so I was going to let this one slide. But, if you’re going to keep calling me a hypocrite, at least spell it correctly. A wise man once said, arrogance and condescension grow tiring. Save them for those who will roll in that muck with you.
By kimberly
November 9, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel: Loved your breakdown to Zack about “liberal TV.” So TRUE! I remember Cagney & Lacey (years ago) about middle-aged female detectives. And yes, Americans buried them with the d** jokes and “ewww gross” commentary. But that was decades ago. Things are only getting worse with respect to respecting women, IMO — as well as anyone over 40 who isn’t doing botox and plastic surgery every six months! Yeah, NICE f-ing society we live in, huh?
By DeltaX
November 9, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this
It is not opinion, it is fact.
Raising a kid with hypicrit vaules like the ones I already illustrated is damaging {to, self esteme; future male-female relationships; job [boss rules; but also has consiquences]}.
Here is your evidence: As long as I pay the bills and provide the home, I reserve the authority to enter any room when necessary.
I don’t value my daughter’s privacy.
I respect their individuality and right to privacy, but only so long as I feel they are living within acceptable social limits.
No consistancy - and complete hypocracy. I agree - this is enough. I would rather stay ignorant to your means of raising a kid.
And yes, kids and adults are equal - one just knows more [which one is debatable - seeing kids have to LEARN to be devious and mean]. Your misunderstanding of this explains much.
By Jack
November 9, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this
DeltaX. I do respect those with a higher education. I do not respect those who feel their higher education gives them the right to be condesending to others who disagree with them or are not as educated. You have no idea how much education I have and I don’t care at all how much you or your buddy 72John have. I don’t know how many children you have or their ages but if they get no disipline and rule the roost, you have a long tough road ahead of you.
By Renee
November 9, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this
*And yes, kids and adults are equal - one just knows more [which one is debatable - seeing kids have to LEARN to be devious and mean]. *
Kids and adults are equal? Kids and adults are equal? KIDS AND ADULTS ARE EQUAL???
On that note, I can’t even respond because obviously you have been consulting your children with every assinine response you have given.
JBM - Did you see House last night??
By Jack
November 9, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this
“And yes, kids and adults are equal” Hahahahahahahaahah!!!
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this
Okay, let me help you out a bit because I think you’re trying with good intentions to make a point, but perhaps you’re just using the wrong word and hindering your point from getting across.
hyp·o·crite (n.) A person given to hypocrisy. n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold; one who puts on a mask and feigns himself to be what he is not; a dissembler in religion.
I do not profess beliefs and opinions that I don’t hold: I DON’T BELIEVE IN CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY. I believe privacy is a privilege, and I profess the same. If a person “professes” and “does” the same thing, how is that person a hypocrite? Unless of course you don’t know the definition of the word.
Furthermore, the quotes you listed above are completely consistent. Once again, you’ve misused a 7th grade vocabulary word. Must’ve told Mom you didn’t feel like going to school that day…
By RF
November 9, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this
HYPOCRITE, not hypicrit
ESTEEM, not esteme
HYPROCRISY, not hypocracy
CONSEQUENCES, not consiquences
The lernd out thar needs to lern to spail bettuh.
By Renee
November 9, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this
Must’ve told Mom you didn’t feel like going to school that day…
Well of course JBM. Being equals and all, you know it was nothing to tell Mom “I’m not going to school today”.
By Renee
November 9, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this
LMAO RF….tooooo funny!!!!!!!
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this
LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!! Renee, you sound just like I did a minute ago! I couldn’t even touch the “kids and adults are equal” thing… didn’t know where to begin. I still can’t believe there are people on earth who believe that!
House was awesome last night, but I missed the beginning. The guy who played the father is one of my favorite actors (don’t remember his name). I felt so sad for House… I want him to find love so badly. Wait, how about when he told the EMT that if he wanted to be a doctor, he should’ve studied harder in high school!!!! I couldn’t believe he said that!! Mean as heck and funny at the same time! I take it you didn’t watch the Patti LaBelle tribute? It was on UPN at the same time. It was horrible though, so you didn’t miss a thing.
By DeltaX
November 9, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this
It is not what I do not know about you that forms my opinion: It is purely the info you have provided.
Which you do not even understand your own words and hypocracy.
My road is about over. All 4.0s; two graduated early; and fit/healthy. More over, they not only are in charge of their life - but run their life as if it is important and valued unconditionally. Unlike your mandates that treat them like they are in bootcamp.
You all adhere to a religion dontcha? Not asking if your are christain; but a offshoot of some man made edict? Hence why your teach the way you do.
Yes; I find your sorts unfortunate for kids - they deserve more, but you act as they are here for you. Hint: You are here for them - they are the important ones.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this
Hilarious, RF!!!
By Renee
November 9, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this
JBM - you are talking about Clifton Powell, he’s one of my favorite actors too. The comment to the EMT was tooo funny, I love House’s sense of humor!!!
I didn’t watch the Patti Labelle tribute. When I saw a note that Nelly was singing one of her songs, that alone made me raise some eyebrows and not turn to it.
Delta - after everything you said, it’s not surprising that you say your kids have 4.0’s and graduated early. I mean you couldn’t rant and rave like you have and then admit they took the wrong turn in life. With your numerous spelling errors I think it’s safe to say you didn’t assist them into getting that 4.0 average.
By Jack
November 9, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this
Very happy for you DeltaX. Are you still in music? Who were your favorites from the 60’s? Yes I am a Beatle fan but I also liked Zepplin, MoodyBlues, Ten Years After, Cream, Airplane, Hendrix etc. Don’t like most of the new stuff.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this
Delta, you obviously can do no wrong. I don’t really care to converse with people like that.
Take care. God bless you and your children and your black girlfriend.
By RF
November 9, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this
Delta- do you not read any better than you spell?? If we weren’t here for them, would we even bother trying to raise them right? NO, we’d just send them to school like so many do so they could be out of the way. HOW DARE YOU say I don’t care about my sons. If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t have fought for custody of them, I wouldn’t have worked two jobs to get them into the best preschool/pre-K I could afford, I wouldn’t spend every day of every week with them, I wouldn’t be up till all hours of the night folding clothes so I don’t take away time from their homework time and play, I wouldn’t sleep in the floor beside their beds listening for one needing a breathing treatment, I wouldn’t play in the floor with them and watch TV with them, I wouldn’t read with them, I wouldn’t deny myself new clothes to make sure they have them, I wouldn’t drop them off with a kiss and hug before school and wait out in all kinds of weather for their afternoon bus so I can be the first to give them hugs… I could go on, but I think you get the point. They are first in my life, but they’ll never lead me around or be ‘equals’. They wouldn’t want to be— they enjoy being kids. You’d have to see how they’ve grown and changed from being crack babies to being normal little boys to understand. Go on back to your prissy suburban lifestyle and quit trying to pick fights over things you obviously don’t understand and wouldn’t pay attention to if it were a herd of elephants about to run over you. thick as a brick, bless his heart as my granny would say.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
Renee, actually Nelly’s was one of the better performances. He did a number with Kelly Rowland (who was HORRIBLE). Lemme see if I can remember the song. It’ll come to me. Patti was horrible, Kelly was horrible, Nelly was good, some cute kid named Mario was okay, Gerald Levert was okay, Michael McDonald was good, but Patti drowned him out. Ashanti was okay. It definitely wasn’t worth missing House for.
Yes, Clifton Powell! I like him a lot.
Oh, and I mean you couldn’t rant and rave like you have and then admit they took the wrong turn in life.
That comment is called: hitting the nail on the head! You got it sister!
By DeltaX
November 9, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this
Jack,
Favorites…That is difficult.
Top dog would be zeppelin; but most all are equal after that given they contributed so much, but in different ways.
As for current: Tori Amos; started listening to chick corea again; lot of YOYO MA - cellist
And because of playing guitar recently (three years ago I bought everyone in that family a guiar and we have a lot of fun with it) we have been buying a lot of songwriters stuff: Elton john, cat stevens, (big bad leroy artists - brain fart).
There is a duet (vioin/cello) that does a lot of the above and classical at a virtuoso level in Athens that I go see every chance. A couple of goofy ukrainians I believe. Throughout their performance the cellist plays smoke on the water trying to mess up the violinist. {andre and viktor are their names}
You?
By Renee
November 9, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this
yeah, my daughter likes that Mario kid. She has a poster of him on the wall. Maybe if they replay it I will watch it. Tonight’s my Top Model night so I doubt they play it, but maybe later this week.
Ashanti did ok??? She usually is TERRIBLE!
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this
Hey RF, your granny said that too?!!!! You sure you’re not a little more, uhhh, cultural, shall we say? LOL!
Look, bottom line is that Delta just doesn’t get it. Don’t bother to go back and forth with him. You’re talking to a brick wall. Though I’d love to hear his perfect little lilly-white suggestion for raising kids that weren’t born to “perfect” parents…
By DeltaX
November 9, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this
Spelling: I try to keep it square; but not worried about it on a blog - If you have that much trouble understanding a misplaced ‘i’, I will adhere to proofing what I type.
Non-issue that is purely a childish line of defense. Do not expect me to help you police it though.
No response needed; we understand each other: And I find your tactics sick and damaging. You find mine laughable - I am comfortable with that.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this
Renee, my partner thought Ashanti was terrible. I thought she was decent… definitely not good but okay. She did a duet with Patti, and if you ask me, they were both pretty dismal, so I was pretty disgusted anyway! Especially since I was missing precious minutes of House!
We watch some of the same shows. I’m looking forward to Top Model too. Do you watch Biggest Loser? That was good last night too. Looking forward to Apprentice tonight and tomorrow…
Oh, and I hate to disappoint Little Renee, but I think Mario is a little - uhhh… shall we say, not into girls? LOL!
By Jack
November 9, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this
Wow. I haven’t thought of Cat Stevens for a while. How bout Harry Chapin. He was good. I got disappointed in Elton when he ruined a good song about Marylyn Monroe and changed it to the Lady Diana song. Love Lady Diana but Elton should have written a complete song for her. They really lowered the bar on knighthood for him. I liked Jim Croce too.
By DeltaX
November 9, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this
HOW DARE YOU say I don’t care about my sons.
I never did.
By Renee
November 9, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this
I have never watched the Biggest Loser. I do love Top Model though. I have watched the Apprentice on and off but since I caught it late, I haven’t been totally into it. I do love Desperate Housewives though!!
That is too funny about Mario!!!
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this
Dude, that’s totally not a misplaced “i,” but really cute that you try to explain it away like that. Shows that you have a problem admitting a fault, which reinforces what Renee said earlier.
And, I don’t think anyone who has chimed in on this thinks your “tactic” is laughable. I find it utterly damaging, reprehensible, and largely the reason that so many of those types of kids are shooting up schools, using drugs my kid can’t even pronounce, and performing oral sex on every boy they can find! I’m absolutely DISGUSTED by your “tactic” and find it anything but laughable. It’s sick, lazy, passive, ignorant, and hurtful to society overall, not just YOUR kids. It impacts every bit of good I’m trying to do with MY kid.
