AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > February > 02 > Entry
In light of the rising costs of health care, do U.S. companies have the right to dictate workers’ off-the-job health habits?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
In each of the last four years, our self-employed family has tasted the pain employers feel, as our Blue Cross Blue Shield monthly health insurance premium rose from roughly $400, to $550, then $750. Something finally had to change when we received last year’s eye-popping notice: $1,050 a month. Cash-strapped U.S. companies are realizing that to stay afloat, they have to make some changes too. And one is the controversial move to help employees quit unhealthy and expensive habits like smoking — and requiring them to find another job if they don’t.
I daresay this is primarily controversial among people who’ve never had to tell employees that they aren’t getting raises, because 25 percent of the workforce persists in unhealthy habits that raise the premiums for everyone. The CDC estimates that each smoker costs employers $3,856 extra each year in premiums and other expenses. If 25 percent of your 1,000 employees smoke (the national average), that’s almost $1 million you could have spent on raises or other priorities.
Those who oppose firing smokers who refuse company help to quit, inevitably raise privacy concerns: “What I do off the clock is nobody else’s business.” That’s true. But it’s also true that we are adults with the freedom to choose our health habits, and this is a capitalist market in which (in most states, anyway) employers have the legal freedom to discriminate based on behavioral choices that impact them.
One such employer is Michigan benefit company Weyco. CEO Howard Weyers said in our interview, “This is not a privacy issue. It comes down to: you’re an adult, make a decision. It’s tobacco or your job. We’re no longer in the age of the ‘entitlement attitude,’ where the employee does whatever he wants. It had to change – it’s now a cost issue. We have to get employees involved in prevention and provide programs to eliminate poor behaviors. Self-inflicted health issues are where we just have to draw the line.”
Companies cannot discriminate based on non-behavioral criteria. But if companies aren’t allowed to hire and fire based on costly employee choices, we may find ourselves in a corporate environment where health benefits cease to be offered to any employee.
Rebuttal
Is this question about the dangers of smoking? Because I thought it was about corporate America dictating what I do with my private time. As an ex-smoker I feel fortunate to be far from the witch hunt that is the anti-smoking campaign. This isn’t to say anti-smoking campaigns are a bad idea. But the issue of company control of legal, off-duty habits isn’t about smoking. It’s about the host of other personal choices I don’t want corporations dictating on my behalf.
Do we want corporations determining how much we can weigh before receiving basic medical care? This issue isn’t about smoking; it’s about what we eat, what we do, how we choose to live.
“Risks are associated with nearly every personal lifestyle choice we make from smoking cigarettes, to sitting in the sun, to having children,” says National Workrights Institute Legal Director Jeremy Gruber. “There is very little that we do in our private lives that doesn’t affect our health. Allowing employers to make employment decisions based on legal off-duty behavior that might affect health would allow employers to explore and control every facet of our personal lives.”
And like most infringements of personal freedom, a single infraction multiplies into many more. Just look at how some companies violate the basic rights of their employees, year after year.
Weyco isn’t some random company Shaunti pulled out of the phone book. Weyco fired several employees for failing to kick the smoking habit a year ago. And their anti-smoking campaign seems to have expanded to clogged arteries and cholesterol levels. Their recent campaign encourages employees to undergo medical testing or wellness activities to receive insurance discounts. Those employees who do not comply will pay higher monthly insurance payments. But has a connection between health and work productivity even been proven? Is pre-employment genetic testing the next step?
“The real issue here,” argues Gruber, “is the individual right to lead our lives as we choose. It is important that we preserve the distinction between company time and the sanctity of our private lives.”
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By RightWingAdvocate
February 6, 2006 07:57 AM | Link to this
Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that people are entitled to affordable health care insurance premiums. If you do not like the rates, take your business elsewhere, this is America after all. Or even better, get a real job, like the rest of us, and get in on those more affordable group plans. Insurance premiums of around $1000 a month for a family of four indicate some serious mismanagement of health. Lots of pork BBQ and white bread will do that do you.
High-risk people are not entitled to employment. That includes smokers, obese or even mildly overweight, cheeseburger eaters, BBQ eaters, ice-cream eaters, gays(they get HIV after all) oh, wait a minute, urban black females now the high risk HIV group, along with rural Southerners of both races, so black urban females and rural Southerners should be terminated. Now if we could only fine-tune those DNA tests, to expose those with genetically pre-disposed diseases, we could terminate the employment of people with sickle-cell, etc etc etc.
The health-care industry is about to go belly-up. No profits to be made in health care. All these new health-care companies, which everyone seems to want to get into, are just delusional about all the serious money to be made in the health-care industry.
By Lyrazel
February 6, 2006 08:10 AM | Link to this
In my field drug tests are mandatory prior to employment. It is also policy in my field to require a drug test prior to getting workers comp (I am in printing). Does anyone else have this same policy where they work? Is it the business who is dictating what a business or the insurance companies dictating policy to business owners? Regardless, employees seldom actually live life free from constraints of employer demands. Looking at the history of labor, Bosses always told their employees how to live (social dictates of employers count quite a lot), what car to drive, where to live and what their wives would serve for dinner and where they would buy it. If you want the money you dance the dance. If not, freelance. As for smokers, I worked at a plant once that had a no smoking inside policy. My supervisor smoked and kept his ashtray in his desk drawer—needless to say his desk caught fire one day and the plant was evacuated with water sprinklers going—fun but there were reams of paper and jobs that were ruined by sprinklers… He was fired…the company lost quite a lot of money that day…
I think Shaunti is more right than she knows as globally the permanent worker class is abandoned and the temporary-part time no insurance, no pension labor force soars. Employers seldom offer insurance to this sort of temporary labor pool. Diane is naive to agree that the individual right to lead our lives as we choose. It is important that we preserve the distinction between company time and the sanctity of our private lives that is a myth. She no doubt never asked Gruber if he had to take a drug test prior to his involvement with National Workrights Institute Legal Department, nor did she mention the drug test she probably had to take for working at the AJC.
By E. Lewis
February 6, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this
Given how much money is being made by insurance companies, I don’t think they are going to go belly-up any time soon.
A big part of the increase in health care costs being passed on to the workers, those who are lucky enough to have it, are the market forces. As long as people are desperate for benefits, any health benefits, the ball is in the court of the health care companies and employers. They can pass on a greater percentage of the costs of to the workers. When the economy starts producing better jobs and workers feel they have more mobility this will change.
It’s called capitalism.
By Archie
February 6, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this
I am not a smoker but I agree with Diane on this issue. Heck if not for high health insurance premiums companies would not care what an employee did in his or her private life. Heck even if every smoker quits you will still have high health insurance premiums so I don’t think U.S. companies have the right to dictate off-the-job health habits.
By STEVE
February 6, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this
I am with Diane on this one…DEFINITELY!!!! While i do not smoke, the company i work for has no right at all to tell whether i can or not. If companies are continued to dictate employees habits then this could be a very slippery slope. How about saying everyone must tip the scale at no more than 125lbs? Or not being allowed to eat at fast food restaurants? Or take being allowed to take part in activities such as skydiving or rock climbing? If a company wants to control its healthcare costs how about eliminating family coverage and restrict coverage to only the person that is employed by the company?????? Companies would save MILLIONS doing that. Then people would be screaming that the company isnt “family friendly” or is discriminating against married people that want to start a family. Or even worse….they would accuse the company of promoting a “homosexual agenda” OH THE HORRORS!!!!!!
By Patrick
February 6, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
This is a tough one. I firmly believe that any company should be able to hire only those people they want. If you don’t want smokers, fine. If you only want left-handed Hispanics, fine. But they should be up-front about it from the beginning. Trying to change the rules in the middle of the game is just wrong.
I would offer smokers two options. Help for quitting, or they can pay the higher premiums.
By Brian Curtis
February 6, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
As long as we keep pretending that health care is an optional consumer commodity (like a new coat, or a pair of bowling shoes), we’re going to have this problem. Who pays for it?
Clearly, a civilized society can’t simply let everyone die who can’t afford top-notch treatment… but just as clearly, top-notch medical treatment is bleedin’ expensive. So everyone involved in the payment process—employers, employees, and insurers—are busily trying everything they can think of to minimize their costs and shift the burden elsewhere.
I’m not surprised that employers are trying to cut back on their employees’ healthcare—they are, after all, a profit-motivated setup. Only the bottom line matters to them.
What DOES surprise me is that we’re letting them get away with it, as if we had no choice but to accept profiteering and exploitation if the corporate leadership demands it. That seems a bit backwards. WE’RE the ones who give corporations permission to exist and operate; and we’re the ones (through the arm of government) who can set down the rules they must live by, and dissolve them if they disobey.
You’d think in a post-Enron world, we would’ve recognized the basic power equation: either corporations run everything for their own benefit, or we do. There’s not much middle ground.
By Archie
February 6, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this
“Clearly, a civilized society can’t simply let everyone die who can’t afford top-notch treatment”
Brian this is such a true statement and I think everytime I bring up the subject of national healthcare your statement needs to be put out there. I am not changing the topic however, I just wanted to say that the keyword civilized is very important and your statement makes just plain common sense.
By RF
February 6, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
I think if companies want to improve employee health and thus reduce insurance costs, they need to offer discounts and incentives to live a healthy lifestyle. Firing someone who isn’t the perfect model of healthy behavior is hardly the answer. Of course Shaunti picked one unhealthy behavior. What about the guy who is 70 pounds overweight who keeps a drawer full of twinkies, or the woman who is 40+ and never had a mammogram? You can’t just zero in on the smokers. The best way to do this is to require yearly exams and reward those who keep themselves in good health. If we start firing everyone who isn’t ‘healthy’, companies won’t have enough employees to survive. Once again, Shaunti picks one supposedly aberrant behavior as if that’s the only thing that matters. The debate over rising health care costs is clearly not just the smokers’ fault.
By Chilao
February 6, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this
WE’RE the ones who give corporations permission to exist and operate
We are the enablers of atrocious business behavior. Thank you Brian. I personally have FIRED three previous employers for bad behavior. I figure if they can terminate me for poor performance, at will, as they define it…. and it seems now high-risk external acitvities, smoking, scuba-diving, and more. Getting harder to do nowadays but. LOL I figure if employers do not have employees, they cannot function as a business.
And congratulations, columnists, for the best topic since that ridiculous Christian counseling cures gayness issue awhile back. I would have said ‘ladies’ but. (Diane knows what I mean). LOL. Yes, I’m that old.
I was involved in a convo recently, related to ancillary disks for on-line storage of health-care documents, seems there are many for each visit. And the ‘joke’ was the bills from 5 doctors for a visit to one, and I remarked “But the doctor was in the next room for 10 minutes, just in case consultation was needed, and ‘that’s $1000, thank you very much, and your insurance carrier is, again?’. Another document, more disk space needed.
But Diane’s Is pre-employment genetic testing the next step?. Yep, you betcha. Probably pass(be okay) for our new Supreme Court even.
