Woman to Woman

By Billy

November 14, 2005 08:20 AM | Link to this

Who does decide? In today’s world of 500 channels, more than a few are strictly for kids’ programming. Why not have your kid watch one of those? Or better yet, read him a book.

By Renee

November 14, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

We spoke on this last week (I wonder if this is inspired this column). I think Diane’s last paragraph sums it up best. Nobody has a responsibility to the children EXCEPT for the parents. There will ALWAYS be (and always has been) questionable television shows as well as music and movies. This is a sign of the times with every generation. I remember my mom saying what I say now, “I can’t believe what they put on television” and then if she found it unacceptable, I WASN’T ALLOWED TO WATCH IT!! Don’t buy your children video games with the adult rating if you don’t agree with them. Don’t allow your children to watch the adult cartoons or the shows with adult intent if you think it’s not appropriate. Parents should take responsiblity and stop placing the blame. There are a lot of shows that I enjoy watching on television that are not appropriate for my daughter. I don’t want them taken off the air but I don’t allow her to watch them. And where is the law that children MUST watch television. When I was young, I had times I could watch, as a privilege. I was encouraged to read and play outside. I had outdoor chores, activities, things that took up my time other than TV.

By Brian Curtis

November 14, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this

Being a role model, regardless of your profession, is a “nice-to-have” option. If you’re a compassionate, responsible person, you’ll try to set a good example.

But like charity, you can’t force or expect it of everyone… no matter how much they get paid or what they do for a living. Some people will try to set a good example, but others will not.

And as far as your kids’ perceptions and behavior are concerned: the responsibility starts and ends with you, the parent. No one else.

By Bruce

November 14, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

Wasn’t it Hillary Clinton that promoted that “it takes a village to raise a child” stance a few years ago? Isn’t the media part of that village?

Don’t get me wrong I agree 99% of the responsiblity rest squarely on the parents shoulders and I do monitor, as best I can, what my child watches, reads and listens too. But there are outside forces that I cannot control, one of those are the media.

By Chilao

November 14, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

I believe that art, if TV/movies can be considered that, reflects culture, and do not subscribe to the belief that art(see qualifier above) Forms culture. So obviously our culture wants all that sex and violence on TV. If we did not, it would not be watched. And with the number of channels available in most households, as mentioned above, wonder what the real problem? is.

I was raised in a no-TV household, in fact never was around a TV much until I was out on my own. Read alot, the imagery is much better when I define it.

So now TV shows should be, (now here is an oxymoron coming up), Conservatively Politically Correct? i.e “Good public policy”.

I have to go with it is the PARENTS’ responsibility. But never having had kids, refrain from comments related to child-rearing. Now if other non-parents could do the same…..

Anyone notice how quickly on late Firday the new subject gets posted? Editors maxed out by then our ‘rants and raves’ here? (laughing)

By Lyrazel

November 14, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this

Do TV shows have a responsibility to create good role models for kids?

No. No one has responsibilty for kids except parents and possibly educational systems where one would hope to find role models suitable for developing minds.

such self-evident fairness hasn’t persuaded the television networks using our public airwaves — and in return are supposed to avoid *indecent content and consider what’s best for kids in all programming before 10 pm*

Shaunti, our public airwaves are not government owned save PBS…and do you see such lowbrow programing on PBS Live at Lincoln Center, or on Nature? There is such a thing as Free Broadcast Access TV that allows the 4 networks: CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS to cooperate with EMBS and play the tune dogs love…but this kid friendly programing is not a public law. Broadcasters are voluntarily cooperating like they voluntarily cooperate with network censors who give a series of ratings for parents to monitor the upcoming content of shows. The cut-off time is 9pm when school children went to bed in the 50s. Because your kids stay up later: does that mean everyone in the USA must watch kid shows until news? Thats a hard pill to swallow for any adult.

Cable is not under any sort of government regulations and can show content when and how it wants and really Shaunti, isnt your gripe about CABLE TV shows? The solution is easy: get rid of cable in your home!. You get 2 stations of PBS, the big 3 and in Atl, you get FOX and TNT and a Spanish channel UBN, you get UPN sometimes and two christian faith channels. Plus its FREE! Use the money to rent movies that show suitable content. Or go wild and turn off the TV set.

A 2004 RAND study found that teens with higher exposure to TV sex were almost twice as likely to initiate sexual intercourse as those with lower exposure! Excuse me Shaunti, but where were the parents of these teens? Washing the car for 14 years? Its a parents duty—not a governments duty—not that crazed old lady from next door duty to protect teens! Where are the parents while these kids were initiating sexual intercourse? As for the reference to Columbine how was it the parents did not know their teens had automatic weapons in their closets? My mother would have certainly discovered such a thing…could Columbine actually be blamed on bad parenting and not on the media a classic scapegoat?

Next question: WHAT children content would be acceptable? If SpongeBob SquarePants and Teletubbies cause bad-influence danger to some children and the current debate about evolution vs ID keeps the brood from watching NOVA—how are parental groups ever going to organize what kind of shows they want?

Shaunti scores a classic pat answer: IT IS NOT MY JOB.

By Chilao

November 14, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

So very recently I heard that what to me was indeed a good TV show, Seventh Heaven, got cancelled. Did not learn why, perhaps it had merely run its course. I thought it was as good as my favorite show, Desperate Housewives, well, when I am not watching PBS Nature shows. LOL

By Renee

November 14, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Chilao, Desperate Housewives is my favorite too! Although they are starting to lose points with me, after the show last night.

Lyrazel - great comment! I was just saying last week how Columbine should have never happenened, had the parents been involved as they should have been. Additionally, I thought they should have some repercussions for NOT knowing that their children made these bombs.

By RF

November 14, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

You know, there wouldn’t be a debate about this if parents were actually accountable for their kids. I monitor what my kids watch, when, and how much. TV is a privilege in our home, not the universal babysitter. Don’t most cable channels now have ratings for shows? We can’t make parents do what is common sense to most of us here. That’s the quandry for me- I don’t think it’s fair to impose a blanket content control like the FCC did in decades past, but I also don’t think we need some stuff on TV during prime time. I think it’s fair to require some shows, based on content, to be shown later in the evening when there is less likelihood of children seeing them. Then the question becomes, who decides what’s “appropriate”? The FCC certainly doesn’t seem to be getting any stricter about that. But how do we make parents accountable for what the kids see? How do we get the point across to those who let the kids watch endlessly?

By Just Being Me

November 14, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

Renee - I was thinking the same exact thing… Finally Diane and Shaunti are listening to us!

Chilao - I liked 7th Heaven too, but grew bored with it when Matt got married, Mary got grown, and that whiny, issue-laden Lucy got married… I enjoyed it when they were younger, but once they grew up it bored me.

By Jack

November 14, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

Another great subject to debate. Finally Diane and Shaunti are listening to us and giving us a subject suitable for discussion. Yes, I think the entertainment industry should bare all of the responsibility for not only ensuring that our children have good role models, it should dictate how the adults should raise their children entirely. They can even tell the parents how to vote in the next election. Hollywood knows exactly how the real world works so they can do it. Man, all that time I wasted trying to raise my kids when Hollywood could have done it.

By Brian Curtis

November 14, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

I know that bashing Hollywood is a never-ending source of fun for conservatives… but seriously, Shaunti: How does suggesting that media content be regulated “for the public good” square with conservatism, exactly?

I’m beginning to notice a wider and wider disparity between what different types of self-proclaimed “conservatives” are really all about. Should government be meddling in our private lives, or shouldn’t it?

By Jack

November 14, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

The government should control everthing we can do. Then we can all be robots like in Brave New World. Anybody up for a soma holiday?

By The72John

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

What’s truly insidious about the philosophy behind Shaunti’s column is that it presupposes that a particular type of morality - Shaunti’s own religio-conservative brand - is the CORRECT morality for children to be exposed to. Television is bad because it doesn’t reflect Shaunti’s “Halcyon days of the 50’s” philosophy.

You know the one - it’s the philosophy where Mom and Dad live with their two perfect children. Mom stays at home cooking and cleaning for the hard-working breadwinner, little Bobby and little Suzy are straight-A students, everyone spends all day Sunday at church, and no one ever, ever gets divorced.

Of course, Dad is smacking Mom around when the food isn’t on the table as soon as he gets back, and diddling the babysitter. Bobby’s wearing his mother’s clothing when no one’s looking, and Suzy spent six months with her “aunt” so that no one would know she was pregnant.

Shaunti and her religious conservative colleagues are such hypocrites - they CLAIM that big government is bad, yet when it comes to controling people’s private lives, they might as well have BIG BROTHER tatooed on their foreheads.

By Chilao

November 14, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

Suzy spent six months with her “aunt�

Knocked up by the married preacher, wasn’t she?

Sorry, too good….

By Chilao

November 14, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

I also wonder where Desperate HOusewives may be headed, this newer season not as riveting, just read a msnbc review of last night’s show.

But who says there is no comedy on PBS Nature shows? Anyone see the CostaRican male bird that does a reverse-walk/moon-walk on a branch to impress the female? As the hot female researcher on the ground does the same, all to Michael Jackson’s Thriller song?

By Archie

November 14, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

I agree with Lyrazel’s 9:29 am comments, but I do wish the networks would do a better job with their pre-9pm-programming. As a parent you think you’re ok watching tv at 8 pm but then you hear profanity and you see other questionable behavior. There are many children’s programs on but if you happen to not have cable or satellite tv you should expect the networks to do better from 8 to 9 pm. Everything is about money in this country so demonstrating role model behavior doesn’t off tv all the time and it definitely won’t happen on the tv screen.

By Gary Harrison

November 14, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

Who is responsible? YOU are when you turn the tv on. Yes, there is plenty of every kind of perversion and filth available to the viewewr. But if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Morality paradigms aside, TV is culpable to a degree for the moral degradation of American society. And to those who don’t agree: polls say that the average child watches over 100,000 acts of violence up and through their most formative years. No effect? Yeah, right: go walking in downtown or your own neighborhood tonight, alone and with no protection. Bet you gutless liberal won’t dare to.

By The72John

November 14, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

Amazing how someone always manages to make comments like “gutless liberal” without any provocation or justification, isn’t it? Someone’s been listening to too much Hannity.

It’s rather ironic that said individual brings up violence - violence isn’t really what Shaunti and her Moral Minority crew are worried about. It’s S-E-X. Plain and simple. Violence runs rampant on TV, from kids cartoons on up, but no one cares about it. But show a little thigh and the Outraged Crusaders are at it again.

As for television causing the “moral degredation” of America, well, that’s highly subjective. There’s just the tiniest possibility that violent behavior has some socie-economic cause. I just betcha that if you were to examine the statistics, you’d find that upper- and middle-class kids watching exactly the same programing as their underprivileged peers are far less prone to criminal or violent acts. But hey - if you want to baselessly blame TV, that’s your business. I’m sure Rush and Sean would agree with you.

By Jack

November 14, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

“Bet you gutless liberal won’t dare to.” You give non-liberals a bad name throwing that jab out there. Are they the only ones who contribute to the bank accounts of Hollywood? Maybe you have been listening and watching Hannity too much.

By Archie

November 14, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Thanks Jack and 72John because I was wondering why the comment about “gutless liberal” was made at this point. I used to watch a lot of violent shows such as Cannon,Mannix,Gunsmoke,Hawaii Five-O,etc. when I was a kid but yet I don’t stalk or shoot at anyone. I have a strong opinion about this entire role model thing but I am going to stay on topic and say no,as my answer to the topic question.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

November 14, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

What? This topic is crazy. Parents have “absolute� control over what is watched on television, in their homes. We also have the ability to block channels we do not wish our children to view. My parents were my role models and if your child takes a preference to someone famous you don’t approve of, then it’s your fault. My daughter is a huge Raven Simone fan and that’s a young lady, I approve of completely.

I don’t need ABC, CBS, NBC or any cable network to control what my child views on television, I have a remote and I know how to use it. It’s like going to the library and only checking out books by Danielle Steel, then blaming the library.

I have a 10 year-old daughter and I have blocked all the inappropriate channels. We also talk about all the new shows that are being advertised on Disney, Toon and Family before viewing them. It’s called communication. So, if you don’t want your child watching Desperate Housewives, monitor your television usage yourself. I have never seen the show, myself, because the title was enough to keep me away.

Only the parent is to blame when little Suzy or Johnny is watching inappropriate material. The networks have gone as far as labeling shows PG, G, R, etc…I don’t see a need for anything else.

By Mara

November 14, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

I have to laugh at the “godless liberal” comment merely because statistics show that salacious programming has higher viewership in the supposedly “conservative” red states. Derned ol’ liberal Hollywood forcing all those God-fearing conservatives to watch what they don’t want to watch. As for role models, until society as a whole agrees on exactly what that is, it’s a moot question. I know that the kind of person I’d want my (theortetical) offspring to emulate would definitly not be the kind that Shaunti would find acceptable.

By Spoiled Lesbian

November 14, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

How did parents get to be so lazy? They want the schools, TV, and neighbors to educate their children and then when the kids don’t grow up to be what they want, they blame the schools, TV and neighbors.

I had a neighbor that would routinely drop her kid off on my doorstep, ring the bell, and run to her car to go out for the night. After this happened twice, I ended up calling the police.

Lazy, worthless parents.

If Shaunti would put half as much attention into her own family and her own kid(s) as she does worrying about other people business and what gender the people down the street and sharing a home with, maybe her kid(s) would grow up to be the little mold she wants.

By Atman

November 14, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

Seriously, how many times it has to be said?

PARENTS are responsible for the children, not the MEDIA.

There’s such irony that a group that is “Pro-life” at the same time wants the media to get them off the burden that is parenting…

There are wonderful devices such as a “Remote Control” and “Channel Blocking”; learn to use them. Talk to your children about the programs they’re watching for a change. Even better, encourage them to READ once in a while.

Ah yes, I forgot… The books that DO get kids to read are evil and should be burned to ashes… My bad…

Is bad already that the U.S. imports animated series (which are successful in other countries) and “Americanize” them (i.e. Strip teenager series down and dumb them up to a level of a pre-schooler, because American kids don’t see to understand such concepts as “Character Development” or “Life issues”).

Coincidentally, I talked with a friend of mine, which brought up the fact that there are really few books/series that has Christian values properly shown without resorting to preaching, and frankly, I agree even though I have Agnostic tendencies. Maybe it’s about time give such writers the chance to shine for a change.

Ah yes, I forgot again: The Media isn’t innovative or daring as it was decades ago; instead of risking and going for fresh ideas, they take the safe path and recycle ideas that were succesful once, and crap them down in the process.

So yeah, I’d say parent should take care of their own children and not worry about the media, as it’s shriveling on its own.

Probably then we can bring fresh blood and make something out of it once again.

By Atman

November 14, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

P.S.:

Shaunti - American Idol a GOOD role model!? Do you know how many credibility points you lost in a single sentence??

Diane - Seriously, what’s your obsession with Spongebob?

By RF

November 14, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

Hey- did anybody notice the story about the kids in PA? They were homeschooled and I’ll bet the parents monitored their TV viewing. Look what it got them. Confronted daughter about curfew, got stabbed by boyfriend they forbade her seeing. Now daughter’s run off with murderer/boyfriend apparently. So much for parental control and v-chips…

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

November 14, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

RF - not only that, but they both came from two parent households. Go figure. If you let Shaunti tell the story, you would think, that kind of child behavior can only be accomplished by single mothers.