By RF
November 9, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this
JBM- she said it while keeping a dip of snuff (GROSS) in her lip and spitting over the porch rail.—LOL She picked cotton, made the best peach cobbler in the southeast, and was one of the wisest people I have ever known.
My family reunions are a confusing mix, and quite cultural. Hence some of my comments on this blog. I think I’m so moderate politically because of the ‘variety’ of family I have.
By Jack
November 9, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
Don’t cry for me Argentina.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this
I watched Biggest Loser one time last season because an old neighbor of mine was on the show… been hooked ever since. It is so emotional, and I love a good tear-jerker! Plus, it’s great to see all those people working so hard to change their lives. It’s just a great show, watch it one time and see if you like it.
I only started watching Top Model b/c my nephew called me and told me that a girl on there reminded him of me. I turned to the channel and have been watching it ever since. I’m not a huge fan, but I do watch it whenever I can. I like the show and those girls’ antics, but I’m not crazy about Tyra. I’m curious to see how the gay girl turns out (no pun intended… ha!). She’s come a long way since the beginning.
By DeltaX
November 9, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this
Harry Chapin, absolutely.
And Jim Croce was who I was trying to remember.
Yeah - I found out that Elton without Bernie Taupin just sucks in MHO.
Kinda like paul mccartney - but to a much lesser degree.
Crazy that ones performance and abilities obviously do depend - to a degree I would assume - on a partnership. At least to the extent it has effected many that go solo.
Trying to understand melody; and how it correlates to progression: Any advise?
By RF
November 9, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
Delta- what, did I interpret you wrong, or read something into what you typed? Just doing what you’ve spent the last two days doing.
sick and damaging… awwww, come on, you’ll have to do better than that to offend at this point. It’s actually quite amusing to see you sputtering and trying to find some little dig every time you post.
By Scalia
November 9, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this
Top Model and Desperate Housewives rock. The men on Desperate Housewives are really good looking. Carlos, that goatee and mouth, wow.
Anyway, I’m looking forward to Top Model tonight,too.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this
That really is gross, RF!!! :-) Your granny would be proud to know how wise you turned out… guess you got it from her - ultimately.
By Jack
November 9, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this
Desperate Housewives. Yum yum yum.
By Jack
November 9, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this
Pink Floyd did an excellent job of melody to progression on Dark side of the Moon. That is one of the best produced albums of all time.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
I have never seen one episode of Desperate Housewives. I hate when I don’t get in on the beginning of something good. Makes me not want to watch it ever. I’m still kicking myself for missing the first season of American Idol.
By Jack
November 9, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
How bout the folks in SanFran voting to make owning a hand gun illegal? Watch the crime rate go up. This will bolden the predators. They made a BIG mistake. Glad I live here.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
Watchu talkin’ ‘bout, Jack?
By DeltaX
November 9, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
Enjoy your day all.
Heading out for a long weekend now that deadlines are covered.
By Renee
November 9, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this
I like Eva Longoria much more than the men on Desperate Housewives (though they are cute). Eva is just hot!!
Yeah the girl on Top Model has come a long way. I like Tyra but I like Ms. Jay much better. He said last week that (I can’t remember who) but they needed sissification. Hilarious!
By Jack
November 9, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this
Yes. They have voted to outlaw the ownership of hand guns. Everyone that has one is supposed to turn them in by 4/1. I may sound like a red-neck but when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. If they past something like that here, I will bury mine in the back yard until they quit looking.
By Renee
November 9, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this
Oh and I definitely love American Idol. Although it’s called garbage, there’s nothing wrong with a little garbage every now and then.
By Renee
November 9, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this
Wow Jack. That is unbelievable. Isn’t that unconstitutional (the right to bear arms) to outlaw handgun ownership. That will be a big mistake!!!!!
By Scalia
November 9, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
Jack, they will have gun sniffing dogs.
What is going on in America? Things seem really weird this year. Ownership of guns being prohibited. People being exceptionally mean for no reason. If you say anything, people bite your head off. And forget about getting over in traffic. Riots at gas stations. This year has been awful. All of the storms, the tsunami…I’m ready for 2006.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this
Okay, Renee, I knew the day was coming. This is where we totally disagree. I can’t STAND Miss J. What an insult to cross-dressers everywhere! I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but my eyes have never beheld a more awful sight!!! That is the most unattractive creature I’ve ever seen… but that sissification comment was hilarious.
Jack, wow! I didn’t know that. I would’ve liked to follow that fight from start to finish to hear what both sides are saying (other than the obvious “guns kill.” “no, guns protect!”). I don’t really have a solid opinion about guns… I’d have to give it some thought. All I do know is that I’ve never owned one, nor has anyone in my immediate family. I sleep comfortably, and feel very safe in my home. I’ve never felt the need to own a gun, but I think (or at least I think I think) that upstanding well-intentioned, responsible citizens should be able to own a gun if they feel the need to.
By Renee
November 9, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this
Yeah, he is definitely unpleasing to the eye…but funny as ever to me. I only like him for the personality, NOT for the looks. A beast to put it nicely lmao.
By RF
November 9, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
San Fran, like many places, has outlawed handguns, which as I interpret it, means you can still have hunting rifles, etc. So, the honest and law-abiding citizen will have to carry big guns, unconcealed. Oh yeah, that’s really gonna help. Average Joe carries a sawed-off shotgun instead of a .22 pistol. Hmmmmm, sounds like yet another crazy thing happening this year. Does anyone really think the dealers and thugs will turn in their Glocks voluntarily? What a sad, funny mess!
By Jack
November 9, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
An old trick from the military will take care of the dogs. We were warned before they brought the dogs in so we sprinkled black pepper all over the floor. When they brought the dogs in they would start sneezing and not quit until they took them out of the barracks. Made for a good laugh. We didn’t have guns until our neighborhood started going downhill and then there was a story on the news where 3 men broke in to a couples house and held the man at gun point while they took turns raping the wife. At that moment I made up my mind to get a gun for the house. It is in my wife’s nightstand. The plan in case someone comes in our room is for me to engage the enemy while she goes for the gun. If she ends up shooting me thats ok as long as she is.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
It does sound a bit silly, but even if the thugs don’t turn in their guns (I assume a Glock is a gun), won’t the gun-sniffing dogs be deployed to detect them, particularly in urban areas?
By Jack
November 9, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
They don’t have that many dogs.
By FatMoose
November 9, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this
Although I am HIGHLY suspicious; there is a GA township that mandates you have a gun in your house - and their crime is about non-existant.
I dislike the notion that guns keep people safe - seems like a paradox - but that instance says something about the issue. I just do not think that I like it - guess you cannot like everything…
Ever see Farewell to the King? Great depiction of the escalation of arms on an individual level.
By RF
November 9, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this
The real purpose of the law is to give the authorities a reason to search any house/car/property and arrest for gun possession if nothing else is available. Basically, it penalizes those who willingly turn in their guns so that the police have the authority to arrest suspicious individuals, who are almost always ‘toting a piece’. They can arrest for gun possession and see what else might turn up. I wouldn’t turn mine in either, if I had one. They’re not going to search for them or bring in dogs. They don’t have the manpower or time for all that.
By Jack
November 9, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this
It is the city of Kennesaw that has the gun in every household law. Wouldn’t you think twice before burglarizing a house where the occupants are armed? Makes sense.
By Renee
November 9, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this
I think everybody should have the right to be armed. Personally, I choose not to have one, but think I should have the right to make the choice without having it made for me.
By Jack
November 9, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
My wife was opposed to a gun in the house until we saw that news story. They never caught the scum that did it.
By Renee
November 9, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this
The Court of Appeals has just granted Andrea Yates a new trial.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
since when did a-s-s-u-m-e need to be bleeped out?????
Does it feel like Friday to anyone else?
Between the alarm system, my dog, and sturdy door and window locks, I feel pretty safe in my house. Of course I wouldn’t be as foolish as to say that no one could possibly break in, I just feel safe. Since my family consists of two adults and a teenager, I doubt that any accidents would occur that could cause someone to be hurt. So, I guess I’d feel safe with a gun too. How much do guns cost? I guess it wouldn’t hurt to have one… just in case.
By Jack
November 9, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this
JBM. They are like cars. They can cost a lot or a little. You don’t need a cannon. A 38cal or 357, 9mm is plenty big enough. Get one that feels comfortable to you. Gotta go.
By RF
November 9, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
Renee- I just read that. I’m not sure how I feel about her, but I just wonder why her husband has never faced any charges. He knew she was unstable and didn’t need to have any more children, but kept on making babies. I get angry and upset every time I think about those poor kids. Either way, I think she needs to be locked up somewhere for the rest of her life, even if it’s in a hospital.
By Renee
November 9, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
I have typed three words with a-s-s in it and it keeps bleeping it out. It must have a very sensitive filter.
Depending on the gun you get, it can start at about $60 I think. Well that’s at a pawn shop. I saw one with flowers on a pearl handle…it was really nice, a 22 or 25 at least. There was a 9 I wanted that had a laser on it so you can aim the laser and shoot. But ultimately I chose not to get anything.
By Renee
November 9, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
RF- It’s really is a shame for those kids. None of them asked to come here. You have a point with the father, I never really thought about it before now, but that’s a good point. She obviously had problems for a long time.
By RF
November 9, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
The other sad thing is the money it’s going to cost the taxpayers to try her case again. The only real point is to get her out of prison and into a mental hospital. The danger is one day she could be dismissed from the hospital and return to the street. I hate the ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ defense.
Guns for home safety can be cheap and easy to use. My dad still carries a .22 in an ankle holster. It won’t shoot far, but in his work he’s out late in the evening in buildings working by himself, so he keeps it loaded. If I were to have one for home defense, that would be it. I don’t want something any larger or more powerful in my house. I won’t have one until my boys are grown or old enough not to be curious about it.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this
I agree that everyone should have the choice provided they are upstanding citizens…
Wowwwww, Renee!!! I’m so impressed. You actually went gun shopping? You’re not the woman I thought you were. ;-)
Okay, Andrea Yates… I don’t know how I feel about the husband’s responsibility in all this. I was absolutely devastated by that, but there is no denying that this woman was sick. I think the husband may have been in denial, and although that’s upsetting, it’s not a crime. I feel really badly for her.
By Renee
November 9, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
LOL…JBM…I’m the woman you thought I was LOL…you see I was looking for flowers on the handle….before my partner came along I lived by myself and was looking for protection.
By RF
November 9, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this
I feel bad for her too, although I don’t think I feel bad enough to give her a new trial. She was in her right mind enough to call the police and her husband after she drowned them and put them in their beds. I don’t doubt she’s crazy as an outhouse rat, but what point is there in trying her again? I’ve found I have little sympathy for anyone who would hurt or endanger a child. This reminds me of Susan Smith(?) up in NC who drove her two into a lake. I really thought she deserved to be strapped in the car and driven into the lake the way her kids were.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
LOL (and I mean I’m LITERALLY laughing out loud) @ you looking for flowers on the handle!!! I still wouldn’t have expected you to know anything about guns… (presumptuous, I admit).