By BanjoBanker
February 6, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
Picking on smokers is politically correct. As veryone knows, they are defenseless and dare not speak up. As a smoker, I experience the abuse from people who want to “protect” me every day. I eat right, exercise daily and have been a seat belt wearer for over 30 years. I have missed work 22 times since I graduated college and joined the work force, and ten of those were the result of an automobile accident. If my employer told me that I had to quit smoking as a condition of continued employment, I would walk my manager aruond our department and point out the many severely obese woman that work for us and ask “what about them?” I have a staffer who runs up against the company policy of excessive sick leave every year. This person is easily 70 pounds over weight. The fact that a lot of people who smoke are also severly over weight is never mentioned. Too many Senators and Congressmen are fat, so they balmae cigarettes. I am not saying that smoking isn’t bad, only and fool would say so, what I am saying is that picking on the smokers is okay now, but who is next? I agree with the post that questioned whether genetic testing could be next as a condition of employment. I feel that if you choose to lead an unhealthy lifestyle, your health insurance premiums should reflect that choice. If you choose to disobey the traffic laws and collect tickets, your car insurance will reflect your lifestyle choices, so why not health care insurance?
By Archie
February 6, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
Insurance companies already have the right to charge smokers more for premiums so I still don’t think an employer has the right to dictate an employee’s off-the-job behavior. A change in our health care system is what’s needed.
By Lyrazel
February 6, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
I honestly dont see where the freedom to live as I choose… is valid. You pay the piper at home too, with insurance higher for your home because you smoke, also with higher car insurance. Your family rate as a smoker buying life insurance will have higher premiums.
Its not business who is dictating policy. Its the insurance companies dictating to your business.
Clearly, a civilized society can’t simply let everyone die who can’t afford top-notch treatment Yet in America the WORKING sick without insurance are not given top-notch available care, they are billed often at twice the rate of insured patients for the same services. They are subject to not getting treatment at all because of costs. Bankruptcy is skyrocketing not because of credit debt but unexpected medical bills families must incur alone. Any cardiac surgery could cost $90,000, thats an entire nest egg to many families after years of work—try paying that between jobs or on a Target-sales clerk wage. Is this civilized behavior in a nation that already recognizes 45% of all WORKERS in America dont have insurance but does nothing about it? The truth of capitalism is its workers get f*** for profit.
By The72John
February 6, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
My office is full of obese people. We’ve had five or six people have insurance-covered gastric bypass surgeries in the last six months alone, and that doesn’t begin to cover the visits to doctors for diabetes treatments, etc.
I don’t know of a single person who is going to the doctor regularly because they smoke.
So…does this mean that my company can start dictating people’s eating habits, too?
By HolyDollar
February 6, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
Who needs religion when we have the AlmightyHolyDollar to worship?
By Archie
February 6, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this
“Is this civilized behavior in a nation that already recognizes 45% of all WORKERS in America dont have insurance but does nothing about it? The truth of capitalism is its workers get f* for profit.”
Lyrazel,whenever I say the aforementioned statement no one has a solution for 45% of all workers that you speak of. People just spout off the party line about not liking government or some other line without offering any real solution. Heck I have already mentioned 45 million people that have no health insurance and not a single solution is offered just party line. Good luck, Lyrazel and Brian.
By Brian Curtis
February 6, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
Archie’s right; what’s needed is an overhaul of our health care system in entirety, not just another “pick on smokers” campaign.
Of course smoking is unhealthy… but so is eating Cheetos, or mountain biking without a helmet. The question is, how far are we willing to let corporations go in their invasion/control of our private lives in order to save themselves a few bucks? And why, exactly, should we put up with it?
By Jan
February 6, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this
I think Americans should get what they pay for. American employers should get employee performance for the wages/salaries/benefits that they pay. American workers should get to use discretionary income as they want. What we don’t seem to want to address is that each should have individual accountability, not the expectation that the other entity should pay for the individual’s choice.
If I as a worker choose to use my discretionary income to purchase goods or services that adversely affect my work performance, then I should expect to pay for that. I should expect to pay either in loss of benefits which amount to less discretionary income, or the prospect of termination based on poor work performance.
If I as an employer choose to condition my wages/salary/benefits based on objective (health) testing, then I should state that as a condition of employment, or continued employment.
By kimberly
February 6, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
I think it is important to the success of fascism in America for corporations and government to control every aspect of citizens’ lives. The concepts of individual freedom, of choice, and of the “inherent right” to persue happiness are antiquated. They date back more than 200 years to a bunch of malcontents who rebelled against the King’s control. The King was chosen by God afterall, and his will should have been obeyed for the good of all.
While we don’t have a king anymore, we DO have a government that increasingly encroaches on our personal freedoms while simultaneously granting freedom to coporations (along with tax breaks) to do whatever they will in the interest of achieving and maintaining maximum profit margins. Understand how vitally important this is to the ruling party.
Get with the program, people! Our new fascist order needs you to acquiesce not only your personal habits and pleasures IMMEDIATELY, but to change your mind as well. Do not think it is your life. In fact, do not think. Wait for further instructions from your manager.
By RF
February 6, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
John- if we let them, that’s exactly where corporations will go. Of course, the rules will only apply to non-upper level management grunts. I’m sure any health restrictions will not apply to the bigwigs who would be absolutely appalled by such an intrusion into their private lives. Just when we thought unions weren’t really necessary anymore…
By Bill
February 6, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
So now it’s OK for employers to tell you what you can do in your time away from work? If I employ Shaunti can I tell her she can’t have sex because it could take her away from her duties at work (a pregnancy would take her away from her work and cost big bucks?) Can I force her to use birth control of my choosing because of the bottom line cost? Can I make her exercise on times I set because this would lower my health cost and I want her on the job sharp. Can I tell her what car to drive and where to live (both are life choices that affect health care cost)? Can I dictate who she sees and when? Are all her decisions going to be filtered through my bottom line? By her account I have a right to own her because I pay her salary. The truth is if you live in America today and are not independently wealthy you must work and finding a job with benefits and a livable wage is increasingly difficult. So you have a home, SUV and work for me I own you. Home of the brave and land of the free, not in Shaunti world
By RF
February 6, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
good one kimberly, and it’s becoming all too true. As oblivious as people are today to anything beyond the remote control and what MTV says, looks like the masses are going to let it happen and smile all the while.
By Eirik
February 6, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
I have been a runner for 30 years, I eat right, don’t smoke, and drink in moderation…but two years ago I had to have a procedure done on my heart to cure atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat). Apparently, all the years of vigourous exercise made my pulmonary vein too “muscular” and that caused the weird beats. For the uninsured the procedure would cost $27,000. With managed care rates, the actual cost was about $18,000 and I personally paid $1500 of that. My point is that I have always done all the things you are supposed to do to be healthy and I still contributed to the rising health costs of my company. Where do you draw the line when you are controlling employees health habits? You can’t…there is no line.
By Renee
February 6, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
I wasn’t sure how I felt about this subject, but I agree, that where does the line get drawn. Who considers what is healthy and what’s not healthy. While everyone knows smoking is not healthy, there are many other behaviors that are subjective to say the least.
Healthcare might be better if individuals paid were reponsible for purchasing their own policies and not the employers.
By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian
February 6, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
The Nazi Shaunti strikes again!
Oh wait, she is not a Nazi, she is GOD!
Telling us what we can and can not eat, drink, smoke, develope a loving relationship with, how many kids I have to have, etc. Who I HAVE to let touch me and HOW and WHERE.
Oh Bill, I doubt she ever has sex more than the once and that was probably a test tube baby. I bet Shaunti is more FRIGID than the chicken I laid out to thaw this morning.
By Bruce
February 6, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Will making us all healthier really bring the high cost of insurance down? I truly doubt it.
By Lurker
February 6, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
The reality of this is that we (workers) will not see a reduction in healthcare costs, regardless of any polocies put in place to control them. If a company manages to get all of their employees totally healthy, and reduces their (employer) costs, the worker will not see a reduction. The employer will simply spend less.
We are all being conditioned to pay higher premiums. Once we have accepted the fact that healthcare costs are rising, we will pay whatever we are charged without thinking about it. It is the same principle that is being used by oil companies. Does anyone expect gas to ever be under $2 again? The oil company profits show that they have the ability to lower prices, but if we are willing to pay more, why would they?
By RF
February 6, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Lurker- we’re more like Pavlov’s dogs than we realize. We’re being slowly but surely conditioned to accept a great many things in the interest of the rich getting richer.
By Sick & Tired (Double Standards)
February 6, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Shaunti,
Would you suggest firing a woman with breast cancer? Would you fire someone with a disability? If not, then how can you fire someone for unhealthy habits such as smoking or being overweight.
I’ve never smoked in my life and I weigh about 120 pounds soaking wet. However, I can’t believe that anyone healthy or unhealthy would even suggest this type of discrimination in hiring or firing. I did find a lump in my breast a few years ago and diabeties is a part of my family history. I also know a few people who are disabled who have very expensive medical cost that are being shared amongst the many healthcare members. Would it be right to suggest that only overweight people and smokers be signalled out to help to reduce the cost of medical premiums? Have you completely lost your mind?
Yes, we should all try to live and eat healthy - but suggesting a company should have the right to fire someone over a health issue is completely UnAmerican. The next thing you will suggest is a prison for smokers and overweight people.
By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian
February 6, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
Cough…has Shaunti looked in the mirror? She ain’t exactly my definition of slim.
Who is going to define slim? Anyone over a size 6 is a cow in my book.
Not sexist, don’t know enough about men’s sizes to state a man’s size limits.
By Phillip
February 6, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
Welcome to Gattica.
Please submit hair, blood and urine samples.
Thank you.
By The72John
February 6, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
The WHO has already instituted a policy that says that non-smokers only need apply in the future. Current employees are grandfathered in.
I’m sure Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend are relieved.
Oh wait…maybe the article meant the World Health Organization…yeah, that makes more sense.
By rebecca
February 6, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
What a disgusting idea it is that a company should have the right to dictate a person’s off time activities. People are healthier now than they have been at any other time in our history, yet the cost of healthcare is skyrocketing. That has nothing to do with smoking. There is also the fact that smoking related illness is not a foregone conclusion for smokers. It is a risky habit to be sure, but it isn’t an absolute that you will get cancer or emphasima. There is also the matter of weight. Most overweight people are in reasonably good health. Of course there are risks to being overweight, but neither is there a foregone conclusion there. Also, I might point out that employers SHARE the cost of healthcare, not carry the burden alone. I have health insurance and I still can’t afford to get sick because of a high per person deductable and a 20% copay on top of the premium that I pay. The fact of the matter is that the biggest health risk for Americans are the doctors and insurance companies that are getting so fat that the American worker can no longer bear the burden. Perhaps that is the behavior that we should all be rushing to blame and change.
By Vermin8
February 6, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
If an employer shouldn’t pay higher health care premiums due to employees’ lifestyles, then is it ok if they fire any fertile (male or female) employee who is sexually active? I’m sure the cost of pregnancy and health care for the resulting child is pretty high. Is it ok if employers choose not to hire parents with more than 2 kids? If we’re going to allow employers to discriminate according to lifestyle choices, then it should be for all lifestyle choices. If that’s the case, then we’ll all be unemployed because there isn’t a person alive who doesn’t engage in some activity that will risk raising the cost of their health care.
By Renee
February 6, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
Who is going to define slim? Anyone over a size 6 is a cow in my book.
Oh that’s nice, Spoiled, real nice.
By The72John
February 6, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
Frankly, more and more I ask myself just what kind of “conservative” does Shaunti think she is? Ah, I know - the modern kind, that believes that the Christian God should set all the rules, and that big corporations are sacrosanct entities that should be worshiped second only to Jesus.
By The72John
February 6, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
Well come on, Renee, she’s spolied AND a lesbian. What did you expect?