By james

November 14, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

is it in good moral standing if the networks only showed nature shows (how the animals in the wild hunt, kill and reproduce)? or better yet, have a 24 hour channel that show the wonder and miracle of childbirth. from after conception (cause watching the act of conceiving on child would be porn) up to and including birth. we can also eliminate all cartoons with humans. humans are morally bankrupt and shouldn’t be protrayed acting as they really do!!!

By Renee

November 14, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

RF - I agree. But in the girls defense, we don’t know if she was kidnapped or is running away with.

By Renee

November 14, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

James good point. Well the children have been caught.

By Randy

November 14, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

What has to happend is, parents need to really consider at what level they want their children to develope at. If you want your 14 year old daughter pregnant, don’t put any effort or give her any attention. Don’t get involved in her life, then she will look for the attention somewhere else and usually that is not good. As far a TV shows and hollywood goes, they follow the money. They couldn’t care less how your child comes out, they have no morals or values. So don’t depend on them. Remember, the love of money is the root of all evil.

By Brian Curtis

November 14, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

I don’t think they’re evil, Randy; they just recognize that raising your kids is not their job.

I don’t give a fig about your kids either, but it doesn’t make me evil. Neither does your auto mechanic, or the Kroger bakery, or the clerk at the DMV. It’s simply not their job.

By The72John

November 14, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Remember, the love of money is the root of all evil.

Fascinating statement from someone who routinely brags about his alleged “millions”.

By RF

November 14, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Amazed— definitely blows Shaunti’s argument out the window!! Makes the argument against single parents much weaker, doesn’t it?

I think Randy has a point about the money. Sex sells, so the entertainment industry is pushing the envelope further and further to get the money. Look at music videos. Even country music is getting into the sex scene, and it’s selling big.

I agree that parents are the ones in control of the remote. But, as the story in PA points out, even that isn’t enough in what I call the “all about me generation”. I just think we have to find a way to get the message out and make parents be accountable. That’s about like fixing the levees and keeping N’awlins dry forever at this point!!

By The72John

November 14, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Of COURSE Hollywood and Television follows the money. Every industry “follows the money”. What is really interesting is that while conservatives like Shaunti scream bloody-murder at any hint of government regulation of energy companies, timber companies, etc., they are the first to shout for FCC regulation of entertainment.

Apparently it’s OK to indiscriminately pollute the environment, raid employee pension funds, price gouge, or whatever in pursuit of profit, but it’s wrong for the entertainment industry to do the same. Where’s the Right’s love affair with the Free Market in that equation?

By The72John

November 14, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

ok, the sentence about the entertainment industry doing the same didn’t come out right - but you get what I mean.

By Renee

November 14, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

There is no way to please everyone. If television only ran Bugs Bunny cartoons from 6-10 pm, people would be complaining. Some people don’t even want their children to be watching cartoons because of the humor and/or violence. So where do we draw the line about what is actually shown.

This is where parenting should step in. My neighbor could keep her children from all TV, that’s her right. My other neighbor could prevent her children from viewing anything over PG-13. I could let my children watch R movies and violent shows from time to time, while still parenting and instructing her on the rights and wrongs of society and how to carry herself. Who is right in this scenario and who is wrong. In my opinion, nobody. Everybody does what is right in their opinion, (hopefully trying to achieve the ultimate goal).

Some of the best movies of all time have some type of violence. In Gone with the Wind, Rhett threatens to squeeze Scarletts head between his hands. There’s sexual inuendo’s in it, drunkenness, fighting. Granted, you can’t compare this movie with other films put out on a weekly basis, yet it has all the qualities of what we are trying to censor kids from.

I have taught my daughter that TV is fictional. It’s for entertainment purposes only. It’s all in parenting. If a child watches a violent, or sexual movie and then goes right out and does the act, that child had the mentality to do that anyway.

By Randy

November 14, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

I didn’t say they were evil, just mostly they are without morals and values. 72John, I don’t love money, it’s just easy for me to accumulate. Jesus blesses me greatly. I donate alot to Christian organizations and my church.

By The72John

November 14, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Just because someone doesn’t adhere to YOUR values, or share YOUR sense of morality, doesn’t mean they lack morals or values, Randy.

By Randy

November 14, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

I guess everybody has a different set of morals and values, some think they can strap a bomb on them and blow up innocent people, some like the guy from France who e-mailed O’Rielly last week. He said only we Anglo-Saxons had a problem having sex with children. Wouldn’t want my daughter around him. I guess the best rule is Golden, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

By Bruce

November 14, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Renee,

I have ran it that before. My child has come home, after spending the night at a friends house, and told me she had to tell the her friends parents that she would either have to call her Mom and Dad to get permission or she couldn’t watch a certain movie. Most times they find something else to watch.

By The72John

November 14, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Trust Randy to go to extremes. Yes, Randy - that’s EXACTLY what I meant. If someone doesn’t believe just like you believe, they must be a terrorist who wants to have sex with children.

By blablabla

November 14, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

No, it is certainly not the responsibility of the media to provide role models for children. While I sometimes wish the programming on TV would be different, and better fit into my personal definition of “appropriate”, I have the remote, and therefore I have the power to turn off the TV. Furthermore, Shaunti’s idea of giving back in the form of “public good” is misplaced. The media does give back to the public; it gives the public exactly what it wants to see. It can certainly be argued that is “public good”.

By Jack

November 14, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

No Blablabla. The media does not give the public what it wants. The public wants MORE sex, MORE gore, MORE garbage to look at. It’s human nature. Why do you think there are rubber-neckers on the highway? They want to catch a glimpse of real blood and death so they can go home and tell everyone what they saw.

By Billy

November 14, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

Shaunti’s citing of “American Idol” was pretty classic!

Am I the only one who thinks she should be chastised just a little for the Columbine reference? Have we not yet determined that it was not Marilyn Manson or The Matrix that prompted that attack, but repeated bullying, a culture that loves guns, and a lack of parental supervision.

72John, you are right on the money as far as “conservative” hypocrisy is concerned. All industries get a free pass except TV/radio/movies. And porn.

By blablabla

November 14, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

jack - are you arguing that we as the public really want even more of all the sex, violence, etc., and it’s really just the media that’s holding it back? i’m not sure i agree with that, but you definitely raise an interesting concept that if the public had its way, they’d want more of everything. like i said, not sure i buy that, but definitely interesting and worth thinking about.

By The72John

November 14, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Personally, I want good television - good writing, good acting, good production values. Sometimes that comes in less-than-pristine packages and sometimes it doesn’t. I don’t care if there is excessive gore or sex in a show - I just want it to be well done.

By Lyrazel

November 14, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Can I add two BIG COMPLAINTS about looking for moral TV to provide guidance & good role models for children??? O, please?

Why would parents look at fictional programing for examples for their kids to aspire to be? Why not take them out to a USO function this thanksgiving and show their kids the volunteers/military who give of themselves on their holidays, or to a hospital or somewhere where REAL people are dealing with real issues? Why search TV for heros and role models? Lazy? Just remember these are actors in false situations that always are resolved in 20 minutes or less! If its a variety show—the contest is rigged!

Second—if you look at TV programing from 10am-4pm you have soap operas. Now, why do soap operas never need to change their hours of broadcast with such Adult Content? Is Jerry Springer child-friendly content? No complaints from mom if Oprah brings on men who cant have orgasms and their women who dont know Should there be laws against broadcasting something so adult in hours where a child is up and might turn on a TV set? Is america really ready for really desperate housewives if soaps are regulated to include children-friendly content? Ok, I had my say, thanks. Happy Monday!

By blablabla

November 14, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

By The72John

November 14, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Of COURSE Hollywood and Television follows the money. Every industry “follows the money�. What is really interesting is that while conservatives like Shaunti scream bloody-murder at any hint of government regulation of energy companies, timber companies, etc., they are the first to shout for FCC regulation of entertainment.

Apparently it’s OK to indiscriminately pollute the environment, raid employee pension funds, price gouge, or whatever in pursuit of profit, but it’s wrong for the entertainment industry to do the same. Where’s the Right’s love affair with the Free Market in that equation?

By The72John

November 14, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Trust Randy to go to extremes.

The 72John - isn’t going to extremes exactly what you did in your earlier commentary? do you honestly think that most conservatives don’t care about the environment and want to see it indiscriminately plundered? don’t you think it’s a slightly extreme position to accuse conservatives of being in favor of “price gouging” and “raiding of employee pension funds” (whatever those particular catch-phrases actually mean to you)?

By RomanCenturion

November 14, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Can we bring back the live ToTheDeath Gladiator Shows? I sure miss those days.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

November 14, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

I wonder if Shaunti and her family viewed Mel Gibson’s moview, “The Passion of the Christ”. Or are there certain words or chapters in the Bible, she leaves out when she reads to her children.

There is sex and violence in everything and it didn’t just appear in the last 50 years. We just have more options to view it.

My daughter asked me a few days ago why certain words in the Bible were used, but she wasn’t allowed to say them. I had to explain that words can be used in a derogatory way, in the matter for which they were not always intended.

Should I just stop reading the Bible to my child or use my good parenting skills.

By Randy

November 14, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

One reason profanity is getting so bad is the number of TV channels. For one, they are running out of material to do shows on that are new and creative, so they experiment with previously taboo subjects, two, with so many channels, to get a favorable number seeing the show, you just need a small percentage of the people watching that show. There are enough non-Christians in the USA (put now at 15% non-Christian, FOX poll last week)that if that 15% watch anything, it will be a hit. Shame on any Christian who watches garbage TV and I’m sure some do.

By The72John

November 14, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Blablabla, do you deny that Conservatives today tend to be laissez-faire Free Marketers? Do you deny that one of the goals of the conservative political agenda is to eliminate, or at least minimize, governmental regulation of industry? Whether individual conservatives are pro-environmental, or pro-worker, the current administration has steadily dismantled environmental and labor protections in the name of big business and deregulation.

These aren’t extremeist statements - they’re pretty much the root of traditional conservative philosophy. Snide comments about “catch phrases” aside, my points stands: Current conservatives are patently AGAINST government intervention when it comes to industry and commerce, and rabidly FOR government intervention when it comes to so-called “moral” issues.

By Randy

November 14, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Talking about morals and values, some liberals want looser morals and values. But want to say they still have morals and values. My question is where does it stop?? Does it stop with Beastiality, child molestation on TV, snuff films(I know these are extremes now). However,if you loosen your morals and values and go past the ten commandments and bible, then you open yourself up to go down a wrong road and who knows where that ends. You may say and even beleive you will not go that far, but going down that road, could lead to much worse things. Like a frog in a boiling pot, he will jump out, but put him in cold water and gradually heat it up and he will cook. Same thing.

By The72John

November 14, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

You will certainly find this incredibly hard to believe, Randy, but there are many people who don’t rely on the 10 Commandments or any other religious doctrine to set their moral path, and frankly they are probably a lot more ethical and moral than most Christians.

The difference between people like you and people like me is that my definition of morality does not include the archaic, puritanical societal taboos of a millenias-dead society. My moral compass is based on what hurtS people and what helps people. Yours is based on what someone else has told you is right, and a fear of punishment if you don’t do it.

Those “looser” morals you suggest “liberals” want are merely the ability to exercise our freedom as human beings without those freedoms being trampled on by the religious right.

By Parent

November 14, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

The media caused Columbine?

I can’t believe you people! Why can’t parents stand up and admit that their child has a problem? If my son ever tried to say that “Spongebob” made him do anything, that would be the last day that he ever watched tv! The problem is PARENTS not EXPLAINING what is RIGHT OR WRONG to their own CHILDREN.

Do you “parents” think you can just sit your children down in front of a tv and they will become the evil that they see? If you allow your child access to a tv without you knowing what is playing on that tv then you are to blame. If you allow your child to watch Full Metal Jacket and do not discuss the themes and situations in the movie, then it is your fault when your child takes the entire student body of his school hostage.

Stop worrying about what is on tv.

Worry about what is going on in your child’s head—it just might be more violent or more sexual than what you find on tv to complain about.

By Renee

November 14, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Does it stop with Beastiality, child molestation on TV, snuff films(I know these are extremes now). However,if you loosen your morals and values and go past the ten commandments and bible, then you open yourself up to go down a wrong road and who knows where that ends.

So what if you don’t believe in God or the Bible, and you don’t believe in the ten commandments. Can you not have good morals and values? Is the only way you can be a good person to be a Christian. Don’t answer because I know your answer already based upon the response above.

Morals and values have NOTHING to do with religion. You can have morals and values that are RELIGION based. You should really be open to the fact that all non Christians aren’t evil devils with pitchforks walking around promoting porn and beastiality; and all Christians aren’t angels with halo’s playing harps. I know these points are extreme but it was in reponse to your comment (my disclaimer lol).

By Netbanker

November 14, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

72 you’ve got it nailed on the free market comment. Apparently it, like welfare programs (as in $8 Billion in tax breaks to energy companies), only apply to Big Business. And what happened to the mantra of “personal responsibility?”

Hey everyone! It’s been too long since I’ve been able to participate, but I’ve been skimming through every now and again just to try to keep up. Hope everyone is well!

By blablabla

November 14, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Blablabla, do you deny that Conservatives today tend to be laissez-faire Free Marketers?

No, conservatives TEND to be laissez fair. I would agree with that. However, while I am very fiscally conservative, I do not subscribe to a PURELY laissez-faire, free market view of how the world should work. I recognize that unfettered capitalism has significant unintended negative outcomes that make such a system a poor economic model for our(or any) country. I am not alone as a fiscal conservative that feels that way.

Do you deny that one of the goals of the conservative political agenda is to eliminate, or at least minimize, governmental regulation of industry?

Eliminate, no. Minimize, to some extent, yes. I will caveat that by saying it is clear to me that government regulation clearly has benefits in certain situations. However, there are plenty of other examples where government regulation has added bureaucracy and cost to the general public that did not serve the public’s interest.

Current conservatives are patently AGAINST government intervention when it comes to industry and commerce, and rabidly FOR government intervention when it comes to so-called “moral� issues.

Not true. not true at all. I don’t see there being any difference between the government regulating industry/commerce and the government regulating “moral” issues. I think that creating some kind of dividing line like that between industry and morals is inconsistent. I want consistency from my government. Like I said, there is a certain amount of regualation that is required to keep us from having a purely capitalistic economic model. I view that level of governmental involvement as healthy. As to the moral issues, I have no desire to see government become overly involved in who you sleep with. I have no interest in seeing the government become overly involved in women’s health/sex issues (i.e. abortion). And I don’t stand with Shaunti and desire further governmental regulation of the media industry.

my point, which i think you’re still missing, was that by painting conservatives with such a broad brush, you are indeed taking an extremist position. you just don’t realize it as such.

By Jack

November 14, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

“The Passion of the Christâ€? Would not have made a dime had it not been so graphically violent. Some people say it makes them better Christians to watch it. Hog wash. if it takes a movie to make you a better Christian, you weren’t a good one to begin with. Mel was just giving the public what they want. Gore, gore, gore. We know Christ suffered. The movie was trash.

By Netbanker

November 14, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Randy…liberals don’t necessarily want looser morals and values, but they do want everyone to be able to choose their own instead of having someone else’s dictated to them. When it comes down to it we can teach morals and values until the cows come home, but knowing those things and actually following them are entire up to each and every individual. All religions have their own version of the 10 Commandments that covers the big stuff…don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t lie, etc.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

November 14, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Randy,

It really doesn’t matter what television shows you watch if you are Christian. If you are a Christian who listens to Pat Robertson, that speaks volumes as to what kind of garbage can be spewed on television. So how do his morals and values play apart in society? Many of the people who preach morals and values, lack morals and only value themselves.