Susan Smith wasn’t half as nutty as Andrea Yates. Susan knew immediately what she had done was wrong, and that it would carry serious consequences. She attempted to cover it up by lying, and told that lie for days and days. Andrea didn’t quite have that understanding that what she did was wrong, nor did she really understand the consequences. Andrea belongs in a mental institution until she is well.
My oldest sister lost her firstborn to SIDS when he was just 6 months old. Any of you who bore a child (or even adopted one from birth) can imagine what that feels like. I watched my sister, the only black and only female SVP at a huge accounting firm, disintegrate into a person I didn’t even know. She became severely depressed, and literally changed into another person. I don’t hesitate to say that she lost her mind. To make a long story short, she and her husband began having marital problems, and the husband thought maybe it would help to have another baby in the house. After my sister had the baby, she confided in a few people (her hubby, mother-in-law, and my mother) that she didn’t love the baby, and that she didn’t want him. They talked to her the best they could, and she continued in therapy. Then, she confided that she once thought about killing the baby, then her hubby and herself, thinking that they’d all be happy together in heaven.
I know my sister, and I know that in her right mind, there is no way she would ever consider hurting another human being, especially not her own child. I see a lot of her in Andrea Yates, and I really doubt that this woman knew what she was doing, or had the mental capacity to understand the consequences.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
Hey not to change the subject, but American Justice did a story on Susan Smith… did you know that years later to the date another family drowned at the same site? They went to see where Susan drowned her kids, and the car began to skid into the lake. A woman ran after the car to rescue the kids, and she and the children drowned… What are the odds?!!!
By Renee
November 9, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
That’s deep JBM. I have been saying for a long time that certain situations can make a usually normal person “snap”.
My partners mother had a similar situation, though not altogether the same. My partner is the oldest sibling and when she was about 9 her mom had her little sister, whom eventually died at the age of 2 I think to Cerebral Palsy. My partner will tell you, her mom has never been the same since though much improvement has been made.
I guess it’s hard for people to understand who have never been in the situation. Like Andrea had so many kids, it seems like maybe she kills one and not realize, but all of them??? Not doubting, I just am like how do you do that. But I don’t think prison would help Andrea, she needs help, and prison won’t give it to her.
It’s amazing JBM, how much you and I really have in common. I really wish we could keep in touch on a one on one basis, since I haven’t been on here as much (not counting this week). But that would render difficult at best, short of giving the ENTIRE forum my email address, lol.
By RF
November 9, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this
From what I recall, Yates had a history of mental issues, including depression. I remember reading somewhere about all the problems she had and how many people knew she was in bad shape. I know how beyond help my mother was when my sister died, so I guess I can see what you’re saying JBM. I just don’t want to see her turned loose one day. It’s one thing to go through what your sister did and think about death/suicide. But she stayed on this side of the line. Yates crossed it, so could she ever be trusted as sane again? I hope she can get the help she needs and be able to face up to what she’s done. She has to be in a very different place mentally than any of us could ever understand. I guess you’re right that she couldn’t understand the consequences of her actions.
By Just Being Me
November 9, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this
RF, I highly doubt she’ll ever be sane again. Actually, I think that even if she received the necessary treatment and was “set up” to be sane, her psyche wouldn’t allow her to be sane. I think at this point, it would be too painful to be sane. Keep in mind, of course, that I’m no psychologist. I just highly doubt that she’d ever be able to face what she did in her right mind. I don’t want to see her turned loose either, but I doubt they’d ever let her go from a mental institution if they didn’t think she was sane.
Oh, and I think the ONLY reason my sister stayed on this side of the line, is that a lot of people stepped in to help her. If her husband denied or doubted the problem, she might be in jail or some mental institution today (or even dead), and I wouldn’t have my beautiful 4 nieces and nephews!!! Andrea, as I recall, did have a history of depression and mental illness. And, I also recall that her family was well aware. That just brings to light another huge problem that is vastly ignored in our society.
Renee - I know!!! I was trying to think of a way to send you my e-mail address, but I’m scared of all these nutcases!!! Next Wed. is my last day at work, and I doubt I’ll be so fortunate as to be able to sit around and blog all day long on the new job! lol
By Renee
November 9, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this
I agree that this is a problem that is truly ignored or not taken seriously in our society, and then when things happen we seem dumbfounded. I have been stressed out to where I couldn’t take it anymore, and when I went to talk to someone, my family and friends were like, you don’t need a doctor, you need a vacation.
Recognizing the problem AND having the support would have helped Andrea Yates significantly. Her husband should not have continued impregnating her however. In her state, she didn’t need more and more kids.
JBM, you can send an email to me at thatsmyopinion2005@yahoo.com. I only use that for my anonymous opinions. If a crazy person sends an email to that address it won’t matter much. When you email me I will give you my real email address.
By Whiley
November 9, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this
This is where we can start positive change, ways like this:
http://www.savegirlhood.com/
Now we need something for boys, who actually need more guidance. :)
By RF
November 10, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this
Amen, Whiley, amen. In my classroom, I end up being counselor more and more often for my boys. They really don’t have many tangible, useful role models these days. It’s sad how many of them lack male guidance and an example to follow. I’m just glad I can reach a few of them. We really have to quit burying our heads in the sand about our kids and the support they need.
By 2D
November 10, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this
RF… Why do you suspect that little boys have so few male examples to follow…?
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this
Hey Renee! I’m sending you something now. And, to respond from yesterday, I totally agree that her husband shouldn’t have impregnated her so many times knowing that she was ill. Even if he was in denial and didn’t want to admit that she needed help, he should’ve known not to keep letting her have babies.
And, by the way, do NOT even bother to ask me about Top Model last night. I am so highly p** about that episode. (Glad for Kim, though).
By Lyrazel
November 10, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this
Whiley: that site you referenced is more about selling stuff/dolls/periodicals/clothes to girls, than actually helping girls out with any empowerments. I find it strange to see it recomended.
Yates should be executed but because she is a woman she is not on a Texas death row. If she was a man she would be. This is not feminism, Zack. Yates knew options available to her for not having so many kids but she and her husband believed god was sending the blessings. God never says: dont have more kids than you can cope with, or afford. Others can see her as this object of pity but I cant. I see her religious instruction as being faulty. I see her predicament as being part of the culture of god first-cognizant thought second. Everybody religious seems to talk to god and fanatics seem to have an HOV lane to holier-than-thou! The lifestyle requires homeschooling, home-life, isolation of mother to become breeder/teacher/subordinate for holy family. She willingly chose the lifestyle. Her husband supported her decision. No doubt she was part of a crowd that stood outside abortion clinics chanting: Choose Life. No doubt Yates if she had not been in prison for murder she would have gone to Florida to picket the Shievos hospice and put tape over her kids mouths for TV cameras. Now, ever notice how God always comes to people to say: Kill (blank blank). Usually God never comes and says: Hey, go out and buy a car for that single mom so she can get a job. Yeats is a classic example of how religious fanatism does not help the faithful. If her church councilors had cared more about the congregation than issues maybe her minister could have spared time, or the name of a good baby-sitter. Her depression and anxiety could have been handled by counseling but they might have a liberal bias and tell her: hey your kids can go to public school, or you need medication for birth control. Nah, remember public school is where evolution and sex education is taught! Cant have the kids learning such ungodly liberal things…no, stay home woman. We recognize fanatism in all other religions/countries but our own. Yeats is just one of many fanatics who will kill their children. Its actually a very old malady that has been with society for eons. In Texas men are executed if they kill five people—and who pities them? Yates will be institutionalized and pitied but she is a murderesses. Five people are dead and that she birthed them is irrelevant. That, is feminism Zack!
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this
2D, I know you didn’t ask me but…
I think boys have so few positive examples, or role models to follow, because the cycle is so hard to break. It’s so easy to identify, but seemingly impossible to stop. (Many) Boys grow up without fathers in the home, and without any positive role models, and they reproduce and become the same type of father they had: nonexistant. Those children repeat the cycle, and it goes on and on.
Obviously, this isn’t to say that all men are MIA dads, or poor role models. But, the ones who are are those who sustain this vicious cycle.
By Jack
November 10, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this
RF. Keep up the good work. I gained respect for teachers when I had an opportunity to be a substitute for a 5th grade class of 31. Teachers don’t get paid enough. There is a lack of good male role models because there are so many divorces. At the dinner table on night both my sons said that they were the only ones in their class with only one set of parents. What a shame.
By Chilao
November 10, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this
Preach on Lyrazel ( on your Yates comment) EXACTLY!
By RF
November 10, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this
JBM-well said about male role models.
Personally I blame, in part, the entertainment industry. There is almost nothing out there right now that promotes the idea of family and the man as a father and guide for his sons. I’m not talking the average middle-class idea of a family here, just the idea that the father is involved daily and there in some way for the kids. The really popular guys in the spotlight these days are the single, playboy sports and music stars. I mean, let’s face it, the kids LOVE Kobe Bryant, and he got lots of attention for his alleged rape accusation. Whether intended or not, that whole mess just served to uphold the misguided notion that the man, especially if he has money, can get away with anything and and walk away. The really good role models that exist aren’t getting much on TV or in music. And that’s across all cultural lines as I see it these days. Boys need someone to look up to and emulate, and what they have now isn’t exactly what I consider successful, law-abiding, good father material.
By Renee
November 10, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this
Hi all. I got your message JBM. I loved Top Model last night! What p** you off about it?? I thought Kim held it down!
I think the only role model a child should have is their parents, and when a dad is not around they turn to whatever male figure is closest, whether it’s on TV or someone else in the family. Cycles are hard to break, but can be broken.
By Renee
November 10, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this
RF - I agree, but let me say this. I don’t think (and this is just my opinion) that anyone in the entertainment industry has to live up to being a role model. I don’t think that is their job. Of course I don’t think anything that occurs helps how they look to the public or to a child that looks up to them. If children got proper support from family, then they wouldn’t look for Kobe for instance to be a role model. I think there is a difference between admiring a singer, athlete or whomever, and having them be a role model. If Kobe is sleeping with women (and I don’t think he raped the woman, but that is a whoooole other subject)then a parent should be there to explain what is wrong with their behavior. Parents get mad because these people act idiotic, but if things are stable at home it shouldn’t make a difference.
By 2D
November 10, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this
So, how is the cycle broken…?
Do we as a society need to stand up against the entertainment industry for promoting such poor role models…?
Do we need to encourage mothers and fathers to work together and stay together in an effort to raise their children in a more healthy environment…?
Do we need to encourage life decisions that would reduce the number of children born into such distressing circumstances…?
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this
Renee, Top Model was SO stupid. I already told you I’m not a Tyra-fan, so I thought what she did at the end was cruel and stupid and mean and ugly and I’m so ticked about it!!!! Both of those girls deserved to be sent home, not to friggin London! And, heck, for the record that ole crazy Lisa needs to go home too. I’ve had it up to here (picture my hand positioned over my head) with her! I was SOOOOO totally proud of Bre, though. She is really coming through big time. But, do you really think Tyra will pick another minority for the win, 3rd time in a row?? I doubt it… Anyway, I was really annoyed that she didn’t send someone home.