By Glen
February 6, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
We have lived as American citizens previously without benefit of health insurance - we could do so again. However employers will soon discover that dedicated, value adding staffers will not work for employers who do not provide benefits as demanded in this society.
Overhaul of the health system has been around for the entirety of my adult/working life (40 + years now) and no one has done anything about it.
What I do off my job should be of no business and/or concern to anyone else so long as it is legal. I know that Shaunti is a conversative so it is somewhat strange that she now wants an employer to become a substitue nanny or mom to me and control what I do off of their clock, premises, and out of their view.
How about causes of medical insurance costs that are simply because of genetics and/or heritage? Should I be denied a job or charged higher insurance costs due to that? Why cannot American business get its act together and recapture the global market place through its creative & innovative practices as it has done in the past?
Like Daltry & Townsend said, “meet the new boss, same as the old boss!”
By Netbanker
February 6, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
72J…geez, I thought for a second you were talking about Dr. Who.
I’m struggling with this topic personally and I think it comes down to what most are saying which is where is the line drawn. I don’t think we should have corporations dictating our behaviors after hours including illicit drug use. At the same time I do not instinctively object to premiums reflecting the risk of an individual.
And yet…I do have concerns about what happens to the person suffering from genetic disorders (MS, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, Parkinsons, etc.) who has to pay an outrageous price for insurance due to their risk. I also would like to know why the cost for 2 people is higher than the premium for a single person multiplied by 2. Or why the cost to insure a family is only slightly higher than the cost for 2 people even though there may be 4 or more people in the family. Why is it that as a legally single person or a couple without children I’m/we’re supposed to supplement their lives so darn much? Why is it that insurance isn’t figured on a ‘this is how much one person costs so multiply that number times the number of people you want to insure’ basis?
In relation to pre-employment drug testing. This is extremely common however recent figures from the government show that the number of employees who are refused is negligible compared to the cost. I think it worked out to somewhere around $74,000 per positive test result and there has been no studies that show that employers who drug test have any lower rates of on site accidents or employees entering drug rehab than those who don’t. Basically, the cost of the testing outweighs the expense, but it isn’t likely to die off anytime soon because it is a very profitable business that makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year for testing companies.
By The72John
February 6, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this
hey Net - I wasn’t.
But I CAN!
I want a TARDIS.
By Just Being Me
February 6, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Applause to Diane & Shaunti for a great topic!!
I’ll be back to comment.
By RF
February 6, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
Net- My insurance quadrupled this year because I added my boys to it. I knew family rates were higher, but puhleeease, a quadruple increase!! I’m paying as much for three people as a family of 4, 6, or more. I have a coworker with NINE kids who pays exactly the same as I do. Hmmmmmm, that seems a bit unfair, doesn’t it?
You’re right—it isn’t fair or logical.
I think eventually companies will find all sorts of reasons to charge more, including genetic predisposition. I already have a $40 per month surcharge added because I smoke. Even if I quit tomorrow, the surcharge stays until next calendar year! And I have a great health record with very few doctor visits beyond the yearly physical. Definitely we need some overhaul of the system, but I think we all know it isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
By willie
February 6, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
So, does this mean that women of child bearing age can be fired, since pregnancy is expensive and they are the most likely to get pregnant and it is their choice. This isn’t discrimination, it’s capitalism!
By Billy
February 6, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
To avoid paying crazy premiums for a PPO, my wife and I are on an HMO. My uncle’s an ENT, but for insurance to pay for a visit there I first have to go to our PCP, whose nurse practitioner looks into my nose and ears, asks me a couple of questions, and then writes the referral. After I pay them $20.
My wife was having killer headaches, so she kept going back to the doctor. They prescribed at least half a dozen different medications to try to keep the headaches away. Each time she went, there was a $20 copay. Each prescription she filled was $15 generic, $25 preferred brand, and $35 non-preferred brand. We probably spent $300-400 just on her headaches, and what ends up working? Allegra. They finally did an Xray of her sinuses and lo and behold, a cyst! Did they suggest surgery? No, they just kept her on Allegra, which is non-preferred now that Claritin is available OTC.
It’s all bull. Insurance companies are raking it in. Remember how tort reform was supposed to help lower doctor’s malpractice rates? Ask your doctor if it’s happened.
By Nikita
February 6, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
I also struggle with this issue. My father had a heart transplant and was laid off nearly simultaneously — because this was right around the advent of COBRA and the company hoped to have his insurance expire before he was eligible for the surgery. The surgery cost about half a mill, and he spends about $40K per year on medication. Should everyone subsidize the individual travails of high-cost patients like my dad? Probably. It’s a slippery slope from cutting off smokers to cutting off those who you suspect are gonna cost you money through no fault of their own or whose lifestyle choices you disagree with.
That said, I support wholeheartedly the right of companies to choose the employees that fit best into their work force, as long as they are not trespassing on any of the rights we have established as protected. I personally hate the nasty behaviors that some smokers are prone to, like taking more breaks than their non-smoking counterparts and smelling like cigarettes — if I could tell that an applicant was a smoker, I almost certainly wouldn’t hire that person. The probable additional expenses are only the tip of the iceberg, but they’re another reason for my decision.
By Nikita
February 6, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
Oh, P.S., I too resent the notion that I should subsidize others’ reproductive choices. Because, after all, you chose to have a baby — you should also choose to pay for it.
By lozen
February 6, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
R.I.P. Betty Friedan.
By Susie
February 6, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
“Looking at the history of labor, Bosses always told their employees how to live (social dictates of employers count quite a lot), what car to drive, where to live and what their wives would serve for dinner and where they would buy it.”
Hmm, can’t say this has ever happened to me or anyone I’ve ever known!
By Lisa
February 6, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
I resent the fact that as a single woman the Kaiser insurance will pay for an abortion but will NOT pay for me to have a baby.
Gee-I wonder why more single women are opting for abortion since their insurance probably won’t pay for them to have the child. Having a child in a hospital is over $15,000 now!
Unlesss I was on the family plan I would not be covered if I got pregnant and wanted to KEEP my baby!!! But an abortion would be fully funded!!! This is appauling.
Kaiser can kiss my….@ss!!!
By Susie
February 6, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
Lisa, that IS appalling. I can see them requiring you to switch to the family plan once the baby is BORN, but beforehand? I honestly don’t know how they can refuse to cover prenatal care. There should be something in between what you have, and “the family plan.”
By lozen
February 6, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
How much does an abortion cost these days? Probably a lot less than $15,000. Hmmmm….
By lozen
February 6, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Oh, and my answer to the question is NO. Look at the insurance lobby in Washington. Look at the buildings insurance companies build. Look at their profit statements. As Netbanker says, “Follow the money!”
By Nikita
February 6, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
That strikes me as discriminatory. However, I wouldn’t support coverage for maternity regardless of marital status. It’s elective.
Also, there is this fiction that we seem to labor under that by denying people coverage they simply go away. Well, some do. Some die early due to a lack of skilled care. But most simply use emergency rooms — which cannot turn them away in an emergency and generally pass the cost on to its shareholders or the government. so, in effect, we can pay now or pay later. now is cheaper.
By RF
February 6, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
Nikita- what a tough story about your dad. So did insurance pay for anything?
Also, I’m not sure I understand your point about smokers. Are you saying we should insure those with unknown, possibly genetic predispositions towards major illnesses, but not smokers? What about women who never have mammograms, or those who never get physicals? What about those with high blood pressure who don’t have it checked and don’t take medication? What about those who choose to eat too much and be overweight? Those are chosen health risks just as smoking is, don’t you think?
So, do you think every pregnant woman should be forced to pay for the baby without insurance? Now that’s a slippery slope to go onto.
By Nikita
February 6, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
RF, I said nothing about insuring smokers except that I think not insuring them creates a bad precedent that might possibly reverberate down the line to people who are sick with no connection to any kind of lifestyle factor. I simply prefer not to hire them, as is my right. And their likelihood of costing me additional money in healthcare costs factors partially into that.
As for my father, there was litigation and they eventually extended his insurance through two more years, during which he got his transplant. His severance was significantly extended, too, since it’s illegal to fire employees due to health status.
And as for having babies, I don’t have any. I plan to have them when I can afford them, which is when everyone should be having them. In other words, one makes a choice to have a baby based on a variety of factors. Free or close to free labor and delivery are part of that. It is also a factor in the current state of OB/GYN practice, which is one where C-sections are abnormally high and midwives are in many places barred from practicing.
By Lisa
February 6, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
lozen-obviously an abortion costs LESS than having a baby. No one disputes that fact.
However, when you’re talking about the life or death of an unborn child it is appauling that a single woman is backed even further into a corner once finding out insurance won’t cover the child…unless it’s aborted.
Maybe Kaiser has some special interests in the abortion clinics???
All doctors know how to do these days is perform surgery and write prescriptions. And most probably don’t know how to do the first. No one knows how to CURE.
We live in a day and time where the drug companies rule and doctors drool!
Drug companies advertise their wares on TV and in magazines. “Come on folks-tell your doctor to prescribe THIS new drug for you”. (Doesn’t matter that it hasn’t been tested for very long. We paid the 10 million bucks to get the FDA to approve it.) Maybe it will cause liver damage or heart disease-but don’t worry about that now. It may take a few years for that stuff to show up. But have no fear, because we have another great DRUG you can take that will fix THAT problem!!!
No one in the medical or drug industry wants to find a CURE for anything!!! They’d lose too much money if they did.
By CDog
February 6, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
People have come to expect way too much out of health insurance. Imagine how much car insurance would be if we used it to pay for oil changes, tire rotations and balances, and other regular maintenances. We’re kinda doing the equivalent with health insurance. If health insurance were transformed into accident/emergency insurance, it would be a lot cheaper.
By The72John
February 6, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
I think that launching an abortion discussion from a completely unrelated topic before the end of the first day must be some kind of record.
By Renee
February 6, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
CDog - interesting comment, I like the logic.
LOL John, you know what’s coming next!
By The72John
February 6, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
puts on his bash-proof armor
By Just Being Me
February 6, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
Uhhh, if health insurance were transformed into accident/emergency insurance, how many people would obtain preventive care? You can’t use your insurance to get your chronic headaches checked out, but come see us when you black out from an aneurism. What about mental health? You can’t use your insurance to see a psychologist, but we’ll certainly give you an anti-depressant if you try to commit suicide. Would we use the same standards for dental care? No cleanings or check-ups, but come see us when you have a throbbing toothache and we’ll give you a nice root canal or extraction. Where do you draw the line between emergency and non-emergency? Maybe I’m missing your point, CDOG, but that makes no sense to me at all.
By Renee
February 6, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
lol
By Lisa
February 6, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
Did you know that there are around 400 different pesticides that the FDA has approved for use on our fruits and vegetables?
For your health’s sake buy organic folks.
And FYI-some of the chemicals in alot of the diet colas cause drying of the skin and diseases such as eczema.
Every year at my job there’s an annual increase in health care costs. If I had a child I couldn’t afford family coverage through my employer!
By RF
February 6, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
Don’t you DARE say the word Renee!!! They’re out there listening in you know…. (wink, wink)!! I’m surprised Shaunti didn’t find a way to weave that into her ‘argument’.
By Just Being Me
February 6, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
insert sarcasm
John/Renee: Of course that’s coming next. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that it’s people like you who cause high insurance premiums. LOL
By RF
February 6, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Yes, and we all know angelic JBM would NEVER engage in any risky behavior…okay, don’t spit on your screens folks!!