As a Christian, I see Mr. Robertson as a man with many issues. Every time, I try to get his prior comments out of my head, he opens his mouth again. I’m not saying you are a Pat Robertson fan or hold his views. I’m just pointing out the un-Christian ways of some people who are said to be true Christians.

By Chilao

November 14, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

Never saw The Passion of the Christ, and was really looking forward to it when I first heard about its deveopment, however once out, it seemed to be merely a glorified gay S&M style flick. Even I have morals after all.

You would have thought that the mere fact that the guy DIED would have been enough, without the need to show every flog.

By The72John

November 14, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

I wasn’t missing your point Blablabla, but you’re confusing your personal philosophies with those of your party. It’s hardly extreme to discuss the political philosophies of a particular movement.

For instance - obviously, you aren’t a social conservative. However, the Republican party is currently dominated on the national level by people who ARE social conservatives, and that’s the agenda that is set.

I’m perfectly willing to accept that on the individual level someone who defines him or herself as primarily conservative does not automatically fit a particular mold, however the monolithic “Conservative movement” that is shaping one side of this debate does have certain characteristics. Since we can’t have a debate of 200 million individuals each sharing his or her ideas, we almost have to rely on these standard “talking points” for both sides, at least when discussing the broader issue.

By Jack

November 14, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

Chilao. You don’t want to see it. After the first 10 minutes you will turn it off.

By The72John

November 14, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

I don’t necessarily agree that violence is always unecessary. Sometimes it can be a valuable emotive tool. Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan wouldn’t have been nearly as visceral or evocative without the realism and brutality of the violence in them.

I haven’t seen the Passion film, so I can’t really speak to it, but I would think that Gibson’s purpose was to create as emotionally evocative a film as possible. Whether it was in bad taste, I can’t say - but I don’t think the two other films I mentioned were; to the contrary, they were very moving.

By Chilao

November 14, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

Jack - I was excited about a movie that would be historical in nature(another time period) and 100 percent sub-titled(which it turned out not to be, eventually). However since I was turned off by the bull-whipping scene in the movie GLORY, realized it would be a movie to avoid.

By blablabla

November 14, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

John72 - I agree that we should rely on standard talking points when discussing broader issues. However, I don’t think that the standard position of conservatives is to plunder the environment and steal peoples’ pension plans.

By Parent

November 14, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

The72John: I am so glad you have decided to become the political compass of the blogging world! Are you sure your “talking points” are not just a convenient form of profiling us conservatives?

Where does Hillary Clinton’s statement “It takes a village …” come into play regarding the initial topic of discussion in conjunction with your political agenda? Just curious …

By The72John

November 14, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Well, I’m going to disagree with you on the environmental issue. W began dismantling environmental protections almost as soon as he stepped off the inaugural podium, and he hasn’t stopped. Whenever Industry comes into conflict with Environment, Industry is going to win if the Bush administration has anything to do with it. Yes - there are more and more conservatives expressing dissatisfaction with this practice.

The pension remark, admittedly was more in reference to a few specific situations, but, again, there has been a noticeable pattern of regulations favoring management over labor, and pensions ARE vanishing.

This comes from someone who is himself a businessman, and believes in capitalism. I also believe what Adam Smith said - that the biggest threat to the Free Market was the less-than-virtuous motives of businessmen. (I’m paraphrasing).

By The72John

November 14, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Gee Parent, no more than you conservatives like to label everything vile and evil as “liberal”.

By Lyrazel

November 15, 2005 07:24 AM | Link to this

Talking about morals and values, some liberals want looser morals and values. But want to say they still have morals and values. My question is where does it stop?? Does it stop with Beastiality, child molestation on TV, snuff films Randy, basically the industry provides what PEOPLE want. Remember, media interest is in profit. Like 7th Heaven if there is not a good rating, it is canceled. So, my guess is after the shock of a bestiality game show the majority of Americans would not watch it then it would be shelved. Also, advertisers would not want their product on such a show and have weight of MONEY INFLUENCE beyond the publics viewing desire…so see, as bad as it gets say with rude language the whole reason you can still see the show is because people DO watch it. As for child molestation and snuff films, do you feel cop shows that show perps and grizzly details of said crimes in explicit flashbacks actually are perpetrating the act by voyeuristic detailing the crime committed? If so, its already being viewed. Sad state of what passes as entertainment these days…

By karin s.bryant

November 15, 2005 07:55 AM | Link to this

Parents should be the rolemodel for their children and not depend that someone who plays a role on TV does it- that actor or actress is in it for money not out of concern for altruistic reason.

By Voice of Reason

November 15, 2005 08:02 AM | Link to this

There better not be any SpongeBob bashing going on here! That’s where I draw the line.

By Chilao

November 15, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

But I did come up with a great joke when The Passion of the Christ was playing nationwide in cinemas.

Q: Where is the stop-the-Hollywood-violence crowd?

A: At the movies.

By Just Being Me

November 15, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

ZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzz

By E. Lewis

November 15, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

It’s the responsibility of the parents. I have control over what my neice watches when she is in my home as do her parents when she is in theirs. If she sees something that is questionable, she talks about it. Of course it helps that I only have one cable connected television.

I love these “parents” groups, usually associated with the neocons, who are responsible for most of the complaints. I guess the free market reigns when it comes to my job/salary, when when it comes to the entertainment Americans watch, it’s entirely different.

By 2D

November 15, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

Forgive me for being overly simplistic, but isn’t this really just the age old question of what each person wants the government to do?

Some of you want the government to censor TV and movies. Some of you want the government to act as a charity. Some of you want the government to act as a health care provider. Some of you want the government to be the morality police. Some of you want a combination of the above or other things not mentioned.

The bottom line is, the government isn’t supposed to do ANY of it. It is supposed to protect our property and that’s pretty much it. Any time the government does more than that, it boils down to a fight over differing value structures and the U.S. govenrment should NEVER be about that. The U.S. government should never hold one values system over another b/c when it does it ends up with a perception of favortism and that is NEVER good. Remember the blind lady with the scales.

Let people put crap on TV and the movies. Don’t watch it, don’t let your kids watch it. Don’t let your kids hang out with other kids who watch it. Be a parent. If you don’t want to be a parent, don’t have kids.

By RF

November 15, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

JBM—turn over, you’re waking me up!!! ;- )

By blablabla

November 15, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

2D - amen.

By E. Lewis

November 15, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

…and if these supposedly unseemly programs aren’t watched, the ratings go down. If the ratings go down, the show gets pulled. That’s how it works. There have been several family-friendly programs on, but most of them never got very good ratings.

By The72John

November 15, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

The bottom line is, the government isn’t supposed to do ANY of it. It is supposed to protect our property and that’s pretty much it.

You say this as if it’s an absolute truth, but it isn’t - it’s just another competing philosophy of the role of government. There are, and always have been, a variety of philosophies about the role of government. The best we can hope for is a constitution that allows the free and vigourous competition of these philosophies without impinging on our basic rights, freedoms and civil liberties.

By Renee

November 15, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

I actually like 2d’s comment. Also E. Lewis I agree 100%. It’s all about ratings, and if the ratings don’t call for it, it won’t be on, because then the money won’t be made.

By Murphy

November 15, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

72John… How do you debate competing philosophies of government without at some point infringing on another person’s basic rights, freedoms and civil liberties?

Eventually you will get into the discussion of what rights, freedoms and liberties are we willing to give up in order get something. What you are willing to give up is different than me because our value structures are different.

For example… I have no problem with random bugging of phone lines, b/c I don’t do illegal activities. You may not approve of that, regardless of the fact that it may convict drug dealers, rapists, murderers, terrorists, etc. Different value structures.

Once that discussion gets into moral issues, then you really have problems. It is better to keep the government OUT of such debates. Keep the role of government as simple as humanly possible. Let people live with the consequences of their decisions/actions.

By The72John

November 15, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

I think Franklin said it best, Murphy. Though recently oft-quoted, it bears repeating.

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security”.

Guess which category you fit in…

By Renee

November 15, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

I would have a problem with random bugging of phone lines, even though I do not do any illegal activity. I do think the government should be allowed in our lives as LESS as possible. The more we ASK them to regulate, the more they WILL regulate.

By Jack

November 15, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Murphy. Your last paragraph was right on. But it will never happen. People don’t want to be responsible for their actions, the government will be there to smooth things out.

By blablabla

November 15, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

the language of our constitution is very clear, actually. the powers not enumerated in the constitution for the feds are left to the states, or alternatively, to the people. it leaves little to the imagination. the problem that i, and probably 2d have, is that people like to read into it things that are not there…things that are in the “penumbra” of the constitution. i don’t have a problem if you think the gov’t ought to be doing something it’s not doing. but we deal with that by amending the constitution, not pretending it says things that it doesn’t.

and while murphy can surely speak for him/herself, i think you’re missing the point. murphy isn’t interested in losing rights for temporary security. murphy just doesn’t want to have to deal with the gov’t figuring out whatever is the common denominator for everybody’s philosophy on governmental role and would rather keep the gov’t out of as many aspects of people’s lives as possible.

By kriz

November 15, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Conservatives think network programming is too trashy, but they also think PBS programming is too liberal. So I guess their solution would be either no television at all or state sponsored propaganda television stations? They want everything on TV to be like 7th Heaven. Let me clue you in: that show is just as disconnected from reality as Star Trek. And what kind of positive lesson is American Idol teaching? Sing horribly bad music and become a contractual slave to a giant record company?

Use your v-chips, go to your extremist church, (note I said extremist, not mainstream) drink the kool-aid, and leave the rest of us normal folk alone to watch our “trashy” tv so we can go to hell in peace.

By liberalbaby

November 15, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

i thought conservatives wanted smaller government? i guess they want it so small that it will fit into my TV and tell me what to watch.

By areyouslow

November 15, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

Shaunti, the public good = free over-the-air TV. it’s not complicated. if you charge the networks, then they will charge us. is that preferable?

or would you rather give the airways to the networks for free but then have congress or the president approve every minute broadcasted over the air?

you don’t propose a solution. you are merely complaining because the networks aren’t making it easy for you to use the TV as a babysitter. propose an idea if you’re going to complain.

By The72John

November 15, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Blablabla, while it’s amusing that you constantly accuse me of “missing the point”, primarily because you and I fundamentally disagree on “the point”, I believe that Murphy HAS spoken for himself, quite clearly. Allow me to quote, sir:

I have no problem with random bugging of phone lines, b/c I don’t do illegal activities.

If this isn’t a violation of liberty, then I don’t know what is. It certainly isn’t keeping “the gov’t out of as many aspects of people’s lives as possible.”

And again, just so we’re clear - strict constructionism is ALSO a philosophy. There are other judicial and constitutional philosophies that disagree. Just because you SAY it’s so doesn’t MAKE it so.

By Jack

November 15, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

It’s been said before,”a goverment that can provide everything for the people can also take it away”

By Chilao

November 15, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

So an extremely conservative government, tapping the phone lines of all ‘liberals’, in order to hear any ‘seditious talk’(as the goverment in power defines it, of course) is okay?

How about an extremely ‘liberal’ government, tapping the phones of known conservatives, in case there is any discussion about governmental overthrow, that is okay?

Kinda like having a national gun registry, so that the government knows who to take guns away from, in case the natives get restless.

Good ideas, huh?

By Jack

November 15, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Shanti is off the chain on this one. Maybe the role models provided by tv caused Yates to drown her children. They may have also contributed to the BTK killer’s m.o.. How long before we have a real Hannibal Lecter due to tv?

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

November 15, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

7th Heaven has changed a lot in the past 5 years. They have moved the show, into the real world.

I’m no criminal, but I would never give up my privacy for a few drug dealers, terrorist, rapist or murders. It would be too much like me being in Jail and all the criminals being on the street.

Why do we blame everything on the internet, television, newspapers and radio? We had lots of bank robberies in the west during the 1800’s, but we didn’t blame the newspapers. Westerns were a big hit in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s - but we didn’t blame the networks. People were killed right in the middle of the street for adults and children to see. People were also lynched in the center of town.

People like Shaunti don’t have a problem with the Death Penalty, as long as their children do not have to watch. Ficticious example: Her kids can be proud that their father is an educated man, the Warden of a prison system, where he electricutes criminals. However, when he comes home he’s a family man, with 2.5 kids and a dog. Then one day, the child ask: “Dad what does a Warden do at the prison?” - Dad, “I make sure that the bad people are electricuted”.

We can’t hide from Life. We can shelter, but we can’t hide.

By Jack

November 15, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

The kid had a half brother. LOL

By The72John

November 15, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Geeze.

By Jack

November 15, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

Lighten up 72John. It could be worse!

By The72John

November 15, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

A worse pun than that?

By Murphy

November 15, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Did 72John really think I wanted to discuss the tapping phone lines…? Please. I don’t WANT the government to do that. I dodn’t propose that.

It is an examaple to illustrate that once you let government in, there is a trade off. That was simply an example where I figured the delineation could be clear and that a difference in values could be identified.

The main point, reiterated by blablabal, is that government should stay the heck out… Period…

By Murphy

November 15, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

Sorry… Obviously I can’t type today…

By Jack

November 15, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

That was as bad as I could come up with. Gets kinda old reading one party bashing another over and over again. Geeze.

By Jack

November 15, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Murphy. Gotta watch what you post here. It will be taken out of context by many to suit their arguements.

By Murphy

November 15, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Jack… Thanks for the warning.

By blablabla

November 15, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

john, john, john. murphy isn’t advocating phone tapping. what he’s saying is that just b/c he doesn’t have a problem w it doesn’t mean it should be legal, bc someone else might indeed have a problem with phone tapping. it’s an example he’s using to make his point, which is that he doesn’t want the gov’t trying to figure out what the common denominator is for its role based on what everybody wants. stick to the basics that it was intended to. admittedly, he chose a poor example bc yes, obviously phone tapping is a violation of civil liberties.

and yes, strict constructionalism is a philosophy. i grant you that. but the words in the constitution do say what they say. can you at least agree to that? if you have a problem with the constitution not including what you want, why don’t you just try to get it changed?

have you ever been pulled over for speeding and told the cop that being 10 miles over the speed limit was really in the penumbra of the law and that you’re not really in violation of the law bc the cop is being a strict constructionalist?

By The72John

November 15, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Well silly me. If someone says he is in favor of wire tapping, next time I will not take him at his word! I didn’t realize that actually believing what he wrote was twisting things for my own agenda.

Blablabla, blablabla, blablabla. As possession is 9/10ths of the law, so is application. The prevailing national judicial philosophy for much of the past century has been that there are certain rights implicit within the Constitution; rights that are necessary for the freedoms promised by the Bill of Rights. Perhaps the founding fathers didn’t feel it necessary to explicitly spell out each and every cog of the wheel. I don’t know.

I DO know that our legal system, based on the British Common Law system, is inherently evolutionary. It may seem counter-intuitive that a system based on precedent is forward-looking rather than backward-looking, but ours is. Lower courts must rely on the precedents set by higher, but there is nothing to stop higher courts from setting new precedents, and with the SCOTUS acting as the ultimate arbiter, change is inevitible.

The ammendment system was designed for major changes to the Constitution. It was never designed to be used to dot every i and cross every t. How can there be liberty without Privacy? Why in the world do we need to add an ammendment that reiterates something that is already so apparent? And what kind of person doesn’t think we should HAVE privacy?