Lyrazel - Are you basically saying that Andrea Yates killed her children because she is a religious fanatic, not because she’s mentally ill; and therefore she belongs in prison?
By Renee
November 10, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this
2D - I say none of the above.
I think you take responsibility for how you raise your children. If everybody took more responsibility for theirs and didn’t wait for “society” then we would have less problems. Encourage your children, children in your family to stay with their husbands and/or wives, encourage life decisions with yours. I think if we spend more time with our children, our problems and not worrying about others, that’s where the difference can be made. If you find the entertainment industry offensive, don’t support them. If you find Brittany Spears (just an example) to be in poor taste, don’t buy her CD’s. But don’t stop them from what they do and don’t expect them to have a moral obligation to your family and/or kids.
By Renee
November 10, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this
JBM - Yes Lisa needs to go. That is a nutcase!! She pee’d in a diaper??!!?? What’s up with that. And she does look old. Bre describing Lisa was soooo funny to me. Yeah Tyra was wrong for breaking the news like that, but I knew something was up when she said an “interesting decision”. Bre has really stepped up her game too. I doubt she will choose a minority again (I don’t think she could get away with it).
Did you check out Ms. J. Ms Thang got her hair done..lmao.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this
Renee, of course he didn’t rape that girl!
But, I disagree on celebrities’ obligation to be a role model. I think that every citizen of this country is under some obligation to be a role model, whether they are parents or not. I don’t think celebrities should be any more obligated than the average Joe, but that everyone is equally charged with creating a positive environment and contributing positively to our society by imparting morals, values, wisdom, and decision-making skills into the next generation.
We are one country, one society, one nation and it’s up to each one of us to raise up a “solid” generation. Remember the African proverb that says, it takes a village to raise a child… The same goes for our country, I think. It takes all of us to raise up the next generation of socially responsible, moral citizens.
By RF
November 10, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this
Renee- you’re right, but when noone is there to look up to, where do the kids turn? I think we just need to keep a lot of “stuff” off TV like we used to do until later at night. Because so many kids watch TV endlessly, I’m shocked at how much of the WRONG stuff is on during peak hours. You’re right that performers and athletes don’t have any obligation to be role models, but I think most know that people watch them, and that’s one of the prices they pay for the celebrity status. I wish a few more of them would at least be sensitive to the fact that kids are watching them and need a little guidance. We just can’t say ‘oh well’ anymore. Can you tell I get a little frustrated about this? ;- ) I guess it’s because I feel soooo overwhelmed trying to give them something to look up to and guide them a little. Too many kids, of both genders, don’t have anyone to show them the way and they come to school with no social/moral foundation. They can’t learn when they are so unhappy and confused.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this
10:17 “whether they are parents or not” should be “whether they are famous or not.”
By Renee
November 10, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this
JBM, RF - I agree. I think ideally, people should just do the right thing. I think that people should make the right decisions and just be “good people”. JBM I can agree with you that I don’t think a person who is famous has more or less of an obligation than me or you.
But in reality, society is comprised of “good and bad” people. And where I see something to be morally wrong, someone else may not think it’s a big deal so things become really subjective as to whats right and whats wrong.
I think that’s when we individually need to take responsiblity.
By The72John
November 10, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this
I think we just need to keep a lot of “stuff� off TV like we used to do until later at night. Because so many kids watch TV endlessly, I’m shocked at how much of the WRONG stuff is on during peak hours.
So…you’re saying that TV should be sanitized because parent’s aren’t responsible enough to control their children’s viewing habits? Adults pay cable bills. Adults purchase the products that drive advertising. Personally, I don’t want to be subjected to Full House-like crap from 8 to 10 every evening, and considering the wide array of options available to parents to keep their children from watching inappropriate television, I shouldn’t have to!
I’ve never really understood the “What about the children” attitude. I’m not talking about protecting children from real, actual harm - I’m talking about this perception that we’re supposed to whitewash everything because some child might encounter something he is not capable of understanding and be scarred for life. A kid might play a violent video game - better ban those games. A kid might hear a curse word or see a naked breast on cable - better get the FCC to censor it.
Whatever happened to turning off the TV? Let the parents take responsibility for their children, and stop trying to turn life into one giant episode of Romper Room. It DOES take a village, but that means the all of the people in a child’s life should help that child. It doesn’t mean that we all have to live as if we were children.
By Renee
November 10, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
RF - just one more thing. To speak of bad things being on TV at the “wrong” times, I agree with you 100%. I monitor what my daughter can or cannot watch. I know everybody does not monitor what their children watch and/or listen to. But just because it’s out there, does not mean you have to look at it or allow your children to. Not disputing what you are saying, but that’s how I look at it.
By Renee
November 10, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this
Well put 72John!!
By RF
November 10, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
72- I’m not saying we have to whitewash anything. I think a lot of parents do turn it off and try to control it. But, if you think about it, there was a time when television networks in general were much more strict about what could be shown in certain time slots. I just don’t understand why we’ve let the guard drop so much. Realistically, I know they’re not going to go back to those kinds of restrictions. And yes, if you have the concern to know how to use it, the cable remote these days has lots of parent controls. Problem is, the kids are often more adept at using those things than the parents. It was just a thought, so don’t get so wound up about it. I see a lot of messed-up kids in school, and it frustrates me how much violence and sex they’ve been exposed to and absorbed from TV. A lot of kids now think nothing of seeing someone shot on TV—they actually think it’s cool. In my opinion, and it’s just an opinion for what it’s worth, I don’t think that needs to be on TV allllll day long. TV has had, and will continue to have, a big impact on our collective perception of what’s appropriate or even ideal in life.
By Renee
November 10, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this
Oh RF, I’m not worked out at all. I just think the responsibilty should go back to the parents. There were shows that I could not watch when I was young. Period. Don’t ask, because it was not allowed. I’m sure there are kids watching wayyyy too much, and I know you see it on a totally different level than I do. But I think the parents are to blame, not the TV. I know kids that went to Elementary School with my daughter that were allowed to watch South Park. Personally, I like SouthPark, but I won’t allow my daughter to watch it now, much less in elementary school.
By RF
November 10, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this
Renee- yep, you’re like me. I have the doggone thing programmed to block channels, so I know what my boys are seeing even if I’m not in the room. Therein lies the dilemna. How do we, or can we, make parents more responsible? And what about the parent who LETS their child watch Cops, RealTV, or South Park? I know it sounds like I’m blaming the networks, but I’m not as much as I’m wondering how to get the point across that the kids don’t need to see so much garbage. Even the poorest households have cable TV these days. I get a kick out of driving through the poorer neighborhoods and looking for satellite dishes. Amazes me how many folks can fix the broken window or the car, but they can sure enough find a way to get 200 TV channels in the house.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this
Doggonit Renee, another thing we have in common - I LOVE South Park!!!
Here’s the problem I have in my house with the Parental Controls on the cable box - we only use two boxes in the house (one in the study and one in the music room). No one has a cable box in their bedroom, including me, and the parental controls only work on the cable box. This means that I can’t control what she watches remotely, I’d have to physically monitor what she’s watching - which I obviously can’t do 24/7.
I don’t want to watch Full House-like stuff either, but I don’t think it would hurt to put the raunchier shows and VIDEOS on after 10. If adults have to make sacrifices so that our future generations are better citizens, why can’t we do that? Yes, I take responsibility for what my child watches on television, but the reality is that no parent can monitor their child’s behaviors 24/7. Why can’t other likeminded citizens who care about the future of our country assist?
By Scalia
November 10, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this
There is a forum on sex on television on AJC.com. It talks about the amount of sex on television has doubled.
I recommend that parents talk to their children. During dinner, turn the television off, and talk to your children. If more family time was spent conversing with the family, less problems would ensue. One of my friends and his family play board games. My parents and my brother and I played cards. My Grandmother and my Grandfather played dominoes with me. We played Monopoly, the game of life, and we found things to entertain us without the television.
By The72John
November 10, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
I’m not wound up - just discussing.
I do find it all a little silly. Not to put too fine a point on it, but compared to, say, European TV, US television is pretty tame.
I think what really appalled me the most was an issue of Archaeological Digest I was reading a few months ago. The letters section was full of complaints about an article that had appeared an issue earlier, about the role of brothels and prostitutes in Roman society. People kept saying things like “My grandchildren could have seen that”.
Now…this was a scholarly magazine written for adults. Their editorial staff has no responsibility to limit the content of the magazine to that which would be appropriate for children, but many readers seemed to think they did. What ever happened to keeping inappropriate material out of children’s reach?
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
Hate to raise a shallow topic, but did anyone see Oprah yesterday? I don’t watch her (not a fan), but I sure wish I saw it yesterday. She interviewed Terri McMillan and Johnathan Plummer.
Question: Is Johnathan entitled to (p)alimony?
By RF
November 10, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
JBM- exactly my point!! Why is it so much to expect a little sacrifice from individuals for the collective good? Used to be that way in this country…. I think the music video channels won’t show the raunchier videos until later, but the ‘clean’ stuff they show sometimes is a little too vivid. I just don’t like the idea that it’s available 24/7. I don’t know about your daughter, but I’m seeing kids who have WAY too much ‘carnal knowledge’ at 14.
By Renee
November 10, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
OMG JBM!! My partner watched it and I caught the end of it. Terry was toooooo funny!!!!!!!!! Oprah said it best. She said she didn’t have a problem with him until he tried to take her money. That’s just too much. I don’t know how Terry missed it, but he looked sweet to me from the beginning.
Interesting point 72John.
By The72John
November 10, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this
From what I understand from the article on the AJC, he admitted to cheating on her, so wouldn’t that mean he wouldn’t be entitled to alimony? I don’t know much about divorce law, but isn’t the aldulterous partner automatically considered at fault?
It IS alimony, btw. Palimony involved partners living together out of wedlock ;-).
By Renee
November 10, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this
To answer your question - 14 year olds have way too much carnal knowledge, or what they think is carnal knowledge, lol.
By RF
November 10, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this
72John—you’re right about that. We are VERY tame compared to Europe. Imagine a 7 yr.old catching an episode of “The Naked News”. I can’t even begin to imagine how I’d explain that one to mine! ;) I just can’t figure out why more parents aren’t more careful about what their kids see. One of my neighbors has this demon-child who comes over every now and then and his mom thinks if it’s animated, it’s okay for the little terror to watch!
JBM—I didn’t see it either, but I have an idea it probably got pretty tense. Terry McMillan’s not usually one to mince words. I don’t think he should get zip from her. He only married her for the money, and once he’d been in long enough to hopefully deserve a share, he ‘figures out’ that he’s gay. PLEASE- that fool knew what was going on the whole time. I hope he doesn’t get anything from her.
By Renee
November 10, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this
RF - Oh she didn’t mince any words at all!! She was too funny!! She said she’s not homophobic, she jonaphobic….too funny!!!
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this
I think americans need to be more honest with kids at an earlier age regarding reality. I do not think it is them that cannot handle it - but the adults that cannot.