By Renee
February 6, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
I don’t want to speak for CDog but I think he was trying to say that any preventative care costs incurred would be out of pocket expenses, and insurance would only kick in when it is an actual emergency. This would be put a lot of responsibility on the person to obtain their own preventative care thus keeping the cost of insurance lower. Not a 100% foolproof way, and there are a lot of what if’s etc.., but I thought it was an interesting concept.
By Billy
February 6, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
Yeah, it would keep insurance costs lower, but when it comes down to eating/paying rent or getting your teeth cleaned, you’re going to opt for eating and having a place to stay. Maybe once your teeth fall out it won’t be as big a decision.
By Sick & Tired (Double Standards)
February 6, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
I don’t know which plan Lisa has, but Kaiser paid for my daughter. Are you self-employed? Those plans usually have a lot of clauses.
By Lisa
February 6, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
~~~round of applause for Billy~~~
By Just Being Me
February 6, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
Yeah, Renee, that’s what I thought he meant. But, I don’t like that idea at all. How many people would be able to afford doctors visits for themselves and their families without insurance covering it?
We’ve got people now who have insurance and barely get preventive care. Imagine how few people would get regular check ups and exams if they had to pay full cost for it.
Think about the working class. The lower class. I just can’t see that working for me and my family.
By Just Being Me
February 6, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
LOL RF, of course not. ;-)
By Lisa
February 6, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
Sick and Tired-The last time our insurance rates went up at work I checked around for an independant policy. I asked specific questions and found out a single plan would NOT cover the cost of a pregnancy and delivery unless I paid for a family plan (through Kaiser). They said they would pay for an abortion though. I told them how ridiculous that was….why would I NEED a family plan unless I already had children???
By Tracy
February 6, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this
Has anyone considered the fact that health care costs are rising because of the increase in technology? Medical researchers spend millions of hours each year finding cures to the world’s most insidious diseases, yet no one stops to consider how they do it. Magic? Alchemy? No, hard work, lots of studies and thousands of clinical trials. Sure, a pharmaceutical company may earn millions off a drug over the next five years, but let’s not forget that they spent decades of research and hundreds of millions of dollars finding that little pill for you. Certainly health care costs need to be reined in. One good step is to require employees to undergo health exames each year to determine their health level. A level “A” could pay the minimum because actuarial tables can show they’re less likely to incur high health costs. A level “B” could pay slightly more, etc. This is not a foolproof system; but an example of how Americans need to get off the “I’m entitled to it” bandwagon and on the “I’m responsible for it” bus. If you cost more, you pay more. That’s the fair way. And, no, I do not work in the medical field or for a giant pharm. I’m a realist who believes in capitalism.
By Internet Gambling
February 6, 2006 08:37 PM | Link to this
gambling on the internet http://www.okedyo.net
By Nikita
February 7, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this
A couple of issues that relate: *Healthcare is so expensive that most people cannot afford to be catastrophically or chronically sick. And I applaud the “be responsible for it” mentality. But the fact remains that only very few people can afford a car accident, or a heart transplant, or cancer, or any of half a dozen other calamities that can destroy your health and bank account simultaneously. It would be a tragedy indeed to see most of the country’s wealth destroyed by healthcare costs, but in some cases it is. And that’s what would happen if we allowed insurance companies to more or less cull more expensive clients from their rosters while maintaining low-cost customers.
*I agree with CDog that insurance need not be for “buff & fluff” maintenance. I understand why preventative care is important to long-term well being. But that doesn’t mean that an insurance company is required to pay for it. Indeed, those who shop for private insurance will find that a catastrophic-only policy is pretty common among those who are self-insured.
* There are ways to make self-payment less onerous for routine stuff. Extension of flexible medical accounts to the entire population, for a start. I have actually dropped my dental insurance in favor of building in the dollars necessary for a few cleanings and whatnot annually — most people can do the same. * The medical establishment consistently drags its feet and/or opposes giving nurse practitioners full ability to do as they’re trained. But giving more of the population access to them would lower healthcare costs.
By Nikita
February 7, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this
P.S. Tracy, yes. My routine annual rheumatology visit costs $900 for an entire day’s diagnostic work.
P.S. II Healthcare is also more expensive because we as a society are sicker than we used to be. Cancer incidence is much higher, and people are living longer with it, to give a common example. But that’s true of nearly every disease. More people are sick, and living longer sick than they did in the past.
By Lyrazel
February 7, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this
The sad debate I see is: Why is everyone so upset the boss is analyzing what should be in your toilet and no one seems to realize the government has already wire-tapped your phone and you are already more observed because of internet use?
At work you are monitored, the server you work off is monitored, your behavior, your clothing, emails are monitored. Your highway driving home is watched by hidden cameras, your house alarm system monitors the frequency of departure, length and returns. If you turn on your home cable/tivo box your viewing can be monitored, if you turn on your computer a tally grows of places you visited and cookies collect monitoring your habits. Your credit card spending, your bank monitors all accounts and you have groups watching everything from how much water your toilets use to whether you used profanity in the church parking lot after some blue-haired lady stole your space.
The flack I have heard about doing things in private is none of the bosses business is true but take account of how much your actions and inactions are being observed, compiled and attached to mailing lists. How much of your DATA is available on-line? How much can the next boss access of your personnel file, your files of work, and how much importance do your medical records have in KEEPING YOU FROM YOUR NEXT JOB? Worse than all this is the amount of visits you have made with your doctor the past year is monitored! But thats good, right? It will help old Dr Young take care of me…
If you are treated for a disease like cancer at one place of business—dont ever quit that job because chances are you wont be hired anywhere except as freelance because even if cured you are risk, the company insurance wont cover prior illnesses, you wont get hired because you may be out sick too much or some reason the person in Human Services who hires does not select your resume. The older you get the fewer will hire you despite high calibre references and a clean p** test…saying you are overqualified to simplify discrimination because Law says nothing about employers discriminating against the sick, just cannot discriminate on race, religion, sex, or handicaps.
The fact Kaiser just covers abortions is as funny as the fact Delta Airline insurance would not cover birth control but covered Viagra…
By Lisa
February 7, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this
My mom’s insurance would not cover the medication that would help her quit smoking and lengthen her life but would cover Viagra to help men get it up!!!
One would lengthen a life 10 years and the other would lengthen….well.
Priorities folks…priorities!
By The72John
February 7, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
Good grief, this is the deadest topic ever.
By Just Being Me
February 7, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
It really is, John. And, I’m surprised because it seems to me it’s the best topic they’ve had in months!
Oh well… I guess if we’re not either bashing or defending ourselves from being bashed, there’s really nothing to say.
By lozen
February 7, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
72John, right you are. It’s Tuesday and we’ve said all there is to say about the topic - actually I stopped reading yesterday at noon! Anybody want to talk about sex, pet peeves, work place horrors? My pet peeve: women who pee on the seat in public restrooms and leave it for the next person to sit down in! Yuck! Nasty!
By The72John
February 7, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
I mean - company controlling your private life = bad.
Pretty much sums it up for me.
By Chilao
February 7, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
Lozen - learn the french method. LOL Fortunately us guys can just stand.
I have to wonder about Shaunti’s rates there. I know my quality BC/BS plan costs about $150 a month, so even when multiplying by 4 people seems she is paying twice as much as me. And I am pretty sure I am paying a smokers rate. Been super healthy, (knock on wood), but my first cholesterol check at age 45 was well under ‘danger levels’.
By Just Being Me
February 7, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Chilao, are you self-employed?
My pet peeve (well, one of my many pet peeves) is when you hold the door for someone and they don’t say “thank you.” I hate that.
By RF
February 7, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
The topic’s dead because all the sensible folks have expressed similar opinions. There’s nothing left to argue about until the extremists show up and blame the whole thing on you-know-who. Where are the folks this week? Must be having a hard time tying this one to the Bible…
By Just Being Me
February 7, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
My medical, dental and vision are fully paid by my employer. But, at my previous job (which you may recall I left just a couple of months ago), I was paying about $280/month for single coverage medical and dental BC/BS PPO.
By RF
February 7, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
JBM- isn’t it disturbing what an impolite nation we’re becoming? I’ve noticed it getting much worse with the kids. If I dared talk to an adult the way some do, I’d be eating through a straw!!
By The72John
February 7, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Nah, RF - haven’t you been paying attention? It’s possible to tie EVERYTHING to the Bible. Probably Jesus had some profound parable about rising health care costs and how we should let Caesar control our lives to avoid it.
I think it’s right after the “Why you deserve that Bently” section.
By Renee
February 7, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
Wow JBM, that’s high for single coverage. I was just complaining about paying $313 for family coverage for PPO, vision, dental…..
By Just Being Me
February 7, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
RF, sooooo true!!! And, that leads me to another pet peeve. Why aren’t these parents teaching their children how to speak on the phone??? If one more teenager calls my house and asks to speak to my child without saying “hello,” “may I,” or “please,” I’m just going to scream!
Alright now, John… don’t get ‘em started.
By Renee
February 7, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
RF - I know, it amazes me how rude kids today are. I know as kids we said a lot we weren’t supposed to say among each other, but you didn’t dare say it in front of an adult. But manners starts at home!!
By RF
February 7, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
John- uh-hmmmm, I had a feeling it would be in there somewhere, probably close to the ‘starve yourself so you can keep the mega-church light bill paid.’
Renee- does your vision insurance actually pay enough to be a benefit? I dropped mine because it only paid for exams every two years and only a percentage of glasses or contacts. Ended up being cheaper for me to pay for eyecare myself.
By Just Being Me
February 7, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
Now I’m on a roll with pet peeves. I know I’m going to catch a lot of flack for this one, but it’s probably my biggest pet peeves. I guess I’m one of those people that thinks all smokers should live together on an island somewhere. I know they have a right, but I just hate the smell. And, being an ex-smoker myself (can you believe it? lol), the smell actually makes me sick to my stomach, nausea, lightheadedness, headache, etc.
Sooooooo, my pet peeve is people smoking in public places.
By Chilao
February 7, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
I think it’s right after the “Why you deserve that Bently� section.
Nothing like an informed Bible scholar. LOL Most of the people I run into are better at quoting from the Old Testament, for some reason. And they aren’t even Jewish. LOL
JBM - no, not self-employed, sure that a major factor in Shaunti’s high rates. I pay 50 percent of premium but have had many employers in the past who paid it all. yes, a no acknowledgement of a held door a BIG pet peeve of mine as well.
By Renee
February 7, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
My current vision coverage does actually pay off this time, my last coverage was every two years as well. My current coverage is annual coverage of 100% of lenses (you pay extra for UV or polycarb), 125 towards frames and the eye exam plus contacts even if not medically necessary.
JBM I have to admit that is one of my peeves too.
I guess one of my pet peeves would be people spitting in public where people walk, no less.
By Renee
February 7, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
I meant to say $125 towards frames and 100% of exam fees
By RF
February 7, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
uh-oh, JBM is winding up!!
Actually, I kinda agree with you on the smoking. I smoke, but I have an aversion to being in a crowd and cloud of it myself. It’s my habit, but I don’t like subjecting anyone else to it. I can wait until I’m home, or at least in my car away from people. I don’t understand why others can’t wait and want to light up as they walk down the street.