By Murphy

November 15, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

Just read that latest rapper movie barely grossed 50 Cent…

Hey, maybe the masses have woken from their daze, for a weekend at least…

By Murphy

November 15, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

72John… Why so angry…?

I never said I WANTED wire tapping. I said I have no problem with it. Big difference. HUGE difference.

However, it is obvious you are one of the folks Jack warned me about… Someone looking to twist words for their own benefit.

Besides… Why focus on that…? Focus on the bigger issue… Can we agree to keep government out of the lives of the populous?

By The72John

November 15, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Murphy, I’m not angry, I’m passionate. There’s a difference. And, if you think that I twisted words, then perhaps you should be more careful about your words. If you say you’re OK with something, then you might as well be saying you are in favor of it…You certainly aren’t saying you’re OPPOSED to it. Does this strike you as logical:

“I’m fine with secret wire taps - I’m not doing anything wrong.” Will you vote for secret wire taps? “No, I don’t want those.” ???

And while I certainly agree that the government shouldn’t interfere in people’s private lives - so long as their behavior isn’t harming someone else, obviously - I don’t believe that government serves no useful purpose. Without it, we would have chaos, exploitation, an even greater class inequity than exists now.

By Jack

November 15, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Passionate? Sour-puss is more like it. Bet you won most popular in school. Maybe if you weren’t so “passionate” people would be more receptive to your views. But you probably don’t give a damn.

By Murphy

November 15, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

72John… That is logical, if that is what you want to see. You wanted to attack me, b/c you didn’t agree with something I said. You immediately wanted to discredit whatever I said without taking everything into context.

You are incorrect when you, again imply, that I believe government has no useful purpose. It is necessary to stop the chaos that would otherwise occur.

However, it IS NOT nor was ever intended to be, an institution to provide class equity. That implies redistributing wealth, which simply creates possibilities for coruption. Sorry, you will never convince me otherwise.

If you want to distribute your wealth to others, fine. By all means go forth and do so. But don’t force me to do it, or force me to do it in the manner you would.

By RF

November 15, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

Now children, if you can’t talk nicely, you’ll have to leave the playground and sit on the fence for the rest of recess!!

It’s amusing how seemingly intelligent people can digress so quickly and thoroughly over one phrase in a sentence. And we wonder why government seems to work so inefficiently…

By Raylene

November 15, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

I must have missed the sponge bob where they said it was ok to be homosexual. I think that it’s strange, but there is nothing wrong with being gay. I’d rather that shows teach kids to be ok with homosexuality, then bash gay people. I don’t have to worry about it yet though, my son is only 1. all he watches is barney and sesame street, etc…

By The72John

November 15, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Lol Jack - you’re one to talk. You seem to have a hard time identifying your own cussedness and less-than-better nature, but you sure are quick to point it out in others.

No Murphy, I probably will never convince you that basic poverty programs are necessary. However, please notice I didn’t say “equity”, I said “greater inequity”. There’s a difference. I don’t think that government should provide class equity - if you remove the possiblity of advancement, you destroy the competitive spirit and drive to innovate. However, society IS served by helping its citizens maintain a bare minimum standard of living, if only to keep people off the streets and on the straight-and-narrow. That’s the pragmatic argument.

The moral argument is that it’s obscene for a society that has a very small percentage of the world’s population and an enormous percentage of the world’s wealth to have a poverty class of any kind. It’s equally obscene, at least to me personally, that the same nation which prides itself so mightily on it’s “Christian” character barely raises a peep when we spend 10s of billions of dollars developing new forms of nuclear weapons but is outraged when a fraction of that is spent to help the poor.

By Jack

November 15, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Hi Raylene. Thank God Barney wasn’t around when my children were little. Big Bird was bad enough.LOL

By Murphy

November 15, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

72John… Inequity. Greater inequity. The outcome may be different, but the means are the same. You are willing to forcibly take from one person and give to another.

Maybe you are taking money through taxes or social security. Maybe you are taking opportunities through affirmative action or quota systems. Either way you are taking from one person and giving to another b/c you think it is the right thing to do.

How many people ever worked harder when they knew they would get by regardless of their level of work? When you give people something for nothing you also destroy their competitive spirit.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

November 15, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

The72John :

“It’s equally obscene, at least to me personally, that the same nation which prides itself so mightily on it’s “Christianâ€? character barely raises a peep when we spend 10s of billions of dollars developing new forms of nuclear weapons but is outraged when a fraction of that is spent to help the poor.”

I couldn’t have said it better, myself. You can kill people, but you don’t want to feed them. How Christian is that? LOL

By The72John

November 15, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

I disagree that for most people the pittance that they receive from welfare or other similar programs is sufficient to destroy ambition. Yes, there are abusers of the system or those who will ride it as long as possible, but I strongly believe that the average person wants more out of life than the dole.

You fail to answer the other question - why is spending on social programs, “forcibly taking money” as you put it, any different than any OTHER kind of government spending. Why is it that conservatives get upset only by spending that is designed to help people? We can build our own WMD until the cows come home, but help someone out and it’s evil, evil, evil!

By Raylene

November 15, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

I never said I watch it with him, my mom does. I can’t stand barney, and elmo gets annoying after about 2 minutes.

By Renee

November 15, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Amazed - Is this a Christian nation or a nation that practices Christianity? I don’t think the government should be acting like “Christians”. It should act like a government.

By Jack

November 15, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Cussedness? I can be a stuborn S.O.B., I’ll admit that. But it is no fun being sour all the time. Less than better nature, hmmmmmm. I’ve already said I was a troll under a bridge. Is that less or better? You made me angry in the past ,as others have, but I’m not going to turn into a sour-puss.

By Raylene

November 15, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Plus the daycare puts it on. Although I am ready to take him out of there. Yesterday, when I went to pick him up,I saw something that made me want to slap the teacher in there. I saw her pick up and little girl, carry her to the mat on the floor where all the other kids were, except my son, and practically slammed her down, and yelled “you sit right there, you hear me!? DO NOT move!!!”

She is damn lucky I didn’t see her do it to my son, I would have killed her. You can’t do something like that to a one yr old. First off, they won’t understand you, and second, they aren’t going to sit still. I told the director and she is going to take care of it. I don’t trust that lady with my child anymore, she could have hurt that little girl. Besides, she can’t even get his name right… bad lady.

By RF

November 15, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Perhaps we all need to read some of the recent reports on poverty and the entitlement mentality it creates. I fully believe in helping people and giving them a starting point. It was LBJ who said he was going to end poverty. Well, where are we all these decades later? Welfare and other programs have created a documented entitlement mentality. If not, then why have we increased spending and yet still have people in poverty? Republicans criticize, Democrats fund it more, but the bottom line is this- we still have poverty. Some of that, only some, has to be credited to individual decision-making. Some choose to remain poor because it’s the path of least resistance, and that choice created the state of mind that “I deserve it”. Find a way to change the mentality and make them want to get out of poverty and it will happen. It started 40 years ago and continues today—throw them more money and they’ll get better. Hasn’t happened yet, and won’t any time soon.

By Jack

November 15, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Raylene. It is probably a good thing she didn’t do it to your son. We wouldn’t be hearing from you for a while since posting on blogs is hard from jail. Hopefully she was fired.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

November 15, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Renee - I don’t truly care about the religion/non-religion of our government. However, when the President gets on national television and spills his religious beliefs and he makes the decisions for our country, based upon his beliefs - I expect him to have a charitable heart for his enemies and the little people in our country.

I truly wish that religion could remain completely out of our government. I think it would save all of our souls and get us a little closer to heaven. Because as long as our government is ALL about money and power, we are all in trouble.

By The72John

November 15, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

Well RF - what’s your solution? What plan do you have that won’t lead to greater poverty, starvation, etc? What’s your humane-but-different idea that is going to solve this age-old problem?

Is it giving more and more money to corporations in the form of CORPORATE welfare? We seem to be comfortable with redistribution of wealth if we’re giving it to big business.

So - what’s your answer? I’m curious because, I’ll be honest - when I hear someone talk about how horrible welfare is, I think “That person doesn’t care about other people”. I think that the person saying it is callous and hard-hearted and honestly doesn’t care if poor people starve, die of deprivation, or murder each other in the streets. And I really don’t want to think that about people. So WHAT’S YOUR SOLUTION.

By Jack

November 15, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Pay a man to do nothing and that is what he will do.

By blablabla

November 15, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

You fail to answer the other question - why is spending on social programs, “forcibly taking money� as you put it, any different than any OTHER kind of government spending. Why is it that conservatives get upset only by spending that is designed to help people? We can build our own WMD until the cows come home, but help someone out and it’s evil, evil, evil!

primarily because most conservatives don’t believe the government should be performing that function. it isn’t my job to fund social security so that you can have adequate retirement funds. that’s your job. in that respect, the govt is just an intermediary moving money around. i don’t think that should be a function of our gov’t.

these issues can usually be boiled down to: (1) it’s not the government’s function to do X, Y, or Z; (2) whatever service the gov’t is going to provide will be performed better and more cost-effectively, at the local level than the federal level, or (3) it’s not really going to accomplish what people hope it will. as anyone can see, our gov’t is incredibly wasteful. 99 times out of 100, that’s why conservatives object to spending that supposedly “helps people”.

did it ever occur to you that if the gov’t wasn’t taking so much money from my paycheck to fund some pork project in alaska, some other energy company giveaway (i’m not fan of corporate welfare either), somebody else’s health care, abortions in ecuador, or the retirement of some new immigrant that never worked here, that i’d probably donate more to local charities in atlanta? if i wasn’t working on saturday to pay my mortgage and keep my wife clothed, maybe i’d volunteer at a soup kitchen.

By RF

November 15, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

John- calm down dude. I’m not fighting with you today. You call yourself liberal and open-minded, but just like the ridiculous conservatives here, you only want to hear those who agree with you. I happen to be moderate politically. I vote issues, not party montra. As a middle-class consumer, struggling to raise two kids by myself on one salary, I hardly desire to feed big business. I need, and got, tax cuts in recent years.

Now, to answer your question, I think we need welfare step-down programs. YES, we should help those in need. If you can’t work for whatever reason, then you should get help. We need to offer job training and step welfare payments down as income increases, thereby weaning off of welfare. I also think there need to be time limits for those who are not disabled to receive welfare. Noone should be allowed to receive it indefinitely who is capable of working. Why should anyone try to get off of assistance if there’s no end limit? Currently, a single mother with section-8 housing assistance, AFDC, and an EBT card cannot EVER make the money she would need in order to replace what is given to her. Why should she try to get off of assistance? Now, if we train her for a career field, if we step assistance down as she works and supplement her income for a time, then eventually if she has the skills and initiative, she should be able to be free of assistance.

Okay, your turn. What’s YOUR solution for the welfare dilemna??

By Jack

November 15, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

More whining.

By RF

November 15, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

I HATE this stupid editing thing. The word it keeps editing is a-s-s-i-s-t-a-n-c-e.

By TooFunny

November 15, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

You mean, teach a welfare mom to get off her assistance? (playing on their editting stuff)

By The72John

November 15, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Actually RF, I think that’s an excellent solution. I think that more assertive job placement programs need to be put in place as well, and the emphasis on education and training needs to be stepped up. Unfortunately, that’s not what’s happening. In fact, the same politicians who support rolling back programs like welfare ALSO support rolling back educational assistance.

I’m not interested in just hearing people agree with me, by the way. But I do come on here to DISCUSS and CHALLENGE. What’s the point of just nodding and saying “hmmm” all the time?

By The72John

November 15, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

P** off, Jack. The day you actually contribute anything but snide comments about other people to any topic is the day I eat my hat.

By Renee

November 15, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

some pork project in alaska

Too funny!

I think welfare is terrible, but I care very much for people. I’m not for giving money to anyone who is able-bodied and able-minded, in other words ABLE to work.

By Jack

November 15, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

I love you too 72John. XOXOXO

By blablabla

November 15, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

So - what’s your answer? I’m curious because, I’ll be honest - when I hear someone talk about how horrible welfare is, I think “That person doesn’t care about other people�. I think that the person saying it is callous and hard-hearted and honestly doesn’t care if poor people starve, die of deprivation, or murder each other in the streets. And I really don’t want to think that about people. So WHAT’S YOUR SOLUTION.

john - that’s never it. at least not for me. it’s not bc i/we don’t care about people. it’s that i don’t believe that the gov’t will do an adequate job of getting these people back on their feet. we just throw money down the drain, but we sure feel good about it bc we think we’re actually helping people. the gov’t solution for everybody is (generally)the same - throw money at them and hope they find the job, the education, or the help they need. it’s a one size fits all approach. that’s why i’ll always support charities over the gov’t. generally speaking, they take individually-crafted approaches to individual problems to help people get what they need. the gov’t is a big sink hole. so i don’t support gov’t spending on welfare and the like bc i’m callous, it’s bc i think there’s a much better way. unfortunately there’s usually this gigantic bureacracy that gets in the way.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

November 15, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Allow people receiving welfare, to work and still get benefits. Don’t cutoff their benefits, when they only make $10.00 an hour. You can’t take care of a family with $10.00 an hour.

Allow the women to get married and still receive benefits, until they get to a certain income level and can afford medical benefits.

There are married people who are struggling with two incomes.

Welfare benefits should be based upon need and not your marital status. You can supplement income in some cases, where you may have to pay the full benefits in other cases.

People who continously get fired for non-medical or family reasons should not be allowed to continue to receive benefits.

Welfare can be organized to benefits everyone who needs help.

By blablabla

November 15, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

The ammendment system was designed for major changes to the Constitution. It was never designed to be used to dot every i and cross every t. How can there be liberty without Privacy? Why in the world do we need to add an ammendment that reiterates something that is already so apparent? And what kind of person doesn’t think we should HAVE privacy?

john, if all these things are implicit, as you say, why would we argue about them? the truth is they aren’t implicit. there are plenty of judges who don’t believe there is a right to privacy, but you believe it’s implied. instead of debating about whether something is constitutional, why not either decide to make it so, or make it not so, instead of you telling me something is implied and i argue that it isn’t, or vice versa?

By RF

November 15, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Nothing wrong with challenge John, just be careful about jumping to too many conclusions about people.

Welfare reform, like most things, has a simple solution. That’s the problem to me with government. Pretty much since FDR, we’ve lost the ability to see and implement the simple solutions.

By Renee

November 15, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

why should the government supplement a person’s income, much less a family’s just because they don’t make a lot of money. Is everyone supposed to be at 50,000 a year. What kind of society would that be. If your skills dictate 10.00/hr then you need to adjust your lifestyle accordingly. Otherwise, why would anyone go to school and try to make something of themselves. There would be no need because the government would supplement what you aren’t making. In a society, there are rich people, middle class and poor. If you are poor then get up off your a** and do something about it. If you only make 10.00 an hour, maybe you need two jobs, maybe you need to improve your skills…but not get a supplement.

By The72John

November 15, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

Blablabla, thank you - I certainly appreciate your point, and to a large degree I actually agree with you, if only in theory. Large bureacracies DO create ineffeciences and corruption and graft and waste, and they DO create impersonal solutions. BUT - if you throw a big enough budget at them, eventually they accomplish what they are intended to accomplish, if only nominally (in this case, keeping people from ending up on the streets).

What’s the alternative? I’m not convinced that privatization is the answer. You’re not likely to find enough not-for-profit organizations lining up to fill in the gaps, though I’m certain there will be some. For-profit companies are as likely to provide the same level of service as a beuracracy, if for different reasons. It’s a large-scale problem, so how do you fill in the gaps?