That does not mean to be harsh and get into all the details [there is an in-between area]- so do not take my comment to the Nth degree; I find the european approach to sex/etc is refreashing.
We ARE sexual creatures - at all ages. It just makes americans squirm to think about it.
By Renee
November 10, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this
Visiting Montreal over the summer, I was amazed at how much is not censored. We were definetly more tame than Canada.
By RF
November 10, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this
FatMoose- the Europeans are a lot more laid back about most things. Not that that’s bad, but I just wonder how we make it more common for parents to talk to kids about sex and other stuff here. Trust me, the kids can handle the sexual content, or think they can. From what I see, they’re handling it and each other too much, too early, and making babies they can’t even begin to care for. They don’t need any encouragement, that’s for sure.
By The72John
November 10, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this
Well said, FatMoose. One of my siblings had a child, and was so obsessed with the rest of us NOT saying things, or bringing up concepts that it became very uncomfortable to even visit them. Family gatherings revolved around avoiding adult conversation because a three-year or four-year old might be exposed to a concept that might “scar” him.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
72John - I agree and have witnessed the same thing.
Just look at how many dads have any involvement in their daughter having her first period - most run and hide.
Heck, they can barely talk with their wife concerning her period!
I was not brought up like that - far different actually. [but that is what you get being brought up by a psychiatrist and an RN! Dad found a porn mag when I was young and plainly said “Reminds me of medical school years - but prettier”]
By Scalia
November 10, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
In Essence, Terry McMillan said that she gave him some money. He is being greedy, and wanting more. Shame on him.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this
Darnit! I missed out again… was playing Hearts! Oops, I mean I was working hard! ;-)
Okay, yes, 14 year olds have WAYYYY too much “carnal” knowledge. It’s just ridiculous some of the things that come out of my daughter’s mouth. (And, no, she doesn’t get it from home - she gets it from peers in school, and the TV she watches and music she listens to when I’m NOT looking).
RF, neither BET, MTV, or VH-1 wait until after 10 to play raunchy videos. I guess one could debate the guidelines of raunchiness, but… The stuff they show on those channels is just shocking!
John, thanks for that tidbit. …learn something new every day! Now, I don’t know if he’s entitled or not based on his adultery, but he is certainly attempting to get it! And, he has the nerve to believe he deserves it!
RF, Renee - I think she knew he was gay, but was desperate and had a hard time letting that “fine chocolate man” (her words) walk away… just like she had a hard time taking a bath by herself the other day, and has a hard time sleeping in separate rooms. She’s desperate for love, and that’s really sad.
By RF
November 10, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this
I can’t imagine why Terry gave him anything other than a kick out the door. She based How Stella Got Her Groove Back on the relationship. I wonder if she’ll do a sequel now… that would be a hoot!
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this
Okay, yes, 14 year olds have WAYYYY too much “carnal� knowledge.
But I believe it is “carnal” bc they only learn it in that manner - not a wholeistic/realistic context. Plus; much of what they learn is wrong: In Women on Top {regarding womens sexuality over the last 20yrs}, it illustrates how a group of boys thought they were f%%%%ing when they would squat in a circle and take a dump. Just shows the ‘dirty’ [and incorrect] ideas kids get regarding what sex is.
By Laurency
November 10, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this
of course this was carefully orchestated, appease the democrats then put in who you wanted at first,it’s just sad that our country has reduced to having the judge with the most power behind it instead of the most qualified for the job
By RF
November 10, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this
JBM- I’ve got a friend who was REAL desperate for love like that too. She spent years being ‘the other woman’ for a married man who never had any intention of leaving his wife. When my friend finally developed a backbone, he simply left and found him another “cut-buddy” and is still cheating on his wife.
By RF
November 10, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this
Moose— have you listened to much rap lately? A LOT of it is all about ‘getting some’. It amazes me how much of it is about sex and nothing else. I don’t think that sends the right information either. I doubt very seriously that most parents even bring up the subject of sex anymore at home. I remember my parents giving us The Joy of Sex to read when we started asking questions they couldn’t, or didn’t want to try to answer. I used to think that was way too much to know about at that point, but it sure answered just about all my questions.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
We had The Book of Sex [contained EVERYTHING; with bw photos] on the shelf at all times. We never had any doubts in our knowledge of sex. Granted, many people would think my parents went too far, but my 4 siblings and I would disagree.
The only aspect of my life that it made more difficult is in finding a partner that was as aware and comfortable with their body/sex as I. To me, my elbow is just as a normal part of my body as any other and vv - finding others like that is difficult, but I would not trade my upbringing.
By Zack
November 10, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
You saw the comments made about me after I spoke the truth, the unpopular truth. Ironically, the people who attacked me are the same ones who call for “different opinions” and everyone speaking his mind. They refuted themselves, just like they always do.
The liberal agenda has poisoned our classrooms, our legal system, our courts, etc., etc.. You can attend a typical college and hear all sorts of lies from liberal professors. Thankfully, I can distinguish truth from propaganda.
Anyway, to the person who responded to my opinions by saying I probably was an imprisoned rapist, this response is just what I’d expect from you. To the people at ajc.com, you might want to be careful what you print, because there is such a thing as a lawsuit for libel. I’m just the kind of guy to pursue such a lawsuit also, so that’s just a little food for thought at lunch time.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
RF - I dated a married man too. Not because I was desperate, though. But, because I loved him. We loved each other, and still do. I knew from day 1 that he would never leave his wife, he was very honest about that. Now my guy’s best friend was similar to the guy you described. He was married with five children (all girls, too), and dated a woman on the side for 7 years, all the while promising to leave his wife. When the mistress finally had enough and left him, he just started seeing someone else. To this day, he always keeps a girlfriend on the side.
I think Terry is planning a sequel, and I hear that Oprah bought the sole rights to the book.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Zack, what the Sam Doodle are you talking about? How could you sue someone for libel if they haven’t damaged your reputation? And, if this is a public blog, how could the AJC be held responsible if someone did damage your reputation?
I don’t know much about the law, so these are not rhetorical questions.
By The72John
November 10, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this
Zackie pooh, I’m not going to argue with you because you are a lunatic, but I just want to make sure you understand that you can’t sue someone for libel because they knock you in a blog. What a silly little git you are.
By The72John
November 10, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this
JBM, the man is certifiable. I know I get a little rilled up from time to time, but if you read more than two posts from Zack, you will realize that he is literally insane.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this
I’m just the kind of guy to pursue such a lawsuit also, so that’s just a little food for thought at lunch time.
Want to take a vote on exactly what type of guy that is? OOO! OOO! Mr Cotta; I think I know!
Psychopath? Oops! Now I am going to get sued!
By Chilao
November 10, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this
Shaunti Feldhahn is Famous. A much better pic is on the cover of a HomeLife magazine I just found in the lunch room. A Christ-Centered Living magazine published in Nashville. Appears non-denominational, but you know how that goes. LOL
For her, that might be just as good as making the cover of Rolling Stone
Congrats!
By Renee
November 10, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this
JBM…I actually think Oprah bought the movie rights to the book, “The Interruption of Everything”.
LMAO at suing someone for libel off the blog posts.. too funny.
JBM when you get a chance, check your messages. I sent you something that should tickle you.
I bought my daughter an excellent book about sex, coming of age, it covers everything. The name escapes me right now though (my old age is setting in).
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this
I’m just curious as to how that would go in the courtroom…. Your Honor, they damaged my reputation… No, I don’t know them, but Your Honor… No, they don’t know me either, but Your Hon— No, I wasn’t stupid enough to use my real first and last name, but… No, my colleagues, neighbors, friends or family were not exposed to this brutal name-calling, but… Well, yes, Your Honor, it was humiliating and it did damage my reputation! Just because I don’t know them and they don’t know me doesn’t mean I don’t have a reputation with them…
Dude, let me give you a clue:
rep·u·ta·tion n. The general estimation in which a person is held by the public. The state or situation of being held in high esteem. A specific characteristic or trait ascribed to a person or thing: a reputation for courtesy.
On this blog, you’re not a person, you’re a blogger. A character. A faceless, nameless opinion.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this
Ohhhhhh, Renee… my partner always gives me unreliable info!!! LOL! Well, then I guess we’re back to wondering whether there’ll be a sequel.
Please get the name of that book for me. I’d be interested in seeing if it would be appropriate for my daughter. She is highly curious these days, so I have to tread lightly. Any wrong move can land her in some dude’s bed, and me in jail for murder!! lol
By Renee
November 10, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
I agree JBM. The book touches on everything and it’s very appropriate. Written for teenagers, it covers sex, body changes, sexuality, drugs, depression, everything. I found it very appropriate and I think I am just as cautious as you, if not more lol. It’s hard with teenagers, I know.
By RF
November 10, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this
JBM- I think if you know going in and accept the fact that the other person is married, then he/she is the only one who has to deal with the guilt or legal results. My friend lived for years with the idea that she was going to have this perfect, blissful life ‘when’ he left his wife and married her. It was sad to see how much hope she put in that fact and how dishonest he was about it. It amazes me how people can lie just to “get some” and think that’s okay.
Zack—if you don’t want your opinions attacked, don’t put them out there. Words are just that—words, created by people to express thoughts. The only impact they have is what you give them. Remember the kids’ rhyme about “sticks and stones…”? They keep typing that stuff because you let it get to you and amuse them by replying.
By Chilao
November 10, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this
If you want to see and hear everything, just come to this blog.
We have a right-wing gestapo boy MOST LIKELY strongly interested in tort reform threatening to sue someone and just yesterday we had someone call Newt’s Contract with America brilliant, the same contract that diminished governmental oversight of public companies, resulting in the Enron/WorldCom fiascos. And what did that breed? Sarbannes-Oxley. Brilliant would not be a word I would use.
By The72John
November 10, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
It’s got to be better for kids to have a solid understanding of what’s happening to them when they hit puberty. I know I remember how confusing it was - of course I had additional issues to confuse matters, but still - it would have been great to have a guide with better information than that gleaned from whispered conversations with my buddies during math class.
I would hope that more knowledge and less mystification would lead to fewer teenage pregnancies, less sexual activity.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
72John;
But if it the parents that have the hang-ups [which seems obvious to me they do]; how do we break THAT cycle?
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
Renee, check out the website I sent to you via e-mail. It’s also an excellent resource (I think).
RF - I think you’re right, and that really is sad. I hope your friend was able to bounce back, and I hope the break up wasn’t as devastating for her as mine was for me.
John, I sort of agree with you especially about the less mystification. But, the truth of the matter is that everyone has, at one point in his life, touched the hot stove, so to speak. Even if there’s no mystery to sex, if the kid knows everything there is to know about it, consequences, rewards, effects, etc… he or she will still want to “touch the stove” to see what hot feels like to them.
I know that as for me and my child, we’ve talked about every aspect of sex known to mankind! She actually takes pride in being able to talk to me about stuff “like that.” As much as she knows about it, and as badly as I want her to wait, I think curiosity is a really strong hold, and for some kids, it won’t let go. When it all comes down to it, she doesn’t have any good reasons for wanting to have sex: she just wants to see for herself what it feels like.