By Just Being Me
February 7, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Chilao, yeah, the self-employed rates are absolutely ridiculous! My partner’s last job didn’t provide any type of healthcare coverage at all, and of course my job didn’t offer benefits for domestic partners, so we were looking into independent coverage…. you wouldn’t believe the premiums. They are absolutely ridiculous, and even worse if you’re trying to add a dependent or something. It’s just horrible.
Renee, I paid about $90 per pay period for medical, $45 for dental, and about $5 for vision… totalled about $280 per month. Just for me.
By Chilao
February 7, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
I had a skin cancer removed from direct center on my forehead about 12 years ago, it was done by a plastic surgeon, the waiting room seemed to be mostly women getting implants. LOL
the whole procedure, (initial doctor physical and subsequent referral to the plastic surgeon) did not cost me a dime, the only thing I paid for was some anti-biotics at the pharmacy, and I think I could have had the insurance company pay for them, but they were really inexpensive and hardly worth filling out the paperwork for just to be reimbursed.
By Chilao
February 7, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
I consider myself a very considerate smoker. enough said. LOL
I was raised in an anti-tobacco household, in fact my dad ran 5-Day Stop-Smoking seminars. And he ended up with three smokers, of 7 kids. oh well……
By Just Being Me
February 7, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
Dang, Chilao, how’d that happen? To your Dad, I mean? Do you have any plans to quit any time soon? That must be heartbreaking for your dad. You and your siblings should feel very badly. :-(
And yes, RF, I’m winding up. LOL! Another pet peeve is when someone at work sees me on the phone and walks up to me and starts talking. Do you not see the black instrument held up to my ear with the cord attaching it to the object we call a TELEPHONE??????
Another pet peeve (this one’s a biggie), watching TV with a channel-flipper. I absolutely hate that.
Children not buckled in.
Adults smoking in cars with children.
Bad-behind children in grocery stores, or other public places.
Okay, since we’re just winging it… that reminds me of a few months ago when I went to the Steve Harvey concert at Philips Arena (or the Georgia Dome… can’t remember which one). Anyway, there was a gorgeous little 2 year-old whose mother thought it would be easiest for her to enjoy the show if she let the child just run free. Great idea, Mom! The child leaves you alone, and bothers all the ticket-paying adults who didn’t opt to give birth to this child and bring her toddling-behind to an adult event. The little girl is climbing on chairs, laughing, playing in people’s hair (including mine), knocking over beverages, running up and down the stairs… just getting on my last nerve.
Oh, did I mention this was a Christian event (Mega Fest)???
I decided to introduce mother and child to my evil stare, letting them know that wrath was soon to come if one of them didn’t come to some senses within 5 minutes.
When the concert was over, the mother came over to me and apologized with slight Christian sarcasm, and said, “well, she is only two, and it’s not easy getting a two year old to sit still.”
WHYYYY did she say that to me? I was already frustrated, and y’all know I’m a little short on patience.
Ooooooooh, lawdy. It got ugly in that Philips Arena… or Dome… wherever I was.
By RF
February 7, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
Renee- that’s pretty good. I have to get the lightweight lenses since mine are so doggone thick. I always end up paying a lot anyway. I’ve just never saved much with the insurance.
My pet peeve is people who speed up when you pass them or speed up to block a lane when you politely signal and start over. Of course I have a nice steel bumper, so I figure if they hit it they’ll get the worse end of the deal!!
By Lisa
February 7, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
I get the feeling that most of you guys don’t like Christians very much.
It’s not nice to knock another person’s beliefs.
By Just Being Me
February 7, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
RF, don’t ever drive in NY, dear. :-)
By Just Being Me
February 7, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
Lisa, what makes you think that? And, who knocked another person’s belief?
And, speaking of knocking beliefs, you should be preaching that message to your Christian friends (assuming you’re Christian).
By The72John
February 7, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
Lisa, because you don’t understand the can-of-worms you are oh-so-close to opening here, I’m going to say this calmly and reasonably.
No one here has a problem with Chrsitians. In fact, you’ll find that most of the people here identify themselves as Christian (JBM doesn’t like that label, just FYI.)
What we DO have a problem with are self-righteous fundamentalists who use this board as a way to bash, criticize, condemn, and otherwise abuse those people they don’t like or “agree with”. See, they think it IS ok to knock other people’s beliefs.
So, if you’re one of those, prepare for the worst. If not - great.
By RF
February 7, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
JBM- at least it was a christian event. I almost got jumped for telling a woman to take care of her toddler at a showing of “The Exorcist”!!! Like a child, of any age, needed to be in that theater. The mother shouted at me, cussed me, and threatened me for complaining!!
Okay, it’s a guy thing, but I HAVE to have my remote. I cannot sit and watch commercials without flipping channels!
Obviously, the same people who let children run wild in public are probably not using seat belts either. I think cars ought to have a switch that will not let the car start until all seats bearing weight have a buckled seat belt, and should slowly stop running if anyone disengages the seat belt.
I got a dirty look the other day from a woman because I popped my youngest on the bottom for running from me and yelling in Wal-Mart. I told her she could take him and deal with him if she didn’t like the way I handled it.
By Archie
February 7, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
” My pet peeve: women who pee on the seat in public restrooms and leave it for the next person to sit down in! Yuck! Nasty!”
As a man Lozen I have seen much worse than that and that is why men have stomach problems because some of us hold everything inside until we get home. I don’t sit down on public toilets too often.
Frankly I like the responses to the topic question and I am glad the people that post those pages of cut-and-paste material aren’t posting. Maybe Shanti and Diane can post a topic about the police as it relates to women. It may require some research but I am reading about the police in another part of the country and it’s not a good report.
By RF
February 7, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
Oh I know I’d be in severe road-rage in NYC. I have a friend who grew up in Manhattan, and he always told me just fly up and take a cab. I can’t imagine going any other way!
Lisa- christians are fine. I’m actually a saved believer myself. It’s the folks who talk down ‘from on high’ as if they have some authority to judge that gets me aggravated. There are several who have posted here regularly. Their faith isn’t the problem—it’s their attitude about it.
By Just Being Me
February 7, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Speaking of police, I found myself wondering the other day whether Atlanta has a great deal less police brutality than New York does/did or if the media just doesn’t cover it the way NY media did…
RF, just had that conversation with my co-workers this morning. I told my daughter the other day that I have no problem popping her until the day I die, if she backtalks me. I wouldn’t care if she was 57 and a half years old.
Nice response, John… keep it cool. You’re doing well. LOL.
The pee-on-the-seat thing is really grossing me out… lol. I try my darnedest not to go to the bathroom in malls, convention centers, gas stations and other public places. I just can’t stomach the odor and sight of some of those nastyrooms.
By RF
February 7, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this
Kids are a great reason for going prepared for bathrooms. When we go to big events or the movies, I pack some alcohol wipes or clorox wipes for just that reason.
I love my boys with all my heart and soul, and I put all my heart into teaching them right from wrong too. I figure if I don’t deal with their behavior now, the world will, and they don’t deserve that.
I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think there’s as much brutality here. The media never seems to miss a chance to criticize anything they can!!
By Renee
February 7, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
Lisa - I would respond, but actually John did a great job.
Great job John because I was holding my breath, lol.
Pet peeve - Ghetto acting people in public, especially in an arena when it is not appropriate..
RF - I absolutely hate the speed up thing also….I used to have terrible, terrible road rage…but maturing helped that.
By RF
February 7, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
Pet-peeve: pants hanging off some guy’s butt on purpose!! I DO NOT like seeing boxer shorts.
Another would be the inconsiderate folks who leave the cart in the middle of the store aisle while they stare at a shelf waiting for divinge intervention!!
By Chilao
February 7, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
JBM - why does anyone start smoking? What is funny is I hung out with smokers most of high school, but did not really start until I was closer to 20.
Quitting thoughts? comes and goes, it would leave me with no vices, so. LOL
By Elane
February 7, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
Less than a century ago, many workers lived in “company towns.” Many metro Atlanta communities, such as Clarkdale, are remnants of those. The workers were “given” a home, but the boss could show up at your door without notice and inspect to see if the employee’s lifestyle was up to the company’s standards. Even your extended family, who might not even have lived in the town, could be evaluated, and if they didn’t measure up, your employment was at stake. We’ve gone through a brief golden period of relative freedom, and too many people just have no memory of the way it used to be. We’re creeping back in that direction. The intrusiveness of employers is not a new thing at all. It’s simply much more impersonal and dependent upon technology.
By The72John
February 7, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
I keep telling you women-folk…you can’t pee standing up! It’s a guy perk, accept it! Sit down on the dang toilet like God intended and you won’t make a mess!
By Chilao
February 7, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
this is cute, RF’s pants hanging on some guy’s butt thought made me think of it.
Was getting a Valentine’s Day card for my Mom yesterday, one of the cards showed what appeared to be some cleavage with a lacy bra. Words went “I thought you might like some cleavage” and you opened the card to read “On second thought” since the actual pic was someone’s butt crack.
too funny it was!
By The72John
February 7, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
Less than a century ago, many workers lived in “company towns.� Many metro Atlanta communities, such as Clarkdale, are remnants of those. The workers were “given� a home, but the boss could show up at your door without notice and inspect to see if the employee’s lifestyle was up to the company’s standards.
Even worse were the towns created by mills and mines and such in places like West Virginia. I’m sure they existed elsewhere too - I just lived in WV for a year or so, and saw a lot about the old mining towns.
Instead of money, workers were paid in company scrip. They could only spend this at the company store, so they never had the ability to get away from the company.
I’m all for business. Heck, I went to grad school for business. But I’m also fully aware that industry HAD the chance to self-regulate and blew it. Big business has proven in the past that when it comes down to treating workers well or making bigger profits, bigger profits almost always win.
This is just another step towards companies being the kind of ogres they used to be, before the evil government stepped in and said “Hey - you can’t chain those people inside that shirtwaist factory!”
By Just Being Me
February 7, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
LOL John!!!
Another pet peeve: When I get off the elevator in the morning, I say “Have a nice day,” to whoever is left in the elevator. I hate it when they don’t say something back to me.
Another one: Anything other than curtains, panels, shades, blinds or shutters in a window.
Another one: Items illogically placed in a grocery store (i.e. canned fruit not in the same aisle as canned vegetables, or cinnamon on the baked good aisle instead of the spices aisle).
By Renee
February 7, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
Another one: Anything other than curtains, panels, shades, blinds or shutters in a window.
ROFL
By The72John
February 7, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Another one: Anything other than curtains, panels, shades, blinds or shutters in a window.
Dangit, does that mean I can’t moon people from my front window anymore?
By Lyrazel
February 7, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
My pet peeve is gum. Gum chompers and people who spit out gum before going inside and all the gum on the sidewalk going into a grocery and mall. While it used to be smokers who use the outdoors as their ashtray—I know not all smokers behave this bad.
I guess looking at that wet wad…just sends chills…
By kimberly
February 7, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
What about annoyingly cheerful people who want to speak to me in the elevator in the morning? {;->
I mean… PLEASE! I have nothing to say before 10:00 a.m. Nothing! (okay, I will say thank you if you hold the door for me, but that’s it.)
By Jack
February 7, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
I hate drivers that go the speed limit in the fast lane.
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 7, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
I REALLY HATE IT when you let someone in front of you in traffic, most people will raise their hand up in a “Thank You” gesture…I absolutely hate it when a person won’t acknowledge you with a thanks for letting them in front of you….ungrateful bastards!