A big city like Atlanta or Chicago or New York I can see having charities and such in sufficient numbers and with sufficient funding to help, assuming that we realigned current methods to support those groups in favor of the Gov’t programs. But what about small towns? There are poor people in smaller towns too, so how do we stop them from falling through the cracks?

By RF

November 15, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

Renee- that’s the problem in poverty. Too many don’t know how to get up off their butts and do better. Generational poverty replicates itself because kids will likely do what their parents do. It becomes an endless cycle for them. That’s why money programs don’t work because they don’t educate the people about how to think about and use money. So many stay in poverty because they have no idea how to manage money and no concept of the future. I read a book this year titled A Framework for Understanding Poverty that opened my eyes some. I never knew how differently those in poverty think. Many don’t see the way out that you and I see. What we have to do is help change their mindsets about lifestyle and money in order to get them out.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

November 15, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

We will always need to supplement income, because we are a capitalistic country. I don’t have a problem with entrepreneurship, but there is such a thing as overpriced and over inflated. How much money do you want to spend on one aspirin, car, gas and medical insurance? The cost of these items, keep going up, but income levels remain extremely low.

Yes, there will always be low-income earners, but why should they not be able to afford medical benefits or own a home someday. Yes, you can work two jobs, but why should someone have to work two jobs to have the basic life necessities, that you only work one job to obtain. Just because you may earn a higher income does not mean your job is more important. I earn over $50,000 and I realize that. I also have medical benefits, own a home, drive a nice car, etc..

Why should a secretary earn more money than a trash collector or a cashier? Is it because they answer the phone or work in a nice office building? I think the trash collector and cashier probably works a little harder, but earns less money.

If the cost of living was not so expensive in this country and the income level was where it should be, we would not have to supplement income. Some people have such a “Look at Me�, “I’m better than you� attitude. Sorry Honey, but I think not.

By blablabla

November 15, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

BUT - if you throw a big enough budget at them, eventually they accomplish what they are intended to accomplish, if only nominally (in this case, keeping people from ending up on the streets).

john - personally i think that i should get better than nominal results for big budget items. remember, those big budgets are the fruits of our labors. finding a big enough budget to nomially solve a problem is not something i’m too excited about. somebody will always argue that the budget isn’t big enough.

What’s the alternative? I’m not convinced that privatization is the answer. You’re not likely to find enough not-for-profit organizations lining up to fill in the gaps, though I’m certain there will be some. For-profit companies are as likely to provide the same level of service as a beuracracy, if for different reasons. It’s a large-scale problem, so how do you fill in the gaps?

john, it’s not like the problems we face today are unique and we’ve never had them before. and we didnt’ always have the gov’t throwing all this money at people. local churches, charities, and neighbors helped people get by in decades past. i think they would again if we got the gov’t out of the way and let them. if my neighbor comes to me and asks for $100, me giving him $100 for what he really needs will do far better than some bureaucrat in washington deciding what it is my neighbor needs, having never met him, and sending him $300 worth of “services” in one form or another.

By The72John

November 15, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Ok, did anyone else realize how many words contained a-s-s?

Bla - I suppose I would ask the same question of you. After all, PRECEDENT has established that those rights the you claim don’t exist are implicit within the Constitution. Our legal system is based on precedent, so the onus of shifting this really lies on the constructionists, yes?

I’m curious - why do you (collectively, not you personally) target the Constitutional Right to Privacy so frequently? It’s one of the greatest protections of our freedoms that we have.

By RF

November 15, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Amazed—is it wrong to expect that if I work harder, I will have better than someone who doesn’t work? If you learn and gain the skills to be the office person, isn’t it fair that you earn more than an unskilled job? Yes, it’s unfair that many can’t make ends meet on a full-time job. I’ve been there, and my solution was to quit stretching the ends by trying to have a lifestyle I couldn’t afford. We do need to help to a point, and cut off the help before it become a dependency, don’t you think?

By blablabla

November 15, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

i’m curious - why do you (collectively, not you personally) target the Constitutional Right to Privacy so frequently? It’s one of the greatest protections of our freedoms that we have.

john, i have no idea. i agree 100% that it’s vitally important. i think the gov’t should have no ability to see what books i check out at the library, what information is in my medical records, etc., etc. it’s preposterous and creates bureaucratic waste where none was needed.

if you can’t tell, i want the gov’t out of my life. let you and i live our lives as we see fit and for the most part deal w the consequences of our actions.

By blablabla

November 15, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Amazed, it really should have nothing to do with how hard you work. that’s a common misconception. it really has to do with the supply and demand of people who can do similar things to what you can do, from a skill perspective. only then do factors like “working harder” really come into play.

trash collectors generally make less bc there is a far larger supply of people who can interact w a trash can than there are people who actually can interact w another person who calls on the phone, take msgs, write letters, etc., etc.

By Renee

November 15, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

blablabla - I think I am better than nobody. But if I fall onto hard times I blame nobody but myself nor do I look for a handout. And believe me I have seen my share of hard times. (Seeing some now actually).

But if your income means you can’t afford basic necessities (as I have been through), you either do without or get out and do something about it. I think a company should be allowed to charge what they like for the product that they are manufacturing and/or distributing. Lets take milk. I’m just using this for an example but I’m sure I’ll make my point. Should the price of a gallon of milk go down to 1.05 to better accomodate the poverty stricken? Then the dairy farmer will make no money. And then they will need a supplement for the reduction in their milk price.

And actually trash collectors do make more than the average secretary (I used to work for Waste Mangement so I know). But if you want to make the money, you need to either work two jobs or one really good one. Should a doctor make as much as a waitress. Should a lawyer make as much as a janitor. Come on now, you can’t be serious?

By RF

November 15, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

blablabla— don’t you suppose there are more who can interact with the trash can because that’s the easier way to live? To interact with the phone, computer,and people requires training and skill, which immediately weeds out the lazy. It’s not about demand, it’s about willingness to learn and having the skills to get a better job. Pretty logical I think.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

November 15, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

How many poor people do you know that live in $200,000 homes? If they do, then they are not poor. I think you have the poor confused with people who are what I call “getting over”.

If you are receiving a supplement of your income, it means that you are gainfully employed. It does not mean that you are lazy and do not work hard. It does not mean you are unskilled. Do you know that Social Workers struggle to meet everyday expenses, with a college degree. How much money does an Assistant Manager at a retail shop earn, not much the last time I checked. There are areas in this state where Policemen start out with $18,000. The same ridiculous salaries for Firemen and people in the medical field.

In the metro area alone, some Policemen start out with $22,000.

I’m just trying to point out, that it’s not just the uneducated who are suffering. However, if a skilled worker suffers, how much suffering does an unskilled worker suffer?

By Netbanker

November 15, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Good debate regarding the various types of welfare (business v.s. personal) that illuminates the economic golden rule. “He who has the Gold makes the rules.” What is very interesting is that there isn’t a single economic study that shows job growth or a stop of job loss in industries that receive corporate welfare. We’ve certainly bailed out the Big 3 Automakers and yet they continue to employ fewer humans each year. How about the airline industry? Yet somehow they all manage to spend plenty on lobbyists.

I do agree that our current presonal welfare system has created an entitlement mindset in a small portion of the population. We definitely need to make a change in how it operates, but it should not be dismantled all together. While I realize that this flies in the face of the conservative position of personal responsibility those of us debating on this forum have generally not experienced the crushing poverty and dispare of the 1930’s and 1940’s. Our country is in the economic shape that it is due to infrastructure systems built by FDR’s programs that certain conservatives love to malign. Yet these programs provided jobs to the masses and a way for companies to move their goods about the country to a population who could now afford to buy them.

We should take a look at our own history before passing judgements or making similar mistakes. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many eventually hits the wealthy when the many can no longer afford to purchase the goods the few are selling. This has happened before in this country and it looks like we’re heading that direction again. When the average CEO makes 500 times the compensation of their average employee something is terribly wrong. I know of no CEO who adds 500 times the value to a company than their average paid employee who actually does the work to produce the product or provide the service to the client which is what makes the company successful. There is a symbiotic relationship between companies and populations. In order for the former to survive the latter need to be in a position to patronize them.

By Renee

November 15, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

That is why many police officers get second JOBS to SUPPLEMENT their income. If you want a supplement to your income, then you should gainfully find something to supplement it. Get a job, get a hustle, knit sweaters, mow lawns, type resumes, ANYTHING, but why should I give you MY tax dollars so your income can be supplemented. If you get married and both of you make $10.00 an hour, maybe you shouldn’t have kids. Maybe a house is not in the near future. Maybe you have to in an apartment complex while you would rather be neighbors in with the $200,000 crowd. So the solution is a government supplement.

In college I learned what being hungry was. How to buy peanut butter to make money stretch. It wasn’t what I wanted, a steak would have been much better. I guess I should have got on food stamps, never mind, my fault.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

November 15, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

Thanks for pointing out the ridiculous salaries of the CEO, at the expense of the people who actually provide the services.

I read an article recently where retailers are using lower end stores to supplement the cost of keeping open the higher end stores. Many are having to close their higher end stores, due to loss of business for this market.

By RF

November 15, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Renee- sounds like you were raised like I was! We ate a LOT of peanut butter in my house, and lot of beans and cornbread right before payday too!! One problem in this country right now is the idea that everyone deserves to live in the 200 grand house. I think the USSR proved the effects of that kind of socialist nonsense. And to think I worked two and three jobs at once in college when I didn’t have to!! How could I have been so stupid?

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

November 15, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

Renee - I’ll just keep fighting to help out poor people. You stick to trying to reason with your success.

For the person with the Milk example: How much is the dairy farmer paying the “cows” for their milk? LOL

By The72John

November 15, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

There is a symbiotic relationship between companies and populations. In order for the former to survive the latter need to be in a position to patronize them.

Absolutely. What is worrisome to me is the indication that the middle class is declining. As wealth distribution continues to shift towards the top, our ability to sustain our current economic model weakens.

We’re a consumer economy. To survive, we need producers and consumers. But (and not trying to open the Wal-Mart can of worms, but it’s a good example) as wealth moves away from individuals and communities and into large corporate coffers, the number of consumers is slowly decreasing.

As the middle class declines, so too does the viability and sustainability of the economy.

By Renee

November 15, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

RF - LOL exactly! Even now when money is tight, I’m making chili instead of steak or cutlets. I mean this is getting ridiculous.

And the cow has to be bought, fed the proper food to ensure good milk production, veterinary bills, someone has to be paid to milk the cows, pasteurization, the list goes on and on. Do you think a magic cow appears and nothing else needs to be done but milk it. And then magically money appears.

By RF

November 15, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

John—it’s not the coffers that are the problem, it’s the elite few who get to spend what’s in ‘em that bothers me!!! ;- ) Why should some whiny, spoiled brat named Walton have it any better than me just because his granddad got lucky? Wasn’t this the way it was in the 20’s right before the stock market collapsed?

By Renee

November 15, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Oh and one more thing. I am far from where I want to be in life. I’m not bringing in the big bucks at all! I could be worse but I could be MUCH better. So, no I am not this rich person feeling as I do, I am a working class person. I have worked for EVERYTHING I have and will continue to do so as long as I am able.

By Murphy

November 15, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Renee… You go girl…!

Also…

Garbage collectors are paid pretty well and people don’t get paid based on how hard they work or what skill they have. They get paid based on the number of people willing to do the job who also have the appropriate skills.

Very few folks want to pick up garbage, so they have to pay them well.

By RF

November 15, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Renee- ever have those weeks where you have chicken on Sunday, chicken and rice on Monday, and chicken salad on Tuesday? My boys have no idea how many ways I know how to make hamburger into a meal…

And you have to offer benefits and income equalization to all the cows regardless of milk output so as to not to politically incorrect. And in all fairness, you should compensate the bulls just as well, even though they can’t produce milk so you won’t be considered sexist.

By ASA

November 15, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

Somewhere in here someone mentioned the ‘50’s (my decade for children tv) - which had (in my opinion)an even odder selection of children’s tv. If I had used ANY of those programs as a possible role model, I could have chosen: to be a masked person who rode around with an American Native whose name translated in English would have meant “stupid” (the Lone Ranger), a dragon puppet (Kukla, Fran & Ollie), a really geeky, big-earred puppet with serious fashion issues (Howdy-Dowdy), a child that was apparently homeless and was reduced to selling shoes with a mangy dog in tow (Buster Brown), and just about any show that portrayed women (who weren’t moms) as stupid, always in trouble, and destined to lead a life of spinster-hood if they weren’t smart enough to find a man who would marry them. Well, not a single one of those shows presented me with any role model options - nor helped me in finding a career. TV is entertainment. Please don’t try to make it anything other than that. While I watched Howdy-Dowdy, my parents were watching Milton Berle (who enjoyed cross-dressing), Red Skelton (who portrayed a drunk)and Jack Benny - who portrayed a penny-pinching miser who played the violin, badly. The present options for TV-watching seem dismal for both children and adults. It is free entertainment for the masses subsidized (that’s right - subsidized) by corporations who wish to advertize their products and services. Paid-for Cable is a monetary choice made by households that voluntarily allow these shows in their homes. While I think our present line-up of TV programs are awful, I also understand that TV is a form of voluntary, self-inflicted torture. Most of you know the cure - read a book, go for a walk, call a friend, write your Mom a letter, volunteer your time - all of which can probably present you with better role models…

By Netbanker

November 15, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

One other thing came to mind reading the comments of RF and Renee. People have been spending beyond their means. “Keeping up with the Jones’s’ has pushed people to think that they deserve to have the bigger house, better car, more material possessions. Personal responsibility and making good decisions or living with the consequences has a part to play in that. For example, my first home was larger than my parents’ first home, but at the same time while the mortgage company approved us for an even larger amount than we did borrow my partner and I made the decision not to be house poor. There are trade offs in life which people would seem to prefer to whine about ‘having to have 2 people work to make ends meet’ than to realize that they are living with the consequences of deciding to live the way they’ve chosen and often as a result of going with what they want rather than what they need or is practical.

By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian

November 15, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

Renee & RF, I know the days. I have had it pretty good the last 8 years. However, I can remember two jobs AND part-time school. I can remember FOUR, YES FOUR jobs - one full three part-time. I remember buying Ramen noodes ON SALE. Hanging my clothes on a line in the bedroom to dry and opening the windows. I know all the stories as I have lived them. Nobody ever subsidized a *&%$ thing for me. Gimme a break. People need to work like a slave like I have in the past. Then they will appreciate what they have.

By Murphy

November 16, 2005 07:47 AM | Link to this

Netbanker… Thank you for bringing some common sense to the discussion.

My family has made the same decision as yours. We could have borrowed more money for a house, but decided to not be house poor. Now I watch co-workers struggle (and complain) to make ends meet to keep their mammoth homes and luxury cars. I feel no pity what so ever.

That mentality spills over to everything. It drives prices up for the middle income folks. It unbalances home-life. It skews priorities from family and community to work, work, work.

Still, don’t you believe we need to let them rot on their own, rather than bail them out? Or, if we bail them out, not give them the freedom to make the same mistake?

By Renee

November 16, 2005 08:27 AM | Link to this

RF - Yes I can make a chicken stretch lol!! Spoiled lesbian - EXACTLY! Netbanker - Hello. You make some excellent points! Too bad people don’t understand.