And, I don’t think there’s anything a parent can say to stop that.
By The72John
November 10, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this
Good question - what’s funny is that the hang-up is so often self-defeating. So many of the people that I went to high school with who grew up in repressive homes were some of the first to either get pregnant or get someone pregnant. As often as not, they got married and then divorced soon after.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
So JBM,
Do you think experimentation is wrong? How do you view it?
By The72John
November 10, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this
You are right about the “hot stove”, JBM. But, to extend the metaphor, wouldn’t you rather your kids knew to wear an oven mit if they were going to touch the stove. :-)
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
I know of a parent that found her daughter playing “show me yours and I’ll show mine” with the boy next door. She ran up to her daughter, slapped her butt, and dragged her off.
They can no longer play together, and both got a serious talking to about the wrongs of doing such.
I cannot see the sence in that kind of reaction. It might be something that makes one squirm; but is it really doing GOOD to react the way she did and so many do? Doesn’t it add a layer of crap to an already complex situation?
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this
Plus,
If you educated a child by showing them the [realistic] burns in photos; and the HH bond [science that is behind what a burn is] that breaks when getting burned - I doubt they will test it as readily.
Ignorance is never a defence; and increases curiosity.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this
FatMoose, do you mean experimenting with sexual intercourse? If that’s what you mean, then yes I do think that’s wrong and I view it unfavorably. If that’s not what you meant, pls. clarify.
Also, I don’t know if it’s fair to say that parents have hangups. Of course some do, but I think many parents are well-intentioned when it comes to sex ed. A lot of them are fearful that if they say too much, they may spark an interest where one didn’t exist. I know that when my daughter and I talk about it, although I’m open, I tread very lightly because I do not want to glamourize (sp?) sex, especially not premarital sex or teen sex or any kind of sex before you’re ready.
Basically what I’m saying is that I think parents just haven’t perfected the balance between providing the information and not encouraging early sex.
By RF
November 10, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
72John— good metaphor! I won’t be able to cook supper tonight without a snicker when I open the oven!! The problem is with boys that a lot of them don’t think about wearing the mit. That what amazes me. I don’t think teenage boys (from what I see in my classes) worry very much about protection. I think we also need to destroy the myth that sex gets a guy a better social standing. We’re still dealing with 50’s values about sex. It’s a tough decision to make as a parent about how open to be and when.I still don’t know quite how I’m going to handle it, and I have boys!! I definitely don’t want mine finding out at school or being afraid to ask questions, whatever lifestyle they choose.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
Do you think experimentation is wrong? How do you view it?
I was refering to experimenting in general - from showing, on up; but primarily showing to petting.
Also, I don’t know if it’s fair to say that parents have hangups.
Then what is the point of bringing up european ideology? I thought that is what it illustrated…
Seeing as most [nearly all] people I have met [men and women] cannot even cover auto-erotic behaviour with adults; much less thier kids decently. And some still see it as morally wrong.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this
I don’t consider looking and touching at the age of 4 or 5 to be experimentation.
John, even if they’re wearing an oven mitt, they can still get burned, and may be left with emotional scars as well.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
I don’t consider looking and touching at the age of 4 or 5 to be experimentation.
I did not reference an age; but since you did: what would you call it?
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
I’m not saying no parents have hangups when it comes to discussing sex, I just don’t think that’s the bulk of the problem.
And, another thing… I doubt that the average 5 year old would be able to comprehend and process the seriousness of breaking an HH bond, or at least not enough to divert their curiosity. At the same time, my daughter has seen the worst of the worse pictures, film, and she’s seen real life examples of why she should wait to have sex. None of that is enough to ease her curiosity, and I don’t think this is uncommon. I think that the average teen, by the time they turn 14/15, already feels invincible, that “it could never happen to me” belief. My daughter’s biological mother contracted HIV from heterosexual sex with a boyfriend. She never finished high school, had her first baby at 16, and four more by 24. She has seen pictures of the effects of gonorrhea, herpes, syphillis, etc. She’s read stories of the emotional effects, etc.
None of that changes the mind of an invincible teen. I don’t mean to sound so pessimistic, but we’re talking about the reality of sex, and I don’t think it’s fair to assign blame to parents’ lack of communication with their kids, or having “hangups” about sex.
By RF
November 10, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
JBM- but is there any way to prevent the emotional scars when the curiosity is sooo strong? Unfortunately you don’t find the right one until you try a few wrong ones. Sometimes the most important lessons are those we get hurt by learning. But it’s soooo hard to watch that happen to them.
By Eirik
November 10, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Hey 72John, At least there’s a little good news for us gay boys.
Have you been following this issue: This was a guy that was being gay bashed by a punch of teenage a-holes, so he whipped out a pocket knife and stabbed one of his attackers, who died later. The gay guy was arrested and charged with manslaughter…but it was just thrown out.
http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=3462
I hope that dead homophobic punk is rotting in hell right now.
Personally, I prefer a baseball bat which I keep in my jeep.
By Eirik
November 10, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
correction: “bunch” of teenage a-holes.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
Fat Moose, no, you didn’t reference an age, but that behavior is common among children from ages 2 to 6. To answer your question, I would call it exploration, not experimentation.
By RF
November 10, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
JBM— did your daughter know all about her mother when she came to you? My boys (7 and 9)don’t know all the details about their mother beyond the drugs and that she died, and I can’t decide when to tell them (especially about how she was killed).
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
Ok,
You are already defensive; and not going anywhere but excuses. I really do not want this to degrade; so if you do not want to address what the person in control can do [the parent] then dis-engage from this conversation.
Kids are not going to change - that is a given; it [sexual curiosity] is a natural progression, and you think it “blame” when addressing the appropriate person in control.
By The72John
November 10, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
I understand the emotion, but really I just find that tragic. The truth is that a lot of people that age aren’t really homophobic, they’re just the products of their environments, of their fears, etc., especially when they’re in a group like that.
Some of my best friends were pretty homophobic when they were young, but they got older and got smarter…that kid won’t have the chance now.
I don’t dispute the right of the victim to defend himself, but I can’t really take much joy in it, either.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
So,
Once again; but with the word you would rather: Do you think exploration is wrong? How do you view it?
(sorry, but the need of one word vs another in such a simalar context exhibits some of the hang ups)
And to explore if we on here have hang-ups: Do you talk freely about auto-erotic behaviour with your BF/Spouse/whatever?
By Eirik
November 10, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
72John,
I don’t take any joy in a kid dying either…but I’m tired of reading about guys who are just minding their own business, being beat up for walking down the street…I’m glad we have examples where we’re shown defending ourselves instead of always being victims.
This teenage redneck started something with me several years ago when I lived on Myrtle Street in Midtown…he didn’t realize I had a lead pipe in my car…he did later when he was at Grady with a broken elbow though…true story.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
RF - It’s hard to say without knowing all the details of your situation, but my general rule of thumb is that the earlier you tell them the truth, the better. Of course, it might help if you wait until the summer so their grades are not affected, or at least less affected. And, of course you’ll put them in therapy if you haven’t already.
Yes, my daughter knew about everything except the HIV (which is now AIDS). She just found out about that this past summer, and was very upset with everyone in our family for not telling her.
FatMoose,
Ok,You are already defensive; and not going anywhere but excuses. I really do not want this to degrade; so if you do not want to address what the person in control can do [the parent] then dis-engage from this conversation.
Was that directed at me? If so, what makes you think I’m defensive? I’m not, and I’m sorry you got that impression.
By The72John
November 10, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this
I understand both positions - JBM is protective (naturally and rightly so) of her children, and FatMoose believes (I think ALSO rightly) that many of our sex-related problems originate with the deeply puritanical, prudish attitude that America has towards sex.
I’m inclined to side with FatMoose, though - there have been countless studies by anthropologists that indicate a clear link between sexual openess and sexual stability. Societies with open attitudes about sex just tend to be more well-adjusted and have fewer unwanted prgnancies, etc.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this
JBM- but is there any way to prevent the emotional scars when the curiosity is sooo strong? Unfortunately you don’t find the right one until you try a few wrong ones. Sometimes the most important lessons are those we get hurt by learning. But it’s soooo hard to watch that happen to them.
Sorry, RF. I overlooked that one. I agree, it is so hard, to watch your child hurt, especially when you knew it would happen and tried to warn them. I don’t think there’s any way to prevent teens from having sex when the curiosity is so strong. That’s the point I was making in response to FatMoose saying that the problem is that parents have too many hangups about it. I agree that some parents do have hangups about sex, but at the same time I know that I have a very open relationship with my daughter about sex, and could talk to her all day and night… but when curiosity takes over, there’s nothing I can do but pray.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
FAtMoose, in your 2:49 post are you suggesting that I have hangups about sex talk? I can’t really tell who you’re addressing, and I’m having a hard time following you.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
JBM-
The only function of your reply is to remove responsibility from the parent - which sounded defencive; and seems naive - since they are the people [dis?]-educating kids.
As you illustrated with your sister; lack of education + scare tactics is exactly what we are saying gets kids into trouble. Realistic complete information is not what parents teach their kids.
I have never heard of a kid being dangerously curious by having enough information. I find it more likely that some, but not enough info is the cause for dangerous exploration.
For example; my parents had a family bed/shower. I had no real curiosity about boys or girls bc I saw them regularly in the family [this is making someone squirm uncomfortably somewhere pretty heavy] - grown and young.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this
John, you said:
I understand both positions - JBM is protective (naturally and rightly so) of her children, and FatMoose believes (I think ALSO rightly) that many of our sex-related problems originate with the deeply puritanical, prudish attitude that America has towards sex.
My being protective isn’t my position.
FatMoose is saying (paraphrased) that the problem is that parents are so “prudish” about sex, and have hangups. My response (or position) is that not all parents have hangups, and that this is not the sole (or even main) reason that teens are having so much sex, contracting diseases and getting pregnant.
My position is that (1) some parents’ attempt to tread lightly with the subject is misconstrued as their having a “hangup,” and (2) I completely understand why some parents have a hard time finding the balance between being completely open, and unwittingly encouraging their children to have sex.
By RF
November 10, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
JBM- they were 3 and 5 when I got them and knew about the drugs. The therapist we’ve been to said they’ve adjusted well and that we should wait until they ask to tell them things and not force too much on them too early. So far, that seems to be working. I don’t want to overload them before they’re able to understand.
Moose- I’d hardly call America’s attitude today toward sex puritanical and prudish. Maybe the Baptists, but have you watched any music videos lately? Even the country stars are getting sexy now! Some folks may still be prudish, but as a society we’re definitely moving away from that.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
JBM -
If you ask one more question to side step the initial question; I think that it will be conclusive that you have a hangup.
You diverted my Q by stateing you do not find it experimentation, but exploration;
and
You want to claim that parents are not to blame {your word - I used ‘responsible’} for their kids behaviour.
and
You totally ignored my auto erotic question each time I asked it.
A lot of running around the subject - which is oddly what parents do to kids.