By Anonymous
February 7, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this
72 John: Dangit, does that mean I can’t moon people from my front window anymore?
I can totally see you doing this-probably to the Christians. Sounds EXACTLY like something you’d do!!!
By Jack
February 7, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
“I guess looking at that wet wad…just sends chills”
That just doesn’t sound very good.
By Scalia
February 7, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Pet Peeve: Yeah, it took some time for me to get used to the “good morning” thing. I hated it for years, and would glare at people if they said it.
As for the guys wearing their pants sagging and showing their boxer shorts. There are some rules: the boxers have to be clean. 2) the guy has got to be cute and/or hot and have a nice bottom.
Pet Peeve People who don’t wash their hands when they leave the bathroom. Do you know how disgusting the door handle is? Use a paper towel, and open the door.
Pet Peeve: No paper towels or soap in the men’s bathroom. I like to wash my hands. I really don’t want to walk around with my hands smelling like my crotch.
Pet Peeve: Children running wild. I was on a flight and a mother let her devil spawn child kick the back of my chair for the majority of the flight. I looked at the mother, and she smiled as if nothing was wrong. Another parent let his daughter throw the items they were purchasing on the counter with some flying over to where I was standing. The Dad just smiled and acted like everything was okay.
By Archie
February 7, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
Kimberly,you women that don’t speak and get that “look” on your face are my pet peeve. Good morning is not a pass(to all black women) that’s right I am calling you out. I speak to men here in Columbia and we all know it’s not a pass,just an acknowledgement of your existence. Sometimes now when I don’t speak sisters look at me as if I think I’m cute but they don’t understand that it is their behavior that led to my reaction. This peeve does not apply to all women, just a certain group of sisters. Oncesta’ again Good morning is not a pass. For those that love great grammar I apologize for the insertion of slang but I listened to Steve Harvey this morning and you guys don’t want to discuss the topic anyway.
By Renee
February 7, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
lol Jack!
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 7, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
Good Lord JBM! I guess the shorter list you could post would be the things that DON’T bother you as opposed to the things that do…
By Renee
February 7, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Scalia - I hate when people don’t wash their hands. I’m amazed when I’m at work and the amount of women that don’t. That’s disgusting.
By Archie
February 7, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
Pet Peeve People who don’t wash their hands when they leave the bathroom. Do you know how disgusting the door handle is? Use a paper towel, and open the door.
That is one of mine as well.
By Scalia
February 7, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
The sagging pants doesn’t bother me, but there are some rules. 1) clean boxer shorts. 2)a cute and/or hot guy wearing the pants/boxer shorts. 3) some dunk in the trunk.
Pet Peeve: Strangers that like to talk in the bathroom while you are using it. It’s really weird to spark up a conversation.
72John: I bet that you moon the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
By taradale
February 7, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
Wow! Has this important topic gotten way off track. The US health care system is all screwed up. First off, health care should not be in the hands of the employers to begin with - it should be charged and evaluated on an individual basis. Much like car and home insurance. It was marketing 101 way back when - to organize healthcare thru the corporations - that way the insurance company could charge higher premiums (to dip into deeper corporate pockets) without much questioning or competition.
If it was in the hands of the individuals then competition would come back in to play and the real cost of healh care would be known and billed correctly.
The entire system needs to revamped and put the money back into the individuals paycheck to make the best decision for themselves and/or family.
Why Insurance companies are just starting to offer individual insurance to the 45% untapped market is a mystery to me. My guess is because it’s a tad bit more work to think of your real customers best interest (individual) than the middlemans (corporations).
By iworkforinsurance
February 7, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
Another pet peeve: When I get off the elevator in the morning, I say “Have a nice day,� to whoever is left in the elevator. I hate it when they don’t say something back to me.
Hey, Being!!! You don’t want to hear what I would say to you if I were on that elevator!!!
By Lisa
February 7, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this
Pet peeve #1: People who tell you, “SMILE!” If I FELT like smiling I WOULD OK!!! Oh, ok I’ll smile just because you TOLD ME TO??? Get real.
Pet peeve #2: People who drive with their radio so loud and the bass so high that it shakes the pavement and my vehicle in front of them!!! What if I had a baby in the back seat for goodness sake? I don’t want to hear YOUR music buddy!
Pet peeve #3: This is AMERICA-if you’re going to do a job in customer service (or even at a drive thru window) please speak ENGLISH!
By iworkforinsurance
February 7, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
About the baggy pants… I saw a young man walking down the street one day (doing the attitude walk; I don’t know what else to call it). He had the one hand swinging, and the other holding up his pants. I would have loved to have seen him trying to fight with someone like that.
By kimberly
February 7, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Archie, Hon, I’m feelin’ ya. ‘kay? I’m not rude to strangers. The truth is, I usually force a smile in response to morning greetings. My problem (and I acknowledge that it’s MY problem) is that when I wake up in the morning and realize where I am, and what I have to do, I am instantly struck with a variety of negataive emotions: rage, hostility, futility, hopelessness, despair…. Some of us need time to gel into our day, to cede to the reality we dread, and to accept the futility of our lives in a cublicle before we can COPE with our chirpy counterparts and their rose-colored glasses who wake up thinking life is wonderful. Not that we aren’t happy for you, but for some of us, it’s been a LONG time since we woke up feeling that way.
By Renee
February 7, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
Lisa - you obviously are not a people person. You seem to be unhappy with everything once you leave the confines of your home.
By The72John
February 7, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
No one MAKES companies offer insurance. It’s a perk to attract good employees. Plain and simple.
By Archie
February 7, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Kimberly I made that comment the way I did because I knew you could take it and because you know it’s true. I hope I say enough good things on this blog that women know I like them but you have to be called out sometimes. I am surprised that women don’t wash their hands the way Renee describes it. Another pet peeve of mine just came up at lunch time; single people that think they know what married people’s situation is about. Some single folk keep a relationship for 20 days and they think they know something, well try 20 years and then you’ll understand why that man maybe saying something to his woman that may seem mean but is really a reaction to something that happened before you(single person usually female) were around.
By Jack
February 7, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Pet Peeve #1: People who don;t have children who think they are qualified to tell a parent how to raise their kid. If you haven’t done it, you don’t have a clue.
By Jack
February 7, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
On the subject for this week:
Yes. I love to have someone who did not attend medical school tell my doctor how to diagnose, test and treat me.
By Archie
February 7, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
Right on 72John to your 2:14.
By Brian Curtis
February 7, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
Ah, but “it takes a village,” remember? And we’re all certainly paying taxes to support your kid.
So if your tyke’s being a screeching brat in a public place (restaurant, theater, etc.), we have the right—possibly even the responsibility—to intervene.
By Jack
February 7, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
Since I’ve been a parent, I have learned how to tune out screeching kids in public. I feel for the parents.
By Scalia
February 7, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
I have to agree, Brian Curtis.
There was a kid telling his Mom to shut-up recently at the grocery store. She just smiled, and acted like that was normal. He threw a bloody tantrum shortly after that. It was the biggest spectacle I had ever seen.
By Renee
February 7, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
There is a difference between a screeching child and a misbehaving child. People without children, somehow think babies and toddlers and even young kids do not make noise and if they do, somehow they are being bad. That’s what kids do, they make noise, usually at inopportune (sp) times.
By Jack
February 7, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
My father used to say children should be seen and not heard.
By Renee
February 7, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Thats how I was brought up. But I think it only applies when the child is old enough to understand and obey. Likewise parents shouldn’t take young kids to certain places, like concerts, movies (that aren’t for kids) etc..
By The72John
February 7, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
Yes, Jack, but they did things differently in the eighteenth century.
By Brian Curtis
February 7, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
Renee: Well, that’s just crazy talk! Everyone knows children belong everywhere, like in R-rated movies, orchestral concerts, and intimate restaurants!
Anybody who wants peace and quiet at events like these just hates kids, that’s all.
By RF
February 7, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
you are sooo right, Renee. I didn’t go to movies with my boys when they were too young to know how to sit and watch. But, I will NEVER let one tell me to ‘shut up’. He better hope he has on thick drawers if that happens!! As my mom says “you better give your heart to Jesus, ‘cause your butt’s mine!” Children will be children, and I smile all too knowingly at the loud ones in the restaurant. I love them, but it will be a very cold day in July in Georgia when I endure a fit in a public place. That poor mom!!
By lozen
February 7, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
Okay I’m at the front of this store. A little kid comes running toward me. I thought he would veer away at the last minute but NO. He runs right into me, turns around, runs back to his starting point, and heads for me again. His mother, I thought, was paying for merchandise 3 feet away from us and ignored what was happening. This time I’m ready for him, I sidestep him and say, “You shouldn’t run into people. That’s not nice.” That sure got her attention. The mother turns around and says, “Are you talking to my child? You don’t tell my child what to do. I’m his mother and if you have a problem with my child you talk to me.”
By Renee
February 7, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Exactly — there are some places that are just inappropriate to take your children to. Usually if the child doesn’t want to be there is one indication. A baby doesn’t want to be in a movie theater, hence the crying. A two year old doesn’t want to be at Ruth Chris. A three year old doesn’t want to be at a concert, and the list goes on and on.
I can’t even imagine my reaction if my child at any age told me to shut up. I can’t even imagine ~shaking my head~
By Renee
February 7, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
I agree, if the parent is around, any comments about the childs behavior should be directed to the parent.
By rebecca
February 7, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
One of my biggest pet peeves is when I am trying to read a book, newspaper or magazine and people do things like cover the page or tap the material to get my attention. This is usually followed by an argument that ensues when they say something like “stop reading and talk to me”. I wouldn’t dream of picking up a book in the middle of a conversation but people think of starting a conversation in the middle of my book, and worse yet they have the nerve to insist I participate in the conversation that I didn’t want in the first place.
I also hate badly behaved children (although I have to say to the people who complain about my infant crying in Wal mart, she was sleeping in peace until everyone who passed felt the need to get in her face or grab her hands)
The pants thing annoys me to no end, and parents who allow their children run wild in public annoy me far more than the kids. Obviously the kids don’t know any better. Expecting badly taught kids to have manners is like expecting a chimp to read.
By Jack
February 7, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
That was the 19th century John. LOL
Lozen. You should have told the Mom that if her kid intentionally ran into you again, you will fall on the floor and sue her a$$.
By T. Brewster
February 7, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
An employer should have the right to hire and fire whomever s/he wishes, for whatever reason.
Likewise, an individual should have the right to do or not do whatever s/he wishes off the company clock, just as s/he has the right to work or not work for a particular employer.
Nevertheless, eventually the government is going to tell us how much to weigh and what kind of running shoes to wear, whether private business does or not.
By the way, does a woman of child-bearing age cost an employer’s policy more because she chooses to have several children (and also take family leave)? How about a fat man over 60, or an alcoholic?
Living is hazardous to your health.
By Jack
February 7, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
We were all happy when they came out with the urine test for all job applicants. Polygraph too. Can’t use it in court but we can deny you employment cause we didn’t like your answers.
By Archie
February 7, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
Lozen I agree with your actions regarding your earlier post about the child. You did right to say something since the parent was obviously letting her child run around. If the parents’ feelings were hurt…tough.
By Chilao
February 7, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
this thing about urine tests, I have had 3-4 over the years. One place, a bank, insisted my test be THAT AFTERNOON, go DIRECTLY to the testing place. Did not get the job and did not want it, after the interview.