I can’t understand why or how people think they are owed something. Because you don’t make as much money as person A or B, you want your income supplemented. And with as many programs that are ALREADY available that will help you go to school, help with day care and book expenses (and I know that these programs do exist), why don’t people take advantage of them now. I mean I know some do but others still want more and more of a handout. I wish I could sit at home all day and get free money, just for having more kids I can’t afford. When do people begin to take personal responsibility for their destiny.

By Murphy

November 16, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this

Renee… Do you remember the ‘Schoolhouse Rock’ cartoons that used to play on Saturday mornings? There was one with a chorus line that went ‘Mother necessity where would we be?’

Why save for retirement when I’ll get social security?

Why learn more skills when the government ensures a minimum wage?

The greatest motivator for ANYONE is necessity. People will only take responsibility for their own destiny when they have to. Force them, and they will. Until then, they won’t.

By Renee

November 16, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

Murphy - Yes, I remember SchoolHouse Rock! And you are so right! Do you remember the piece of cheese that sang?? Nobody remembers what I”m talking about, lol.

I moved from Atlanta in June, lived there all my life, and the state I moved to has it’s own minimum wage of 7.50/hrly. While my daughter loves it (she has her first job), I can’t believe it.

By blablabla

November 16, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

renee - going back to yesterday’s discussion, in no way do i believe the doctor should make as much as the waitress. that’s not what i’m saying at all. what i’m saying is that wages are usually determined more by the supply of people with the skills to do a job and the demand for people with commensurate skills. virtually anyone can be a waitress (or waiter), therefore their wages are low. not just anybody can be a doctor bc it takes years of training and education to have the skills necessary to perform the tasks we expect of a medical professional. hence the doctor makes more. perhaps using the trash collectors was a bad example, but in general wages are less determined by how hard i work, and more by how skilled i am and how in demand those skills are.

By blablabla

November 16, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this

rf - there is no doubt in my mind that a number of people earn what they do and have the occupation they have in large part bc of their choices. that is crystal clear to me. people who choose to be a trash collector earn less than a doctor bc it is easier than getting the training you speak of. but i think that the supply/demand dynamic primarily drives what people earn at their specific job. i want to make a lot of money, therefore i choose a profession that requires high level skills. those high level skills are highly sought after and well rewarded monetarily. others will choose to be less ambitious, (or perhaps more importantly, make a personal decision to place less value on money than i do) and choose a different profession where the demands for their skills are less and the training needed to develop those skills are less.

in my mind it’s largely a simple exercise. if you’re doing something a lot of other people could do with relatively little training, you’re not going to be a highly compensated individual, regardless of how hard you work. on the other hand, if you do something that very few other people can do, and would need significant training or education to replace you, (and those skills are highly sought after) you’re going to be more financially rewarded. but yes, rf, the choices we make have a tremendous impact on where we end up. the path of least resistance definitely impacts whether you choose to get highly sought after skills or not.

By blablabla

November 16, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this

netbanker - you make a very valid point about people living beyond their means. while the traditional term “savings rate” doesn’t capture a lot of things that you and i would probably conclude are savings, the savings rate is now below 1% of gross earnings nationwide. that’s insane, far below our historical average and far below the average of other first world nations. simply look at where credit is these days… people can get 400,000 houses on 75,000 of income with no money down. why not go for the negative amortization since you can’t really afford the mortgage since everybody knows real estate will just keep going up and up and up and the value of the house will outstrip the growth in the principal of your mortgage. (i’m kidding of course.) when rates tick up and the real estate market cools off, a lot of people will really be left holding the bag. houses won’t be worth the debt against them and people won’t be able to afford the mortgage payments bc it’s all financed with floating rate debt.

are people who work two jobs bc they have to keep up w the jones really that happy w their material possessions, or would they be better off making less, spending less, and enjoying life more?

By blablabla

November 16, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this

I moved from Atlanta in June, lived there all my life, and the state I moved to has it’s own minimum wage of 7.50/hrly. While my daughter loves it (she has her first job), I can’t believe it.

what state did you move to, renee? people think a high minimum wage helps the unskilled make a living wage. unfortunately the reality is that a high minimum wage just makes the unskilled less employable bc it is less economical to employ unskilled workers at a higher price. hence the unskilled have a much higher unemployment rate - it wasn’t always that way…

By Renee

November 16, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

Maybe. But I think fast food workers are in high demand, they work hard, and make nothing.

By Renee

November 16, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

I moved to Vermont. The minimum wage workers make more, but I am making less than I was making in Georgia, doing a comparable job. They definitely pay us skilled people less.

By blablabla

November 16, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Maybe. But I think fast food workers are in high demand, they work hard, and make nothing.

renee, that’s bc anybody can do their job. there’s virtually no skill involved.

By E. Lewis

November 16, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

True, classic conservatives are for smaller government and less intrusion in the individual’s personal life. Don’t confuse them with today’s necons who believe in individual rights as long as they believe and act in a way that is consistent with their dogma.

By blablabla

November 16, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Elewis - just curious, what is your definition of a neocon?

By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian

November 16, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

“if you do something that very few other people can do, and would need significant training or education to replace you, (and those skills are highly sought after) you’re going to be more financially rewarded”

“wages are usually determined more by the supply of people with the skills to do a job and the demand for people with commensurate skills”

And exactly what is the problem with this?

If it bothers you so badly, spend over a hundred thousand dollars going to medical or law school. Give up you entire life throughout your twenties.

By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian

November 16, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

So when I was in my twenties making $7 an hour, the government should have supplemented my income so I could have a nicer apartment, car, clothes, food? Hogwash.

Let’s say they had. What would my life had been like now? Firstly, I would have never worked more than one job, certainly not FOUR. Had I never worked FOUR jobs, I would have never pursued additional skills training (I already had a virtually worthless BS degree) to get a better job so I wouldn’t have to work four jobs.

Had I not been in a hurry to get out of school and get a better job, I would have never worked FOUR JOBS to save so I could go to school FULL TIME and quit one of my many jobs.

Had I not known what is was like to work like a slave just to pay my bills, I certainly would have never went to school FULL TIME and worked a FULL TIME job. Yep, 8 hours plus 8 hours and a daily nap for two years.

I would not have the great job I have now. I would still be working for $7, ok mabey a few raises so $10 by now and getting my “supplements” from YOUR TAX DOLLARS, so I can eat good food instead of stale Ramen noodles.

I would have missed out on the self-respect that comes from having ambition and doing hard work.

By Renee

November 16, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Yeah, it’s sounding more and more appetizing the more we speak about it. When do the supplements begin???

By blablabla

November 16, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

spoiled lesbian - i don’t have a problem with that. it doesn’t bother me at all.

if you’re reading my comments and thinking i have some objection to how things work, i don’t.

By kimberly

November 16, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

What? Is Diane correct? TV has stopped teaching American children to HATE queers? Good Lord! We need some more CENSORSHIP, then! RIGHT AWAY! Let’s have Shaunti appointed to be America’s Head Airway Censor! The sooner we do that, the sooner ALL TV shows will be as quality-packed as 7Th Heaven and American Idol…

Thanks Shaunti, for bringing this important issue to our attention! HAHAHAHA!

By Just Being Me

November 16, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Man, I missed a good convo yesterday. As usual though, RF and Renee held it down for me! ;-) And Netbanker too, good to see you this week!

Today’s my last day, so for the first time in weeks, I’ve decided to do some work. I’ll bbl.

By E. Lewis

November 16, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

A neocon is most likely someone who calls themselves a conservative, but has never heard of John Stuart Mill or Niccolo Machiavelli, who believes in religious freedom as long as it is their religion, in individual and states right as long as they are in accordance with the correct “rights”, in that what you say and not necessarily what you do defines who you are, that you can force a pro-American form of democracy on another country, who confuse supporting the troops with supporting the military industrial complex, who thinks might-makes-right, who are against any form of welfare except for corporate welfare, who believe that they are divining inspired, etc. etc., etc……

By Facts

November 16, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Paul Wolfowitz is a neocon.

By Lyrazel

November 16, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

I believe a nation is judged by its poorest people. So, in the wealthiest nation in the world, our poorest people are doing damn well. Yes, there are homeless but there are also homeless shelters, yes there is poverty but there are food banks and charities who will give a lost person a hand if the person WANTS TO GO FORWARD. There are no beggars on the streets of New Orleans as there would have been if this was Bangladesh. Elsewhere American poorest neighborhoods have sewer systems, running water, electricity, their children have access to schools and libraries. Sure it is not like on TV but when was television the gold standard of life?

As a nation we have problems but there are solutions—that do not require government involvement. Civic involvement yes but not government. However, we have 4 generations now used to welfare entitlements—the mistakes of the past do not have to be continued for the future. We have 6 generations of people who have a gimmie-mine attitude that does not include civic involvement. Welfare recipients could have been used to work developing daycare centers, or possibly job training, or making dinners at soup kitchens, but since they were ethnically classified as sub-human the best idea government could give was: pay them to stay poor and stay put and stupid.

Without putting value on education there are generations growing up in America who will be unable to compete with nations who valued education. Without putting a value on arts the creative is reduced to whoever the corporation promotes, as happens now. Without putting value on our natural resources huge corporations can lumber forests of national parks and sell raw timber to other nations and in return we pay for processed goods. Without putting value on work the nation turns a blind eye when companies shut down in America but start up where they can get cheap labor with less restrictions—so they can continue to sell cheap goods and Americans keep buying. Why did no one boycot Levis when they left America for cheap labor? Why did no one boycot JP Stevens or GM when they cashed out the money cow supported so many years by American taxpayers. Now companies such as GM are moving to Canada because they have a socialized health/education policy in place. GM cant make a profit because its paying too much in pensions—so abandon the USA and dump pension plans. 250,000 are going to be unemployed when GM goes but they gave: Employee discounts to buyers of new cars?

As industry departs , as technology departs America will no longer will have any national security if the national security software is jobbed out to firms in say, India. As pharmaceutical companies depart America the readily available drugs that Americans have paid to be developed wont be as available to our nation. Think FLU vaccines and how other companies have dictated supply. The businesses that stay look for cheap labor and get cronies in government to call these people: undocumented laborers it spins favorably to: illegal, and thus BIG and small businesses can go on breaking the laws of America for their profit. Some day the axe will fall for the nation that selectively blinds itself to truth and we wont have it so good. Why bother to care when the attitude of the voices in America shout: What Me Worry? but when they do worry its about whats on TV and if Janet Jacksons breast is floppy or firm.

By Facts

November 16, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Floppy.

By The72John

November 16, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Neo-conservatism is a foreign policy-centric philosophy that believes that the United States represents the moral center of the world, and that only by spreading US-style democracy by whatever means necessary can the US be made free from any external threats. It developed out of the political philosophies of former liberal and socialist-leaning political scholars who tend to retain more traditional liberal ideas on domestic policies.

A lot of people who are currently called “neo-cons” aren’t really neo-cons. They believe in the hawkish parts of the philosophy, but not in the leftists parts.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

November 16, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

I really hope the aliens (in outerspace) put up a fight when you people start to invade their planet.

Until that time, I’ll just waite until next weeks topic. LOL

By blablabla

November 16, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

and john gets the gold star. very impressive.

i asked bc i think neocon is a term that gets thrown around a lot and misused.

i wouldn’t quite have described it exactly the same way (with all that moral center of the universe stuff), but for sure it centers on aggressively exporting our style of government to other areas of the world (principally the middle east). ironically, as john correctly points out, neocons have neither new ideas, nor conservative ones.

By The72John

November 16, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

World, Bla. World. Let’s discover interstellar travel and civilizations beyond our before we start spreading freedom and US Democracy to Andromeda. ;-)

And you’re right - the Middle East is the primary target for the Neo-cons. I would speculate this is because many of them are Jewish and associate closely with Israel. That, and because a strong Israel with close US is strategically vital to any Middle Eastern strategy.

By The72John

November 16, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

a-s-s-o-c-i-a-t-e

By Vince

November 16, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

The plot of “South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut” was brilliant. The first major motion picture by Terrance & Phillip (the crappy and popular animated television series viewed by South Park’s children) became instantly a big hit with the grade schoolers due to one simple action: They gave a homeless man alcohol if he agreed to buy them tickets to a movie rated “R”. Laced with profanity that would make Joan Rivers blush, the children began using those words at school, and eventually the parents were called in by school officials to pow wow this problem. Rather than becoming furious at the children for devising such a scheme to gain entry to the “R” rated movie, they decided that since Terrance and Phillip were from Canada, that the entire fault of their childrens’ potty mouths lay solely with Canada. The solution was to rally the parents of American children, organize a movement against Canada, and eventually create so much hysteria that The USA announced an all out war on Canada. Removing Canada would logically restore order and children would never again use foul language.

I don’t understand how some parents can perceive their parenting as being so perfect, that any sign of “offensive” behavior must be caused by anything and everything except the parents.

And, I thought Shaunti was in the media. She should know that advertising dollars are critical, and whatever brings in the ratings, brings in higher profits, which populates the carbon copied versions seen by competitor’s networks.

Rather than being so bent out of shape by a lack of role models for children, how about getting bent out of shape by the reality shows that encourage people to marry strangers for money. That is far more destructive to our collective society than the marraige of two gay men next door. Oh, wait, no, I’m wrong. Marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of whether or not it is for money, or to get on tv, or if it lasts only a weekend, or if it’s the third of fourth time for either couple is nothing compared to two men in love living quietly together in their home.

And, what kind of message does anyone think is being sent to our children when they watch shows like that? Until we stop watching them, networks have only high ratings, good markets shares to plan future shows with, and until they dry up, you’ll have to reach for the remote and switch the channel.

By Renee

November 16, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Well put Vince! The South Park movie to this day is one of my fav’s. And it is such a good comparison to the subject at hand!

By Canadian

November 16, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

That’s it, always blame the Canadians. It is not our fault, it’s not, it’s not, it’s not.

By The72John

November 16, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Shut up, hoser.

By CanuckNot

November 16, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Learn something new everyday, from urbandictionary:

An insult meaning douchebag (aka hosebag) shortened to hoser

I actually called a woman a douchebag once, a term of endearment I grew up with. As soon as it was out of my mouth, I realized it was a social mis-calculation.

By The72John

November 16, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

I actually called a woman a douchebag once, a term of endearment I grew up with. As soon as it was out of my mouth, I realized it was a social mis-calculation.

Please tell me there is video footage.

By CanuckNot

November 16, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

She took it really well, her mouth dropped open, clued me in, and then I actually thought about the mechanics involved.(yuck) We were playing cards on a large kitchen table, four of us, and she did some card manuever part of the game and I exclaimed “Why, you ole douchebag you”.

Never would do it again, however.

By The72John

November 16, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

See, most women I know would have either laughed or called me something even worse and we all would have laughed.

Ah well - to each his own ;-)

By CanuckNot

November 16, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Until that moment, I had never given a moment’s thought to what douchebag might mean. Just had heard it most of my life in a playful context. She was taken aback. Guess it was not part of her family’s ribbing.

By clare

November 16, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

Please visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mcwraction , a group to study the impact of mind control technology on women, moderated by a current Atlanta dweller.