Prove me wrong; and do not divert again and just have a dialog.
By The72John
November 10, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
JBM - not trying to offend you.
RF - I kind of disagree with you. Yes, our tolerance for scantily dressed people is increasing, but when it comes to actual sex, we’re still pretty darn hung up.
By RF
November 10, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
Moose- kids are surrounded by sexual curiosity and encouragement everywhere these days. Go online and read some popular song lyrics right now, especially rap lyrics. Sex is a strong force there and the kids are drawn to it. I don’t think it’s because parents are being prudish, I think it’s because they just don’t know their kids are curious/trying and don’t want to do that too early. More kids are having sex at earlier ages without proper knowledge because they’re surrounded by it on TV and in the music they listen to. I know of a kid who came to school at 5 saying something like “I’m gonna jump on that girl and tear that thing up”. NOw he had no idea what he was saying (or at least not much of an idea). Is it prudish to think that a kid at that age shouldn’t be hearing that kind of stuff?
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this
puritanical and prudish
Neither of those are my words - frustrating having a dialog with people that do this kind of stuff.
Media shows what sells and is NO indication of what parents do; except if you think it through fully:
Europe has bare breast in ads; not bc it sells but because it is culture and normal.
In America sex sells more products. Why? Demand that is driven up by parents that restict REAL knowledge from thier kids - therefore they are starving for it, or so they think. That is why ads use the info that is in the void {what kids learn from other kids and the ‘dirty’ notion of it}.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
restict = restrict
By RF
November 10, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
72John- it’s not just scantily clad people on screen, it’s the subject matter of the songs. YOu should really listen to them. More and more are about sex, and it’s not hidden in the lyrics anymore. Just seems to send a message that younger and younger children are hearing. Which goes back to parent responsiblity, but would you suggest a 5-7 year old child needs to see sexual encounters on television or hear people talking about f*ing in a song on the radio?
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
The only function of your reply is to remove responsibility from the parent - which sounded defencive; and seems naive - since they are the people [dis?]-educating kids.
Remove responsibility from the parent?? Huh? What on earth did I ever say to make you think that? I have never, EVER on this blog or anywhere else denied the responsibility I have in raising my child. Either you misunderstood what I said, or we’re just not speaking the same “language” at all.
As you illustrated with your sister; lack of education + scare tactics is exactly what we are saying gets kids into trouble. Realistic complete information is not what parents teach their kids.
To which sister/illustration are you referring? I’ve talked about several of my sisters this week, but I’m not sure how any of those relates to what you’re saying.
lack of education + scare tactics is exactly what we are saying gets kids into trouble.
This is where we disagree. I find your statement to be too absolute. There are many contributing factors to teen “trouble.” For example, I think, curiosity. My daughter is on a fast road to “trouble.” As I’ve stated (and I think you’ve ignored), I educate her frequently on the emotional, physical, and psychological benefits and consequences of sexual relationships. We discuss it openly and often. We’ve watched educational films about it. She’s discussed it with other adults she trusts, and of course, with her friends. The bottom line is that she is terribly curious, and all the education in the world is not going to satisfy that curiosity.
What is so hard to understand about that? You don’t have to agree, but can’t you at least understand that my point is that THERE IS NO ONE ANSWER TO PREVENTING TEENS FROM GETTING INTO “TROUBLE” WITH SEX. If there were a proven answer, I think a lot fewer teens would be getting into “trouble.”
I have never heard of a kid being dangerously curious by having enough information. I find it more likely that some, but not enough info is the cause for dangerous exploration.
So, either you are saying that my daughter’s curiosity is not dangerous; or that I have not given her enough information; or that she is the first person you’ve heard of that has enough information and is STILL DANGEROUSLY CURIOUS! Which is it?
For example; my parents had a family bed/shower. I had no real curiosity about boys or girls bc I saw them regularly in the family [this is making someone squirm uncomfortably somewhere pretty heavy] - grown and young.
I’m not squirming, different strokes for different folks… but, in my house, we all take our own showers and sleep in our own beds. And, another point is that the curiosity kids have at 15 is not about “seeing them,” as you referenced. The curiosity relates to FEELING them inside. Surely you weren’t exposed to that.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
The same old info that applies to booze applies here: In europe I was looked down on bc I got drunk at a dance club.
They drink; but the culture does not have a frenzy bc the reality {fun and fright} of drinking is known/taught.
By Renee
November 10, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Wow I’ve missed a lot. Been in a meeting. JBM, I got the website, I’m going to pull it up at home (my job might have some block up or pull me up on a report as a pervert) lol.
I’ve got a lot of opinions about the subject at hand, but I don’t really have the time to comment. (If I want to get out of here at 4:30 anyway.)
By RF
November 10, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this
Sorry, Moose, I got confused trying to grade papers and read between stacks.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
You are getting way too personal. I was not even talking about you and your kids - but you seem unable to differentiate.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
Read up {didn’t Dx have to say that too}-
72John is right that there are cultures accross the globe - some without cloths - that do not have a problem with curiousity being rampant.
Take care - and sorry, but there is nothing for me to learn here.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this
FatMoose, trust me I’m not the evasive type. I’m not answering your questions because as I stated a few minutes ago, I’m having a hard time following you. One of the questions, I didn’t understand and I told you that I didn’t understand what you were saying.
Believe me, I’m the last person to be evasive. I wasn’t avoiding the experimentation question, I thought I answered that. You asked if I would have a problem with experimentation, and I answered. See:
So JBM,
Do you think experimentation is wrong? How do you view it?
FatMoose, do you mean experimenting with sexual intercourse? If that’s what you mean, then yes I do think that’s wrong and I view it unfavorably. If that’s not what you meant, pls. clarify.
I was refering to experimenting in general - from showing, on up; but primarily showing to petting.
I don’t consider looking and touching at the age of 4 or 5 to be experimentation.
I did not reference an age; but since you did: what would you call it?
Fat Moose, no, you didn’t reference an age, but that behavior is common among children from ages 2 to 6. To answer your question, I would call it exploration, not experimentation.
By FatMoose November 10, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
So,
Once again; but with the word you would rather: Do you think exploration is wrong? How do you view it?
(sorry, but the need of one word vs another in such a simalar context exhibits some of the hang ups)
And to explore if we on here have hang-ups: Do you talk freely about auto-erotic behaviour with your BF/Spouse/whatever?
FAtMoose, in your 2:49 post are you suggesting that I have hangups about sex talk? I can’t really tell who you’re addressing, and I’m having a hard time following you.
Now, please tell me what you said that I did NOT respond to?????????
Now, if you don’t mind, scroll back up and copy/paste the questions that you believe I avoided. I’ll do my best to answer them.
By RF
November 10, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this
And life’s not perfect in Europe either. They have divorces, crimes, and unwanted pregnancies. They have criminals (who move about much more freely than here apparently), and terrorists with much more opportunity to strike. Considering the mess in France these days, I’m not sure Euro attitudes toward anything are better than ours.
By The72John
November 10, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this
RF, I’m curious - what gives you the impression that criminals move about more freely in Europe than here?
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this
You are getting way too personal. I was not even talking about you and your kids - but you seem unable to differentiate.
You’re playing games, FatMoose, and I don’t come here for that reason. You made several comments earlier about my statements being “commonly heard from people who have hangups.” That makes it personal. It seems to me that you are saying that I personally have a hangup about talking about sex. You made that same comment at least twice, and now you’re trying to act like you weren’t mumbling under your breath.
Then, you try to falsely accuse me of avoiding your questions, when I’ve shown above that I responded to everything you said or asked.
Looks to me that you’re the one with the problem.
And by the way, 72John never said that those words “came out of your mouth.” He was generalizing what he perceived to be your position. And, he was on YOUR side. He wasn’t conspiring against you to put words in your mouth!
It’s really unfortunate that you can’t debate a simple subject without folks getting their panties in a bunch.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
Friggin ridiculous:
And life’s not perfect in Europe either…blahblah
Are we talking about perfection?Divorce?Etc? Want to add twenty more subjects that we are not talking about?
Once again; but with the word you would rather: Do you think exploration is wrong? How do you view it?
Right there in your post - twice.
Like I said; don’t bother - you two are a hoot tho…
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this
I am determined to pass this test. I will NOT lose my cool, and I will not resort to any uncomely behaviors.
FatMoose, in your mind, experimentation and exploration are one in the same. I completely disagree, and I bet Merriam-Webster does, too.
To answer your question: YES, I THINK EXPERIMENTATION IS WRONG AND I VIEW IT UNFAVORABLY.
NO, I DO NOT THINK EXPLORATION IS WRONG, AND MY VIEW (as previously stated) IS THAT IT IS COMMON FOR CHILDREN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 2 AND 6.
Are you trying to get me to admit that I don’t think it’s cool for kids to take showers with their parents? You keep asking me these one liners, out of the clear blue. What is this leading to? And, I asked you to clarify your “auto-erotica” question, and you didn’t. Who did you say was being evasive?
By RF
November 10, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
You know, we’re just expressing opinions like you do, Moose. But heaven help us if we disagree with you. I was SIMPLY stating an opinion that while Europe may have a more relaxed attitude about sex, I don’t agree with what I PERCEIVE (possibly by mistake) to be your idea that life in Europe is better also. Save your belittling for someone who your words might actually hurt (like Zack). I’m not the least bit interested in offending you or arguing with you. I’m also not interested in being talked down to. It really doesn’t make you look any better or smarter. GEEZ, can’t people debate without whipping it out to see who’s is bigger?
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
All caps is an example of not loosing cool?
That is considered yelling - which in my house is loosing your cool.
Auto-erotic = mastubation; so let me make it crystal for you: Do you talk freely with your partner [or last one] about mastubating? Do you freely subscribe to it and does your partner also?
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this
Dang, I got so caught up I forgot to respond to you RF. I would definitely go with the therapist. They know you and your boys better (and have a PhD, I assume - which I don’t have! lol).
And, actually now that I think about it, I agree with him/her. But, I’ll add to it, that if the boys ask any questions at all, don’t beat around the bush, don’t evade the issue. Answer their questions directly, and on an age-appropriate level. Make sure (and I’m sure you already do) that they feel comfortable asking you anything about their mom (or about anything else).
Another thing I’ve found that really helps is to share stories about their mom. My daughter loves it when I tell her crazy things her mom and I did growing up…
By RF
November 10, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
72John- just an overall impression, not based on any research or travels I’ve had in recent years. Just my opinion.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this
I don’t agree with what I PERCEIVE (possibly by mistake) to be your idea that life in Europe is better also.
Um - yep, you were mistaken. It is insane how you two can blog for this long in a ‘debate,’ but not address a single issue in it.
{ohhh - You did have some vollies regarding bad TV}
By RF
November 10, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
JBM- yeah, I think we all got way to caught up there for a while. I do talk to them often about her. I have family pictures all over the house, and I think that helps. The oldest and I keep a journal to each other too so he can ask things he’s thinking about but doesn’t want to say (he’s a little more introverted). I was curious how you handled it because I have a hard time trusting everything a doctor says.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
FatMoose, although all caps generally does mean yelling, I wasn’t using them to yell, I was stressing my point. Kind of like a voice inflection (I think that’s the word for it…). Either way, sorry if it offended you.