But the first one I did, at a manufacturing plant(common there before other types of businesses, due to equipment operated), anyway, I did the test around 1986, for IT work, and when I handed my testing slip into the director of personnel, he remarked “Now you can go and shoot up”.
Meaning they would not be testing me again.
By Renee
February 7, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
I wasn’t saying that I disagreed with lozen because of the mothers feelings being hurt. If the end result is to get better behavior from the child that must start with the parent. Saying something to the child will do absolutely nothing but cause more problems. Although I doubt the parent would be receptive either, I don’t personally believe you should confront a young child, nor scold them about them behavior, if they are not family.
By lozen
February 7, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
I swear I will never pee in a cup for any potential employer. This has been a lousy day and my posts started and end with p**! Appropriate!!!!
By lozen
February 7, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
The word was p-i-s-s and describes my day perfectly!
By Jack
February 7, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
Scold the parent instead. Off with their head!
By Just Being Me
February 7, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
I think it’s okay to say something like “Now, that’s not nice,” or “you’re going to hurt yourself,” to a kid who’s acting a fool. I wouldn’t chastise the kid if his mother was there, and what Lozen said was definitely chastising, but the mother really should’ve been paying attention.
It’s so funny how she didn’t notice her kid running into people, but took immediate notice when someone said something to his bad behind.
By Nikita
February 7, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
Brewster, exactly. Yes, she does. An argument supporting family leave and various other forms of family subsidies is that we choose to subsidize these things because they enrich the society — but ultimately you’re choosing to have a baby and in my opinion should pay equally to all of those of us out here who haven’t made that same choice.
By Jack
February 7, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
Confucious say: It is better to be p-i-s-s-ed off than p-i-s-s-ed on.
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 7, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this
Saying something to the child will do absolutely nothing but cause more problems.
Not true, I guess in Israel things are a little different than in the states. Parents there expect you to speak to their child directly if they are doing something they shouldn’t be while mom’s back is turned or she’s in the middle of something that does not allow her to correct her child’s behavior at that moment. It is considered to be courteous to do so…
By Lisa
February 8, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this
Renee-you’re too funny! I mean come on. Just because I want people doing customer service to speak ENGLISH, just because I don’t like for your car stereo to rattle MY windows and wake my baby, and just because I don’t like being ordered to smile on command…all this means that I’m unhappy with EVERYTHING outside my home????
We were doing pet peeves dear. I listed 3 things. Maybe I should’ve listed 4.
4-bloggers that make ridiculous statements(aka-Renee)
By the way, why did you call me out on this when you said nothing to Kimberly and her “don’t even think about speaking to me in the morning” attitude?
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this
Any comments about Coretta Scott King’s funeral?
By AllaboutME
February 8, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
…i hate nice people…the over friendly bastards who always end their conversations with upbeat praise for life or god…like either explains why I need endure their perkiness…. bosses who dump their workload on you then come into work talking about her spa appointment…. militants who dont think, live or dress for themselves but rally about stupid causes like offensive comics or the sanctity of chickens bound for KFC… funerals used for political platforms…AJC reports on celebrity breakups, hookups, weight, pregnancy, law suits, drug use…skinny celebrities in low cut gowns showing augmented surgery types… that second place looser American Idol from 2 years ago… women who say: The World Is A Village but have never read the tedious book by that unfit mother of Chelsea who aint got a clue how to raise a child… fat a***** waiting for FEMA to fix their pathetic underused over-indulged entitlement life…suburbanites with a tiny lawn who let their dogs run out in the morning because they are too lazy to walk them…idiots with the latest gadgets talking how much they paid for it…like I care…hair in noses so long it blends with mustaches…old sagging militants who rage against p** in a cup whose behavior got us to that point…
By Jack
February 8, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
It was way too long. Uncle Jimmy made a fool of himself again. Along with other liberals who showed great disrespect to Correta by using her funeral to diss the president. They should all be flogged for that.
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
Somehow I don’t think Mother King would have minded, Jack. She was a political figure, and just about every comment made was in line with her political views and clearly represented everything she fought for.
On the flip side, I did think that President Bush’s remarks were warm and appropriate, though I doubt they were heartfelt. And, I loved G.H. Bush’s remarks.
By Scalia
February 8, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
That’s true that they were out of line. But…the president and the media are to blame as well. Neither of them ever gives a decent platform that allows civil discourse. All questions have to be cleared, as well as, topics.
Most commentators do not have the balls to ask a decent question that will allow an honest debate. I would really like to see the President have a decent debate. If he had a checks and balance discourse on national television or a fireside chat(?) like Roosevelt, all of his dissers would have to shut up.
By Renee
February 8, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
I have to disagree with you Jack. A funeral for someone of her stature in society would be expected to be that long. Her husbands funeral was 4-5 hours. And nothing was said yesterday that Coretta herself (IMO) wouldn’t have approved of.
By AllaboutMe
February 8, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
Just Being Me…yeah the cost of the whole thing could have paid 70 full-time scholarships for underprivileged students at Emory… she sure made the rounds as a corpse…more traveling about than most people do dead… loved the deadbeat leaders milking lost causes…says a lot about her humility…vanity…greed…little about why we should care….
By Confused
February 8, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
Why in the world did Ted (burp, hiccup) Kennedy get to speak. What a bafoon!
Using a funeral to bash Bush was about as classy as using plastic spoons with china.
But, hey, it gave Oprah another chance to act the big shot.
Tacky is a paper printing a photo of a dead person with a celebrity kneeling over it! No respect….no respect.
By Jack
February 8, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
Although she may hve agreed with what was said, a funeral is no place to promote a political agenda. Scalia you are so wrong that I don’t want to take the time to explain. Just look at all of the free passes dems get as opposed to the reps. Lowery, Carter and all of the others that spoke of the president instead of Coretta should learn to shut their big mouths. Anyone who thinks Jimmy Carter was a good president probably wasn’t working at that time. What an embarassment.
By Jack
February 8, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Yeah. the pious Oprah made sure she stayed in front of the casket long enough to get a good photo shot. I’m surprised she didn’t bend down and kiss Ms. King for better effect.
By Lyrazel
February 8, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
As Mother King already knows: gravestones cheer the living, they are no use to the dead.
By Sanhan
February 8, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this
Thoughts on Coretta King’s funeral: The perceived fanfare was as much a joyful expression of Martin’s life as Coretta’s; I doubt she would have wanted it any other way. Their comittment to the cause of equality was and is evidence that the personal is political and vice versa.
I’m unclear on the protocol of who decides who can attend whose funeral, if the president needed an invitation or not. Personally, I think he had no place there; his policies and personal beliefs are antithetical to those of the Kings; his vice president voted agains the King Holiday. He shut out protesters with buses in Atlanta a few years ago. His own pathetic behavior in the Hurricane Katrina debaucle should have made him ashamed to show his face, especially when the budget he signed yesterday included no money for rebuilding the areas destroyed, but included tax breaks for the rich.
That having been said, I thought W. Bush’s words were surprisingly appropriate and coherent, and almost eloquent. I admit that the bar is low for W. and I may be damning him with faint praise. But I can’t help asking the cynical questions: Why was he really there? Was it for photo ops and to try to improve his rating among Black Americans, which is currently at 2%? And did he write his own speech?
As for the politicization of other speakers, perhaps because Bush and the current administration have marginalized official dissent, they must speak their truth whenever they can. I think Martin and Coretta King’s lives are living testament to speaking truth to power, and as they knew too well, something that Bush needs to learn, sometimes the truth hurts.
By Archie
February 8, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Right on Scalia for your 9:39. Five or 6 hours is a bit long for a funeral but Scalia is right that Bush does not like people to disagree with him and his version of government tries to remove any sign of protest from his sight. Using a funeral for political comments though is not good protocol.
By lozen
February 8, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
AllAboutMe, AllIHateIsPeopleLikeYou
By Jack
February 8, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
Sandy. If G.W.B. had not attended the funeral, you would have heard the screems from the dems from Atlanta to California.
Kerry would have been so much better.
By kimberly
February 8, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
Sanhan, I too was inspired by those who spoke up in the presence of Der Dubya. Clinton (once again demonstrating he loves women) spoke that we should remember her as a WOMAN, a person with feelings, etc. and how she made choices that weren’t easy, and how she and Martin weren’t deterred from fighting for a cause just because it seemed unwinnable; and how WE make a choice. “What are WE going to do with the rest of OUR lives?”
I found that very inspiring. As someone who pays attention, questions, debates, and takes abuse from right-wing screech monkeys, I often think of throwing in the towel, giving up on the America I grew up believing it, learning French and leaving for friendlier soils. (Yes, I’ve already been invited to move, whichever monkey is fixing to suggest it.) But the people who spoke of Mrs. King yesterday remind me that there were far braver people who faced great danger and persecution to stand up for what was right. They embarked on their marches, heads high, KNOWING they’d get their heads clubbed in. But they did it anyway. So…. I guess the choice is mine now: What will I do? Will I run away from the unpleasantness, or will I stand my ground believing justice, truth, compassion and peace MUST BE what America is really about? climbing off soapbox now and getting to work
By Jack
February 8, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
I agree with your post Kim, but a funeral is no place for the soap box.
Kerry would have been so much better.
By RF
February 8, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
I watched most of the first three hours of the funeral with my kids in class. We listened to the speeches, and they were most inspired by Maya Angelou and President Bush. Lowery came in a close second with the Clintons in third. I wholeheartedly expected the funeral to be at least a little political. I doubt any such occasion would have been overlooked by Mrs. King herself. I suspect she was looking down and chiding some for their less tasteful remarks, but overall I think would have approved.
Remember folks, it is the debate and the disagreement that keeps this country going. It’s a tug-of-war in politics and occasionally one side gets a little bigger pull. In the long run, the two parties balance each other and the end result is usually somewhere in the middle. Debate, mud-slinging, and games are the way it works, and compromise is the usual outcome. Hasn’t changed much in over two-hundred years, and I suspect will keep going for a few years more.
By Sanhan
February 8, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
Excuse me, Jack, but I’m not quite getting your point. How is Kerry any less political or soap-boxy? And since when does GWB care what Democrats scream about? Or did you mean Black Democrats? (It’s okay to say it; I think they know they’re Black.)
By Renee
February 8, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
People made political statements at her funeral, only because she was a great political figure in our society. Everything she worked to achieve, boils down to being political. She wouldn’t have asked Joseph Lowery to speak at her funeral if she didn’t know what he would say. Nobody needs to respect the president in that venue, it’s not his funeral or his families funeral. Although George Bush did a 100% better than I anticipated. I personally doubt she would have had a problem with it, but whose to say.
And I am far from an Oprah fan, she doesn’t really affect me one or the other. But I understand that she was a personal friend of Coretta Scott King, and I don’t think her standing in front of the casket was to get a photo opportunity. There is nowhere she can go that camera’s are not to be snapping, so unfortunately she was not able to have any privacy. I doubt she needed a picture of her next to the casket to further her career.
By lozen
February 8, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
Sanhan, I think we must have been separated at birth, except you’re “nicer” than I am in general! I got the bark and you got the calm spirit. I thought the funeral was joyful, funny, respectful, strange, a tribute to Mrs. King and to MLK. It was also a political platform. Ted Kennedy may be a “buffoon” to some of you, but he seems to be one of the few who care a little about the people of America. And I really do not understand why some people hate Jimmy Carter so much. Everybody who took any jab at little Bush, good for them!