By Netbanker

November 16, 2005 05:09 PM | Link to this

Hey all…it’s been a busy day so not much time here. RF and Renee…driving home last night I suddenly had a flash back to childhood in which my family’s version of peanut butter was the dreaded Tuna Casserole for dinner. You kids keep doing what you’re doing and it’ll make a difference…just keep a thick skin because you’ll need it. I sometimes get steamed when I hear people make comments about my lifestyle or wonder how much my position pays (which is about twice the median income, but comparable to many others in my company.) I admit that I do have a nice lifestyle, but I also have been working since age 11, I bring my lunch to work no less than 4 days a week (who wants to trade chicken recipes?), I clean my own home, I wash my car rather than have someone else do it, etc. I could be paying out the nose like they do for these services or conveniences, but years of doing for myself has allowed me to invest and spend wisely. Most people I know are shocked to discover that the only debt my partner and I have are the mortgages on our two homes.

By Scalia

November 17, 2005 08:07 AM | Link to this

As a friend of mine pointed out, creativity stems from poverty. I never, until I was out of the country and did not have a washer, realized that you could wash your clothes while taking a shower. You scrub them with the same bar of soap, hang them on the line, and where them the next day.

I seriously think that most of the spoiled children that I encounter should have to live it rough for a few months. No television (it’s amazing what you can get done without it. I read books out the wazoo.), you are on a limited budget for food (ramen noodles, pasta salad, tomato sauce sandwiches, peanut butter sandwiches, ground beef and noodles), no washer or dryer, and no AC in the summer (a cheap fan can work wonders).

By RF

November 17, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

Net- you sound like “good folk”!! I remember well the tuna casserole, and salmon patties too!! We thought that was good eating in those days! I can’t even look at a can of salmon today! I’ve discovered since I’ve grown up and become a single parent that life is only as complicated as you make it. My boys and I clean house together and they have to earn privileges the way I did. We live on a very tight budget and have learned to work and save for what we want. My two aren’t nearly as spoiled as some of their friends. Funny thing is, the kids in the neighborhood would rather be at my house because we have fun and do simple things. Amazing how much fun life can be when you choose to let it be.

Scalia- kids are ROTTEN these days. I think if most of them had to go out and plant a garden, or gather eggs for breakfast, they’d appreciate life differently. I refuse to just hand things to my kids the way so many parents do these days. Many think life is just going to land in their laps, and all they have to do is show up. My ninth graders have so little ambition or direction in their lives because they’ve never had to work for anything. I’d love to load them up and take them to a truly poor nation and let them live for a week. It’d do them some good.

By Renee

November 17, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

AMEN!! That’s all that needs to be said.

By Jack

November 17, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this

Dried beans cooked all day with some bacon and mashed potatoes make a good meal when the wallet is light. Still like them now but my children don’t. They don’t remember when we were poor.

By RF

November 17, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

another good thing we still do is saving leftover veggies and making a big ‘ol pot of soup and a pan of cornbread once a month. Very little goes to waste in my house, and it doesn’t come from a microwave box either. That stuff will kill you! I had plenty of beans and potato nights growing up and we still do some now!

By NoThirdWorld4Kids

November 17, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

No, No, don’t let children go live for awhile in the Third World, they will probably come back to the U.S. and turn into liberals. GASP.

By Renee

November 17, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

I have boiled (yes boiled) large pots of rice and chicken. And I like it to this day. My daughter won’t eat it now, which I don’t understand. She ate it before.

By Jack

November 17, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

I heard an interesting quote: “If you are in your twenties and are not a liberal, you don’t have enough heart. If you are in your forties and are not a conservative, you don’t have enough brains.” Makes sense don’t it?

By Jack

November 17, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

Chicken and rice is great. May have to do that this weekend! Thanks for the idea Renee’.

By RF

November 17, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

I think a lot of folks tend to become more conservative with age. I’ve always been basically a moderate, but I lean more conservatively lately. Actually, I think what it is is this: you turn into you parents as you grow up!!—LOL I sound more like my dad as I get older!

Yum-yum Renee. Boil it till it’s fork tender, add some rice and some onion, and eat with a big serving of greens on the side, or some homemade biscuits (I make some that rival my granny’s). Simple foods are the best tasting and best for you.

By The72John

November 17, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

That particular “quote” is mis-attributed to Churchill. Interestingly enough, he started out as a Conservative and later became a Liberal.

By Renee

November 17, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Yes!!!! I add fresh mushrooms to it. Delicious!!

By Jack

November 17, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

Now I’m hungry. Lunch cannot get hear soon enough!

By Renee

November 17, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Usually I would be hungry too, but I’m battling a bad cold. This Vermont weather is changing worse than GA. Yesterday we were in the 60’s with rain. Today 30’s expecting snow. Go figure!

By RF

November 17, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

I never complain about GA when I see the weather channel. You guys in the northeast have had it rough this fall!! Deluges, floods, and now snow. I think I’ll stay down here!

Food question. Cornbread dressing or stuffing?

By Renee

November 17, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

Cornbread dressing!

By RF

November 17, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

Good answer!! I’m sooooo ready for next week and lots of food I don’t eat the rest of the year. Cholesterol count be damned!

By Renee

November 17, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this

Yeah me too. My partner already has a menu of things she wants. She doesn’t help me cook, but she will sample all night while I cook, lol.

By Jack

November 17, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

I like both. We make both. Yum.

By Jack

November 17, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

Everyone is out eating instead of posting. I will join them.

By Just Being Me

November 17, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Hi everyone!!!! I hate to admit this, but I sure have missed you all this week (even the nutcases)!

Yesterday was my last day at work, today I had to pull a surprise visit to my daughter’s school.

RF - It’s cornbread STUFFING! (I’m a NYer, what can I say?). Oh, and I wish I was as conservative as you are when it comes to waste. I waste too much food around here, but not intentionally and not unknowingly. I am so conscious of it, but can’t seem to find a way around it.

Speaking of inexpensive meals - I just had a conversation with a white woman in the grocery store about how black people came to enjoy delicacies (hehehehe) like hog maws, chit’lins, pig feet, chicken toe soup (deep South Carolina), etc… culture is so interesting.

By RF

November 17, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

Culture is extremely infuential in cooking, and that’s based I think on economic history. Most of my friends who have poor heritage know all about greens and pig’s feet!! Have you ever had chit’lins? I can’t get past the smell of them cooking to eat any! Cornbread stuffing—I don’t know ‘bout that, but it might be okay. I just can’t stand plain old bread stuffing— no substance to it! I’ve noticed too that “soul food” has transcended class in the last ten years or so. I see a lot more “family” restaurants that are basically soul food oriented.

Freeze your leftovers (stuff for soup) and plan a night to throw it together. My boys don’t always like leftover, but they love my soup, so it saves some money here and there.

By Renee

November 17, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

I can’t do chitterlings (chitlins). I do make a mean pot of neckbnones. When I was young I used to eat pig feet (and pig ear sandwiches)lol. But I’m older now and those things just don’t appeal to me at all. I do love some real soul food. I have been upset up here in Vermont because I couldn’t find any good food. Maple syrup everywhere but no soul food. Well, I did find one restaurant owned by black people from Mississippi but their prices were outrageous! 12.95 for one catfish fillet, one side and a piece of bread. I had to try it but it wasn’t good. I can’t get sweet tea anywhere. I solved the problem though. I make pitchers of sweet tea and lemonade, and cook a lot more. This weekend I baked spaghetti and made peach cobbler.

Can you believe some people up here have never heard of sweet tea.

~~Waving~~ Hey JBM. Missed ya girl!

By Jack

November 17, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Hey Renee’, ask someone if they want some okra. I didn’t know it existed until I moved down here.

By Archie

November 17, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Renee I noticed that people up north don’t really know what sweet tea is. I mean was served unsweetened regular tea but sweetened rasberry tea. It just shows how even though we all live in the USA,how different we are. According to surveys Northerners are healthier than Southerners but man does southern food taste good. Even weight watchers has what they call a freedom-day. I just had a grilled chicken sandwich and sweet tea for lunch so I know what healthy eating is but sometimes a man has to have to some good-tasting food period. There was a cultural discussion about weight and food on the news last night.

By Renee

November 17, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Lol Jack. I never thought about that being a Southern vegetable, but it is.

Archie - Having lived in Ga all my life, I never realized how different parts of the country can be so different. Everybody up here is definitely more healthy. The menu choices are different, from sides to entrees. The food is more expensive actually. And trying to find grits, there is only one brand to choose from, Quaker. A lot of things I’m used to getting from the store or at a restaurant aren’t offered. If I was a vegetarian, I would have a number of restaurants and stores to choose from. The only sweet tea is yes, Raspberry tea.

The best restaurant I have been to is called the 99 Pub (which is a division of O Charleys). That’s really funny because I never cared that much for O Charleys. It’s funny, when I went to Boston last month, my hotel was next to a Cracker Barrel. I almost broke my neck trying to get in. And I was driving somewhere in the Boston Suburbs and saw a Krispy Kreme. I instantly began driving like a complete insane fool, trying to get in the parking lot.

By RF

November 17, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

OMG—if I drive by one and the “hot doughnuts” sign is on, I make a complete fool of myself getting into the parking lot. I can remember going to the one on Ponce and having a dozen eaten by the time I made it back to East Point!!

I just love talking on the phone to people ‘up north’. I lay on the accent thick and let them have a good laugh. It’s amazing to me how regions of the country can sound and eat so differently. Renee- do they serve grits in Vermont?

Good one Jack. And it isn’t okra unless it’s fried (‘bout like everything else traditional in the south!)

By Renee

November 17, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

RF - no grits served in any restaurant. Hashbrowns or fried potatoes.

By RF

November 17, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

oh, I’d just about starve to death with no grits and no Krispy Kreme!!—LOL I think we get attached to the food of an area as much as the people or places. Vermont is BEAUTIFUL though isn’t it? I think I could survive just to have the awesome scenery and the proximity to NYC, even without the grits, okra, or sweet tea. How do you make your peach cobbler?

By Renee

November 17, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

1 cup sugar, 1 cup flour, 1 cup milk, pinch of salt, 2 tsp baking soda (this is batter) mix 1/2 c water with 1 tablespoon of cornstarch, add to peaches with a tbsp of butter (melted), pinch of cinnamon, pinch of nutmeg, melt a stick of butter in oven in pan, pour batter on top of butter, add peach mixture, sprinkle top with cinnamon and nutmeg.

By RF

November 17, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

sounds good! I’ll have to try that one. My sweet tooth is aching today for some reason. I think I was okay until we mentioned cobbler and Krispy Kremes. I’m just ready for next week and the excuse to eat like a fool!

By jeff

November 17, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Sad to say, you are both right in a way. The difference is, we take numerous and lengthy stretches to “look out for the children” from the liberal (see Democratic if you like) side. Across the board, yes, we should be more careful when children are present. We do with everything-else.

PS. I still disagree with the idea that this should be a “female” forum.

By Renee

November 17, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

RF - It’s baking powder not soda. I was typing fast trying to leave the job, I wasn’t feeling good. I’m in bed, just took some Nyquil so I don’t know how long I’ll be up lol. Mix the dry ingredients with the milk and mix the melted butter, cornstarch and water with the peaches. Put batter in the pan first, it will rise over and around the peaches.

By Jack

November 17, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

Jeff. The problem is not enough females on this forum.

By RF

November 17, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Ahhh, I thought maybe it was baking powder. Would self-rising flour do the same thing?

Hope you feel better. Go get some rest!

By Renee

November 17, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Self rising won’t rise as well as adding the baking powder and salt to the all-purpose. I guess I”m just old school though, lol. I like to make it harder. But it does rise better.

By Renee

November 17, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Being in bed and away from the job I feel better already, lol. Thanks anyway though! I see no pressing topics right now, nothing getting me riled up so maybe I will rest.

By DeltaX

November 17, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

Jack-

[Brief new topic] I was thinking about all the confusion on how music {I am addressing you; seeing as we have talked about music} could be sold and eliminate the piracy issues; while respecting people like us who have purchased the licence for Zeppelin II five or six times in our life now.

What do you think about having a card that you swipe and you get an encrypted sn# for each song/album; and like pc programs, you can download it 20years later and use your sn# in the card?

Some logistics would have to be worked out {if you sell a song for instance}.

Late in the day {been busy}; so think on it maybe.

By Netbanker

November 17, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

good day everyone! sounds like a good recipe Renee and I hope you get to feeling better. I hate to lecture when one isn’t feeling well, but goodness dear every good Southerner knows that hot tea with honey, whiskey, and lemon will cure just about any cold. Have your partner make you one up!

RF…of course the kids in the neighborhood like coming to your house because you’re actually spending time with them and doing things with them and chances are really high that they aren’t getting that same attention at home. Plenty of my friends were spoiled growing up and it wasn’t until late in high school (at a time when I was hating the fact that I was the only one with a curfew, expected to be at the dinner table at 5:30, and we STILL didn’t have cable to watch MTV…it was the 80’s afterall) that I found out that most of them would have given those things up for what my family had. That special something was time together and their parents’ attention. We went camping, played cards and games, my parents were always at my swim meets and tennis matches and music recitals, etc. They had things/possession of which I was jealous, but I was the one who turned out to RICH because I have memories, experienced adventures (Grandma always said every day has an adventure in it, you just need to be looking for it), heard the old family stories, learned to garden, was taught how to pick a good peach and to make preserves…kids may seem shallow today for wanting stuff handed to them, but I’ll bet dollars to donuts what they really would rather have is the time and attention of their families.

By Netbanker

November 17, 2005 05:11 PM | Link to this

Renee…you’ll never find grits up there, but have you been introduced to Cream of Wheat, yet? Lord is that stuff awful! It always reminded me of a hot bowl of glue.

By RF

November 18, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this

Net- I’ve often wondered why so many of our generation seem to have forgotten the simple pleasure of spending time at home with your kids. My neighbors are always running the roads or buying more junk for the kids. They come to my house and make up games with sticks. I’ve had to referee arguments over them!!—LOL I just can’t stand to spend my time talking to the rearview mirror. I remember having to go to a friend’s house to see cable TV, and my parents still don’t have it. You’re so right about kids- they just want our time and love. My boys get the biggest kick out of getting up on stools at the kitchen counter while I cook and “helping” me. We make the most godawful messes, but we have fun. You should see us making homemade pizza— the cats chase bits of cheese all over the place. I wasn’t really planning on having kids, but when the opportunity came to get my little stinkers from DFACS, I just had to do it, and it is absolutely the most wonderful thing in the world! I just can’t fathom how parents could NOT enjoy every day. It’s the best drug in the world. Enough rambling for now. I can talk about them alllll day long.

Cream of wheat? I LOVE it if it’s made right. You have to have it fresh off the stove or it turns into a brick!

By Renee

November 18, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

Netbanker - Thanks for the concern. My partner took great care of me last night. Nyquil does wonders last night (and the tea works too):) Thanks.

Cream of wheat is nasty. My partner is from NY so she eats it and Forina. I had never heard of Forina (sp?) but I won’t eat either one. Grits preferably with cheese for me!

Whew! I feel so much better today. My voice is bad though so I sound worse than I feel.

By Jack

November 18, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Sorry guys. cream of wheat rules over grits. I like it with butter, sugar and a tad of milk.

By Lyrazel

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

Another Georgia resident is making headlines. Lets see, we had the 67 year old pregnant lady-who wasnt, we had the runaway bride, we have the 15 year old married to a 37 year old woman (If this was a man would he know to have gone to TN or FL to tie the knot, is all the bruhaha because she is female? The last 14 year old girl to a 30+ year old guy was a Georgian. Stickers in textbooks, stickers out of textbooks…I start to dread news out of Georgia. Is it the water?