Auto-erotic = mastubation; so let me make it crystal for you: Do you talk freely with your partner [or last one] about mastubating? Do you freely subscribe to it and does your partner also?
First, that “let me make it crystal for you” was really condescending, and unnecessary. Please don’t speak to me that way.
Second, I really don’t see how this information can be of any use to you at all. I asked you where you were trying to go with this, what point you were getting at, and you haven’t answered me. Right now, I’m wondering if you’re falling off your rocker, so to speak.
To answer your question, despite my better judgment, my partner and I don’t talk often about masturbating. But yes, when we do talk about it, we do so freely. My partner is extremely uncomfortable with the practice, so no, she does not “freely subscribe” to it. I am much more comfortable with the idea of masturbation, but until you explain to me what this information is for, I won’t answer whether or not I “freely subscribe” to masturbation.
By Just Being Me
November 10, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this
RF - I’ll get back with you tomorrow. Gotta get outta here now.
FatMoose - I’m not avoiding you, but I have to go and catch MARTA. Just in case you were going to ask, “no, I do not teach my children to masturbate,” and “no, I do not masturbate in front of them.”
Good night all!
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
There is no way that we will see eye to eye.
I did have a point regarding the YoYo Question, but figure it is just another rabbit hole to fall into.
Sorry you find my word condescending; but I call them like I see them. My opinion of you two is not to high, no; and it is because of your lack of comprehension and ability to look at things realistically and logically. It is too bad that your questions deal directly with your faults - it does not give me much hope for you.
But I will [that is inflection] hope for you two.
Been a boring time for me with no information worth a darn on here - 72john’s concurrence was nice, but I suspect neither of us are looking for a choir.
GOOD WEEKEND AND GOOD LUCK! {That is not yelling, fyi, it is a hushed and subtle growl - although by your standards, you should know that.}
Funny people!
By RF
November 10, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this
Just expressing opinions Moose, and not looking down on you for not agreeing. Just don’t always look at those who disagree with you as being of less intelligence. It takes all kinds to make a world, and I enjoy the debate back and forth. It’s not about changing anyone or hoping they get better. I won’t go into what I see as the flaws in your logic—it’s yours and I respect your right to it, whether I agree with it or not. I’ll debate with you as I see the need to, and sometimes (believe it or not) learn from it. I’m allowed my opinions based on my experiences in life. We’re different people and that’s what makes the world work, whether you like it or not.
Have a good one people! I’m out of here for today.
By FatMoose
November 10, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this
We did not disagree bc nothing got talked about [really - not one aspect!].
The round-and-round behavior is what I expressed in a condescending manner - which is NOT to be expected by people stating they wat to discuss and debate a topic to explore what might be going on.
It is recess in here.
By RF
November 11, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this
I want the swing first!! Can we play dodgeball, pleeeeaasse, Mr. Moose? My mommy says I have to be first! HAPPY FRIDAY people!!
By Renee
November 11, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this
Happy Friday RF!!! Looks like you and JBM were “crunk” yesterday, lol.
By RF
November 11, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this
Yeah, I tend to get a little wound up when we’re talking about kids and “folks get uppity” about things!—LOL
By Lyrazel
November 11, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this
JBM: Sorry I was out so I will respond: Lyrazel - Are you basically saying that Andrea Yates killed her children because she is a religious fanatic, not because she’s mentally ill; and therefore she belongs in prison?
No, I was saying because Yates is a white female she might get out of jail and into Max Security Hospital. Faith only factors because it was used as her defense: God told me to. She killed 5 people. Seems to me any man would be on death row in Texas, a man would never have gotten TV time or lawyers intent depicting him as a victim. Even her ex-husband would not have been able to get off death row for the same act. You must apply same laws for both sexes and all races or abandon the laws as invalid! This case illustrates why I am against death penalty, because there are too many cases of lesser crimes and race-based internments being punished without equal justice. If Yates was an Arab/Black/Hispanic man with the same defense and no priors but equally faithful, who would be saying: Lets put him in a hospital or lets give him a second chance? In America people are still judged more guilty by race and less guilty by sex thus we cannot have true liberation or justice.
By Jack
November 11, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this
Yates needs to meet her maker. The sooner the better.
By Renee
November 11, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel has interesting points.
I just can’t get over killing innocent children, though. Killing your innocent children. I mean I don’t think the punishment will ever be harsh enough. But she’s not in her right mind, but then again, (in my opinion), most of the people who have committed crimes to get them a pass to death row are out of their minds as well.
By The72John
November 11, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this
If a person is schitzophrenic and commits a crime because the chemicals in their brain are misfiring so badly that delusion and halucination are indistinguishable from reality, do they deserve to be executed because of it?
We have a hard time imagining what it’s like because we don’t suffer from those delusions, and the act of killing one’s own children seems especially heinous. But the fact is that extreme schizophrenics suffer complete and total breaks from reality.
Do you really think they deserve to be executed because of something beyond their control?
By Renee
November 11, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
I’m not sure how I feel. There are good points on both sides of the argument. BUT, if she was in this state, she should not even had the right to have children or to have them in her custody.
If someone has an illness, that is so disabling that something of this magnitude could happen, why are children even in her home.
By RF
November 11, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this
are we talking about Yates or some of the folks that pop up on this blog? :- ) All but one of the psychologists used in the trial determined her to be insane. You can easily buy a medical opinion, but I doubt you’d buy four of them. She had a history of mental issues. I don’t see how they managed to NOT prove her insane in the first trial! I agree with Lyrazel on one point. Would there have been this much debate and scrutiny if it had been the father who killed them? He’d have been on death row without fail. I think part of the debate has to do with her being the mother. Dads might kill, but moms?? Our social perception is that she’d have to be crazy to kill her own children. I can’t imagine they’ll try her again without a verdict of insanity.
By RF
November 11, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this
Renee- I wonder about the same thing. Why didn’t some of her doctors, if concerned about her mental state, call DFACS? I thought they were required to if they thought someone was a threat to his or her kids. Of course, she may not have seemed a threat to the doctors, but I can’t imagine letting someone that obviously in trouble be alone with children. Which brings me right back to where I started on this issue: her husband is as much to blame. He knew she was not well and knew she didn’t need all those small children, but he kept on making them! I still can’t believe her family hasn’t filed a civil suit against him.
By Jack
November 11, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
IF she was schitzophrenic I would think her husband would have known. He did know and left her with the children anyway. He should be locked up also. If she is sick enough to do that kind of crime, she is better off with God.
By Scalia
November 11, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this
I blame him just as much as her. He had to know that something was wrong. I’m sure that she made comments to him, or friends of hers, and they confided in him. Why keep making children if something is obviously wrong?
By Renee
November 11, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
Yeah I agree that the husband is just as much to blame. He had a duty to those kids, if not more than a duty than she did as a schitzo.
I thought when the Columbine killings occurred that the parents (of Dylan and Eric) where just as much to blame as the kids and should have been charged as well. I don’t think we hold everybody responsible when these horrific acts occur.
By The72John
November 11, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
I would hope as a society we will never reach the point where the solution for illness is execution. Mental illness, in many cases, is as physical in its cause as cancer or tuberculosis. We may not understand it as well as we do those illnesses, but that does not change the basic fact.
By RF
November 11, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
Well, I guess charges against the husband, who is only peripherally responsible, would be hard to prove at best. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of someone married or related to a person with mental problems being held legally responsible, although I think someone should be. Anyone in her family who knew about it and did nothing is somewhat responsible. I just couldn’t let someone I knew with serious problems like that have kids and not at least try to do something to help them. I still wonder why her doctors, who knew her condition(s) didn’t notify DFACS. And I imagine she had good spells when she was on meds and seemed perfectly fine. One problem with mental illness is determining a patient’s danger to him/herself and others.
By Renee
November 11, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
72John I see where you are coming from and I agree with you to a point. But would you not agree that for the most part, the people on death row are on there have some kind of mental instability. In order to commit a crime so heinous as to land you on death row, your mind cannot be right. So then comes the question, how do you determine who to execute or not.
RF, as to making the husband legally responsible, I do think he should be. He more than anyone, knew, or should have known her state of mind and should not have allowed the children to be in the danger they were in. It’s like me leaving a baby with someone who is too physically challenged to care for a baby. When the baby starves that day or not get cleaned up appropriately, the question would be why did I leave the baby with a person so physically challenged they could not take care of a baby. Of course, the situation is not the same as the Andrea Yates situation but I’m trying to make some sort of parallel.
By The72John
November 11, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Renee, that’s a good question. Psychologists and psychaitrists have not pinpointed causes of many types of mental disorders, but there are many that HAVE been pinpointed. If a behavior is caused by a chemical imbalance, then that clearly qualifies as an illness in my book.
Of course, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a moot point anyway. I’m opposed to the death penalty period, mainly because it’s irreversible and we know that innocent people are sometimes convicted and later exonerated, but also because it seems foolhardy to execute rather than study criminally insane people.
By RF
November 11, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this
Renee- as a parent, the more I think about it, the more it upsets me that the father is considered blameless and a victim in this case. Your example isn’t far off base—the mental inability to handle a situation ought to be considered as much as the physical. When I was in court to get my nephews, my sister was held much more responsible in the eyes of the law as the mother. The scumbag sperm generator she was ‘married’ to was barely part of the issue, even though he was the one working and buying the drugs for them. She was the one the judge came down on hardest. We expect a lot more out of mothers than fathers legally.
72 John—I agree to an extent and have always believed that we know really very little about how the brain works and what makes one ‘sane’ or ‘insane’. Nobody thought anything was wrong with the guy who turned out to be BTK until after they caught him. And that man is definitely NUTS! But then he freely admits to what he did, and seems completely cognizant of it. That’s where I get caught up in the debate: if one knows and admits it, then is one then punishable, without regard to mental state? It’s a catch-22 at best.
By The72John
November 11, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
I don’t say don’t incarcerate. Obviously, society has an interest in protecting its members. Keep ‘em locked up so they can’t hurt anyone, but study the heck out of them. That BTK guy should spend the rest of his life surrounded by TEAMS of shrinks.
By RF
November 11, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this
You’re right—there’s enough wrong with him to keep the shrinks busy for years!! I’ve always wondered what happens in a person’s brain, what chemical or genetic trait kicks in to make a person become a killer like him. He seemed so ‘normal’ that it makes you wonder about everyone you see.
By Renee
November 11, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
I know the BTK seems normal, but he’s far from it. He may have been more able to blend into society than Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy, but I think all of them are a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Anytime you kill people, for no particular reason except self-satisfaction, something is wrong. Even if you are cognizant of what you did. I think the fact that he’s like yeah I did it, proves something is wrong. Maybe a different kind of crazy than the person who kills and isn’t aware of what they did at all, but still crazy.
Maybe execution isn’t the answer. I don’t know. I have mixed feelings about capital punishment. But then what is the answer. They have already done the damage.