What is it about people in their 30s? Is it their midlife crisis acting up or is they look at their 15 year old sons and want to go back to high school? Or is the 30s the time when people become jaded and harken back to when they could believe they would change their world—

Renee have you found any bbq—not smothered in ketchup-style sauce? I used to love going to Canada! Its the only place in the world where if you order french fries they ask if you want gravy on them! Had breakfast in Montreal once and had eggs and biscuits—could not understand the look the waiter gave me but he came back with eggs and two cookies…

By RF

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

that’s not bad, but oatmeal’s better that way. I like cream of wheat with butter, salt, and pepper cooked in milk. Now that’s good eating on a cold winter morning!

By RF

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

Lyrazel- it’s not the water, it’s the Budweiser and lack of water. I think some of these folks’ brains must be pickled. What is it with the thirty-something women in recent years falling for these barely teeneage boys? She’s fighting wrinkles, he’s fighting acne. Now there’s a perfect life! Scares the poop out of me to watch the news anymore!

By Renee

November 18, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

Too funny Lyrazel! Vermont does gravy with fries too. (I had never heard of that, I thought we had found everything in the South to put gravy on!) And no good bbq yet. I heard there is a good place in Boston though.

Montreal is so different. I enjoy it though. Even to the hamburgers, which they put shredded cheese on and not a slice. And McDonalds has a totally different menu (a better one).

Okay, if we’re discussing the 15 year old boy and the 37 year old woman, I don’t know what to say about that. I think something is wrong with a 37 year old to be attracted to a child. I think a child (in this case a boy) is easily influenced, especially when you have a “hot” older woman who wants you. I use hot liberally however, because that’s not what I thought when I saw her picture but….

By RF

November 18, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Renee- you’d think people would learn after the teacher who got seven years for having an affair with a kid. What is up with this broad? Does she have no clue about the law? I think the judge who married them without looking at her ID was an idiot.

By Renee

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

I didn’t know the judge didn’t look at her ID. I read in the AJC that he said she appeared to look in her twenties. I don’t understand the mentality of that. I couldn’t look at a 15 year old girl under ANY circumstances in that way. My daughter is 15, her friends are 15. They are CHILDREN. And if my daughter brought home a 37 year old man…I can’t even type straight any more. That would be the day I would go to prison!

I was watching a talk show, possibly Montel, last week about older teachers (female) and younger male students. The perception is different when it’s a female, like its not child molestation, when a man is instantly condemned.
Oh yeah, and didn’t the lady who did 7 years for having that affair, get out of jail and they were right back together?

By RF

November 18, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Mary Kay Letourneau—I finally remembered her name. Oh yeah, they got married after she was freed. What a mess. I think we’re so accustomed to the older one being male that we don’t know how to act when it’s a woman. Certainly blows perspectives of middle-aged women out the window! I teach 14-15 yr. olds and I just cannot imagine dating one. That’s just STUPID!!

By Jack

November 18, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

Anything is legal until you are caught. Where were the hottie teachers when I went to school?

By Jack

November 18, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

There is a word for a male student who is seduced by a female teacher: LUCKY

By Renee

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

Yeah, that’s what they were discussing on Montel Jack. About how the boy is the luckiest boy on earth but if it was a girl everyone is horrified.

On the note of teachers when I went to school, I didn’t have a teacher under 50 at any time. I don’t know but when I go to my daughters school, teachers just dont look the same lol.

By RF

November 18, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

it always seemed to me that the young teachers were in elementary and the high school teachers were all oooooold. I don’t remember one that was even close to cute. They do look different now. Seems like part of the attraction here is the teacher/students seduction fantasy. All the boys think it would be way cool! Do you think they’ll throw the book at this woman in GA for marrying the kid?

By Renee

November 18, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

There seem to be a lot of legalities to hurdle. Being that there are so many conflicts in the law. At the very least, it will set a precedence for the laws to be changed. I still don’t understand the mentality of someone 37 wanting someone 15. I mean, personally, I have nothing in common with a 15 year old. What could we talk about? I don’t even want to curse around someone that age.

By RF

November 18, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

See that’s me. How could you have a meaningful relationship as a couple when you have to teach him to drive?? OMG try to imagine taking your 16 year old spouse for his driving test on your way to buy hair color so you can look younger!! It just blows my mind. She’s married to someone who’d still have a curfew in my house!! I’m certainly not going to marry someone who still has payments to make on his braces!!

By Netbanker

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

Renee…glad you are feeling better even if you sound worse. At least that makes calling out sick from work plausible.

Sorry RF, but good eating on a cold winter morning is Grandma’s biscuits hot from the oven and swimming in sausage gravy!

By RF

November 18, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Net- I gotta agree with you on that one. I made some a couple of weekends ago that were almost as good as granny’s. I still can’t do the sausage gravy like she did. I’d love one of her biscuits right now with real butter and some unsulphured molasses!! Get your cholestorol and your diabetic coma allll in one meal!

By Renee

November 18, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

I made some buttermilk biscuits and salmon croquettes a couple weekends ago. Nobody else likes the croquettes but me, but that’s ok, more for me, lol. Now I am getting hungry! No chicken soup today.

By RF

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

Anybody seen the article about the boy yet? HE says she didn’t seduce him (yeah right!). It also says the woman would wait outside his grandmother’s house at night for him to sneak out. That’s good for a mother of a teenager to do. This whole thing just gets weirder and weirder. Of course, then there’s the little fact that he’s behind bars too for violating his probation for something else. I’m sure he’s just a misunderstood, wonderful little man!

By Netbanker

November 18, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

I’ll never be able to do biscuits like that. :( I remember cutting the biscuits my Grandma-ma (Great Gradmother) would make starting with pile of flour and making the ‘bowl’ in the middle. No measuring or anything. It was all by look and feel. I guess that influenced my cooking because I treat recipes as guidelines. When people ask me for mine I can tell them what’s in it and approximations, but that’s about as close as you’ll get.

Why on earth would anyone want to go back to their teen years?! All those cliques and worries about stuff that turn out to mean nothing to you later in life. If teens could just fast forward to their 5 year reunion to see how the ‘geeks’ have blossomed and the in-crowd jocks have gotten fat and still have personalities the depth of a puddle things would be soooo different.

By The72John

November 18, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

RF, obviously you were never a 15 year old boy :-). No one has to seduce you at that age…they just have to say “Wanna get it on?” and you’re like…”WHOOO!”

By RF

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

OMG they would never believe it. You couldn’t pay me enough to go back to that again. I think anyone that old who would do that needs to be in jail for a long time.

I learned to make my granny’s biscuits by feel too. I used to measure really carefully, but I learned what a dab and a dollop are, so I can just throw it in. It just takes trial and error. It’s a neat feeling of connection to my family when I’m in the kitchen cooking something one of my grandmas or my mom cooked.

By RF

November 18, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

72John—I remember those days. They didn’t even have to look at you and you were ready to go. Poor kid probably got so excited it was over before it began, if you get my drift. I can understand exactly why he did it. But her??? That’s what I don’t get.

By The72John

November 18, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Oh yeah, absolutely. Her actions are reprehensible. All I can guess is that she was extremely emotionally immature.

By RF

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

Looks like she made bond, so she’s out now. I wonder if she’s planning on visiting hubby in the juvenile det. ctr. What a hoot! Maybe she should head on over to the high school and find her somebody to comfort her!-lol

By Renee

November 18, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Oh did she make bond??? Too funny. I read that he violated parole (for burglary) by going and getting married and that’s why he’s being detained.

By Jack

November 18, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

The reason why male teacher and female student is worse than female teacher and male student is the fact that a female can be forced into it and a male cannot. There is no man that will “stand at attention” if he doesn’t want to. No matter what the stimuli.

By Renee

November 18, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Jack - I agree with you, but I think a boy can still be taken advantage of. At that age, they “stand at attention” because the wind blows at it the right way. Therefore, even though she did willingly make it “stand at attention”, I think it was through deceptive ways. At that age, your hormones are raging, so if he could he would probably stick it in a watermelon, but a willing woman, no matter the circumstances, is his brain mature enough to decipher that???

By Jack

November 18, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

I doubt it. I’m sure he had a smile on his face. His granny has every right to be upset. That woman made him a Daddy before he was ready. Basically ruining his life. he should have worn a raincoat.

By RF

November 18, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Renee- think about which brain a 15 year old is using!! ;- )

By RF

November 18, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

And since he didn’t wear a raincoat, she might be wearing some prison stripes for a while! I’d like to see Grandma turned loose on the woman for about five minutes. You’d see some good ‘ol redneck stomping then!

By Jack

November 18, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

RF. Sometimes we all think with our little heads instaed of our big ones.

By Boooinnggg

November 18, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Jack, I don’t know how old you are, but I can “stand at attention” without thinking about it and with very little stimuli. :)

By RF

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

true, true. I know some very grown-up guys who never got past that point. It’s sad to think how the publicity is going to mess up that kid. And he’s going to be a daddy to boot. That just scares me!

By Jack

November 18, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Boooinnggg. See if you can do it while thinking about your mother.

By Jack

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

Didn’t think so.

By Boooinnggg

November 18, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

That’s just gross.

By Boooinnggg

November 18, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Thank you Jack, you just ruined it for the rest of my life!Mom, yuck!!!!!!!!!

By Jack

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

It is good that you can’t otherwise you would be ready for the men in white coats! Relax the memory will fade. LOL

By Scalia

November 18, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Wow…this conversation has gone nuts!

By Jack

November 18, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

We weren’t talking about nuts. LOL

By Jack

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

Everyone have a good weekend. Don’t do anything I wouldn’t do! (and if you do, mane it after me)

By Jack

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

I meant name. xoxoxox

By RF

November 18, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

just keep your head guarded and don’t do anything nutty!!

By DeltaX

November 18, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

I would guess this is the reasoning:

Basically: Pretty much all of the 30yos that are single in the south [and most in the north] are screwed up - BAD; yet the 15yos have not set in their ways os screwyness - YET!

Further-more; the 30yos also have the ego to act on their screwyness - and are more pronounced.

I know I can relate given I have met the single ladies my brother has tried dating here in Atlanta - and they seemed {my brother has since moved} all effed-up. {I love the kids new words!}

Question for you all: What does it mean if we are all wrong and they - the majority of displaced age couples - end up staying together for the rest of their lives and are pretty happy/healthy?

By RF

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

anything’s possible. sometimes the oddest pairings work best. He’s just got a lot of growing up to do and it’s odd to think of a 37 year old (who has a teenage son already)being willing to go through all that crap with a kid as her husband. She’ll be the only 40 yr.old NOT chaperoning the graduation parties!!—LOL

By RF

November 18, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

and it’s a matter of social perception we’re all grappling with. We expect a man to have a younger bride (you can go way back in history and find that), but we don’t have many examples of women with younger men to look at and judge.

By Renee

November 18, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

LOL RF. I couldn’t imagine going to a prom, now, and I’m not even her age. My assumption is that as he becomes older this will be less of a novelty to him and that he will want someone younger. The sad part is that he is a daddy now, so they are forever united in some way.

By Netbanker

November 18, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

I say it means they both have major issues. My guess is the kid has a Mommy complex which he may well have since Granny is raising him. The woman needs to be seen and feel like a nurturing influence or maybe a ‘savior.’

By DeltaX

November 18, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

I agree that there are not many examples - but if you look at people in power (cleopatera) it begins to even out on a ratio basis.

And still: My question is what does it mean? Should we look at de-criminilizing{sp} it then? Do we hold on to perception vs reality; and not change anything for sake of tradition/culture?

By RF

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

Delta-Because he’s not at the age of legal consent, it becomes a legal issue, and I don’t see that law changing anytime soon. I think most people are grappling with the social perception because we just don’t have anything to judge this by. Kinda like interracial realtionships back in the 50’s-60’s. That was new territory that we just didn’t know how to embrace for a while. Personally, I think they may stay together a while, but he’ll grow up and grow away. He’s young and inexperienced and one day he’ll regret the free time he gave up to be “grownup”.

By DeltaX

November 18, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Yes, I understand all that - and agree that the probability is what you stated.

That is why I am considering the alternative. If the probable situation does happen, what we believe to be true will be confirmed - and nothing should change.

But, how about answering? {laughing right now - not sarcastic either: Last conversation I asked the same Q 4-5 times with not direct response - seems a little absurd it is happening again. And note I have not been condicending; but too much of this will not reflect well on you - not a-s-s-u-m-i-n-g that you care.}

So: And still: My question is what does it mean? Should we look at de-criminilizing{sp} it then? Do we hold on to perception vs reality; and not change anything for sake of tradition/culture?

By RF

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

Delta- not hedging, just pondering which question and how to answer. I really don’t know what it means. I think most folks aren’t sure how to take it or what it means. I think if enough of these types of relationships happen, we’ll all but have to consider decriminalizing it. That’ll mean lowering the age of consent and possibly legal marriage age. That’s going to take years I think. We’re deeply rooted in our traditions and we don’t give them up easily. Personally I think we should let them be together and see what happens. Couldn’t be any worse than 50%+ of marriages out there.

By RF

November 18, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

delta—good questions, by the way. I wonder how folks will react to this and what the implications are for the future. Something to watch and keep in mind.

By DeltaX

November 18, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

delta—good questions, by the way. I wonder how folks will react to this and what the implications are for the future. Something to watch and keep in mind.

Thank you for the compliment.

Personally I think we should let them be together and see what happens. Couldn’t be any worse than 50%+ of marriages out there.

And that is the kind of out-of-the-box thinking I like to hear. Lets see what happens before judging: I agree the odds, by what I THINK I know, do not look good; but the laws are to protect - and if noone is hurt in the long run, we may have some re-thinking to do.

The point also is, we know what to think if it becomes abusive or such: That is already in place.

By DeltaX

November 18, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

And -

As you stated, the odds of two health adults are pretty crappy - so the bar is already set low!

If we start going on probability; should we outlaw all marriages?

HA! That would be a fun arguement to have!

By Netbanker

November 18, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

“Do we hold on to perception vs reality; and not change anything for sake of tradition/culture?”

Good gracious of course we do this all the time. Perception IS reality for most people. It wasn’t really all that long ago (1850’s) that teens did marry and start families because by 22 you were already middle aged. What about the perceptions of the 1950’s being some Golden Era? Was it really all that nostalgia make it out to be?

Here’s another one, if 16 is the age of consent for sex then why can one be charged with molestation or statutory rape should one party be over 18? Either one is old enough to consent 100% of the time or not at all…make a decision.

Personally, my best sexual experiences as a young person (20’s not teens, however) were with partners 10-15 years older than myself. It was basically like having a sexual mentor. How are you supposed to learn to be a proficient lover and to please your partner if you are learning with someone else who is as inexperienced as you?

By DeltaX

November 18, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

Good gracious of course we do this all the time.

I should have said: “Do we continue to practice holding on to perception vs reality; and not change anything for sake of tradition/culture like we have in history?�

BC - I am a skeptic when it comes down to tradition/culture since those usually are time dependant (think woman = housewife; man = breadwinner)

And people still argue that system should continue!

By Netbanker

November 18, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this

As a country we have serious issues with SEX that I think go back to being a country founded by Puritans. We don’t talk about it, it’s dirty, it’s a sin…blah, blah, blah…yet internet porn is HUGE! There is more and more sexual content on TV..hence the uptight right and Shaunti’s position. Just look at other cultures where there are not the same hang ups and you tend to find far fewer cases of teen pregnancy and sexual violence. That which is most forbidden is most desired. My hypothesis is that those most uptight about sex have never had GREAT SEX!