By Jack
February 8, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
My point was that Kerry would have been a better president. And that statement was dripping sarcasm.
By Jack
February 8, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
How bout those interest rates when Jimmy was prez. About 20+ %. Unemployment out the roof. Yeah he was a great leader.
By Jack
February 8, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
Lozen. I imagine you will vote for a female for prez since it appears you like leaders that have no balls.
By kimberly
February 8, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
Jack, your attempts to provoke negative discourse through your sarcasm and nyah-nyah finger-pointing are moot to those of us who, today, wish to remain inspired toward something more positive. See ya.
By Chilao
February 8, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
I have a hard time with Carter over depriving all those Olympic hopefuls their opportunity in Moscow, period, let alone over it being the result of the Soviet’s Afghanistan invasion. Thought that very childish.
That other stuff could be argued was inherited, from both Vietnam era and first oil embargo, but especially after the second oil crisis. LOL
I actually saw him give the commencement address at Duke in spring, 1997 I think it was.
By Scalia
February 8, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Jack, I’m confused. I am agreeing with you that the funeral was the wrong place. But, I reiterate, there is no civil discourse with the president. Commentators are not allowed to ask him hard questions or spontaneous questions. I want a nice, civil discourse between Democrats and Republicans, the president and vice-president. Nothing more and nothing less.
By Scalia
February 8, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
I forgot to add something. I don’t want the president, or anybody for that fact, to be put on something and them being treated like it is a firing squad.
Think about it like this: In high school, etc., there is a debate team. They compete with other teams. An argument is laid out, and then solutions are presented. There isn’t any fistfighting, etc. A civil discourse takes place. Why can’t it be presented at the national level?
By lozen
February 8, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
Jack, I would vote for some women for president. Some women have more balls than some men!
By Chilao
February 8, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
You mean like those designated protest sites about 4 blocks away and around the corner from the actual meetings? Chain-link fencing and all.
Think that was a first.
By Nikita
February 8, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
Pet peeves: 1. Drunken smoking idiots in music clubs or elsewhere — ya know, the ones who wave their arms around while holding lighted objects.
2. People who are racist and classist and won’t admit it. People who refer to my ‘hood as “marginal” ‘cause, ya know, black people live there. 3. People who think the world should be made safe for their children or for them and therefore think the rest of us should join them in destroying all entertainment, behavior, etc., which is not appropriate for them.
4. The diet police, who go ape*&^% every time I mention that I’m on one.
By Jack
February 8, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
I suspect Kimberly does. (I meant that in a GOOD way Kim)
By Sanhan
February 8, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Lozen, I doubt that I’m nicer than anybody, because often me knee jerk reaction is to rip someone a new orifice. Of course, the law of karma comes in to play, and having been on the receiving end of way too many new orifices, I’ve learned (the hard way) to temper my temper with facts. As Scalia points out, civil discourse is more conducive to the betterment of the human race. The middle way, for me, is between the knee jerk and the enlightened. That’s where I humbly find humanity.
There is no situation so desperate that you cannot, through your humanity, give it meaning.
(Bruno Bettelheim).
There are heroes among us who do this everyday; Mr. and Mrs. King were two of the greats. Nicholas Kristof is another, fighting for attention to be given to the atrocities in Darfur.
And one more thought about GWB, dissent, and what makes a great president. He was sworn to uphold the Constitution, and instead has created a constitutional crisis. If you think GWB is a great leader, ask yourself if you think he would be willing to die to protect the Constitution. He wasn’t willing to serve his country to his full ability as so many others did during Vietnam. While that war was misguided, it was more about protecting democracy than Bush’s war of choice. He is less about protecting the United States, proven by his lack of dedication and motivation to capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan, instead directing his energies and policies in the privatization of the Iraq war to benefit the industrial war machine.
The rest of us need to ask ourselves the same question if our democracy is going to survive. Would you be willing to die to uphold the Constitution? If you say no because it’s an imperfect ideology, as yourself if it will be more perfect if the balance of powers is disrupted and the president, not just this president, but every president hereafter, can function without oversight from the other branches of government? This is what Bush and Company have brought us to. Ask yourself what kind of bastardized democracy he claims to be spreading.
So yeah, 20% interest rates suck, but as a crime or treasonous activity, it sure pales in comparison.
By Jack
February 8, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Scalia. I don’t think any president has had the courage to do the fireside chats like Roosevelt since then. Who would?
By Jose Arcadio
February 8, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Nikita, I agree on all of those pet peeves.
Another pet peeve: when people come up to my friends and I when we are the minority in a bar/club and feel the need to tell us that they like Dave Chappelle, or who their favorite rapper is. Or when they say, “Yo, yo, yo, what’s up?” and decide to emphasize a certain dialect.
By lozen
February 8, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
And AllaboutMe, it’s far better to be a sagging militant than a sagging big f-ing ZERO who never did anything for anybody except yourself your whole worthless life. Mrs. King is worth a thousand like you. You are nothing compared to her. You are laughable; that’s about it.
By Jack
February 8, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
What crime and treasonous activity? If you’re talking about the wire tapping, every president since WWII has done it. Including Uncle Jimmy and Bill C.
By lozen
February 8, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
Talk about knee jerk! Our prez-i-dent has not done anything wrong! Screw the constitution. He is wunnerful. He can do no wrong. He is a christian and god picked him to avoid the Vietnam war so he could be our prez and protect us from satan. Blaaaaaaa, blaaaaa, blaaaaaa
By Jack
February 8, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
LMAO Lozen. You sweet thing!
By lozen
February 8, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
I am not in a good mood. I’m still not over yesterday. Trying to let it go, let it go.
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
Okay, I’m back. I have but one thing to say on this subject of whether or not the political comments were appropriate.
Aside from Mother King being a civil rights matriarch and activist, she was a person.
Most of those who were invited to speak received an invitation because they knew her personally, or because the family thought it would be appropriate to have them greet the people who came to bid Mother King farewell.
G.H. Bush made a comment that I think sums the whole thing up. He said (paraphrased) that he had never seen anything like this. So, I say to many of you today that you’ve probably never seen anything like it either. It’s a black thing (and maybe even a black/church thing) and unless you’re black, you just wouldn’t understand it.
I’ll add to that, that if I was invited to speak at a friend’s homegoing service (as we call it in the black church), I would pay tribute to that friend based on what I know about him/her, based on my experience with him/her. Most of those that spoke, knew her well… knew the legacy she was leaving behind… knew what she stood for, what she fought for. They loved her intimately and personally, and would never say anything that would dishonor her legacy. They spoke about the things that they believed Coretta Scott King would have them to say… the things she would want to hear.
I may not agree with all that was said, but I think they honored her well.
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
And, Scalia, the president wasn’t “put on” anything. He was extended an invitation and he accepted. He didn’t have to be there. We can’t forget that Mrs. King and President Bush were not friends. He attended her homegoing service out of respect, out of duty - not out of love or honor.
By The72John
February 8, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
Fireside chats?
How about starting with something simpler - you know, like public appearances where the entire audience isn’t screened to ensure that nothing but fans of the President appear.
How about campaign appearances where 13-year-old children aren’t taken into custody by county sheriffs and detained until the President is gone, because they had a pro-Kerry bumpersticker on their notebooks?
I’m not making those things up - they are well-documented. The public appearance audience vetting happens EVERY time the President makes a public appearance, and the campaign incidents happened many times.
And you think the President doesn’t deserve a taste of his own medicine? I’ll grant you, turning a funeral into a politically-colored reprimand might not have been in the best taste, but I find it very hard to get overly upset about it. In fact, I think Dr. King and his wife would have approved.
By RF
February 8, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
wiretapping and surveillance have been going on for generations, kids. The opposition just decided to ‘point it out’ to make Bush look bad, just like they used the ‘affair’ with Monica to trash Clinton in his second term. Every two-term president faces this kind of emasculation from the opposing party. As for wiretapping, Clinton, Carter, Kennedy all did it too. How do you think they caught the boys at Watergate?
I may not like everything Bush does, but he did give me a nice tax credit that every parent, democrat and republican alike, qualifies for. That’s worth something to me as a single parent, and I appreciate it. I didn’t like everything Clinton stood for, but we did have some good economic growth during his tenure. I don’t like war, but I do see the need to remove despots like Hussein from power. We could have done it quickly and efficiently with special forces, but then everyone would complain the inhumanity of that.
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Renee, your 10:56 was right on!
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
In fact, I think Dr. King and his wife would have approved.
I think so too. That’s why I didn’t find it distasteful or inappropriate.
By RF
February 8, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
JBM- as an educated person, I think you have to know that whether or not the president was friends with Mrs.King, you’re stretching ti to say that he was only there out of duty. You’re allowed that opinion, and I respect your right to it, but I think it would be hard for any educated person besides the devil himself to simply be there out of ‘duty’. Whether or not she liked him, she would have done the same out of respect AND honor if asked, and I suspect Bush respected her. I’m sure his wife did as a former public school teacher. I honestly can’t think of many educated people who wouldn’t have respected her, even if they didn’t agree with her ideolgy.
By kimberly
February 8, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
What crime and treasonous activity? Oh Jack dear, do you really want a LIST? Re: the wiretapping: Doing it without securing a warrant first (or seeking FISA within 72 hours) is AGAINST THE LAW. Men have been beating up their wives since the dawn of time. Does that make it RIGHT? You know what, you’re not going to impede on my tiny, almost imperceptible glimmer of hope today. So if that’s your goal, you’re welcome to STUFF it up your a— and call it DINNER… sweetheart. (Don’t make me smack you with my b@lls.)
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
RF, I said that Pres. Bush was there out of respect and duty. I don’t think he appreciated her, or honored what she stood for, but I’m sure he had respect for her, and attended her homegoing out of respect and duty.
By Lurker
February 8, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
Looks like Jack will be getting his biscuits elsewhere today.
By The72John
February 8, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
At the time that Dr. King was leading the cause of civil rights, Bush was an affirmed racist. He flew a rebel flag in his dorm room.
If Democrats like Robert Byrd are to be held forever accountable for their past prejudices, why shouldn’t Bush be held to the same standard?
By RF
February 8, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
JBM- possibly not, but look at it this way. How many politicians and dignitaries showed up for her husband’s funeral? That was a bad time and a poor response to a funeral. At least we are less divided now, and I figure most people, the president included, had to be in awe of the woman and her consistency and peace in the face of all she dealt with and all the work she did.
By The72John
February 8, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
At least we are less divided now
We aren’t less divided now - are you nuts? We’re just divided along different lines.
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
RF, you’re not saying anything different from what I said. Okay, let’s say GWB was in awe of CSK and her consistency and peace in the face of all she dealt with and all the work she did. Wouldn’t that mean he attended her funeral out of respect????
I already agree (and stated initially) that GWB attended out of respect. I just add that they were not friends, did not agree, shared little if anything in common. In fact, he pretty much fought against everything she fought for. That’s where the duty comes in.
I don’t think you’ve said anything to refute my claim, and I’m sticking to it: GWB attended out of respect and duty.
By kimberly
February 8, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
72John, If Democrats like Robert Byrd are to be held forever accountable for their past prejudices, why shouldn’t Bush be held to the same standard?
Trying to compare Republicans and Democrats is like trying to compare apples & oranges. See, whatever R’s do is okay. If it’s bad, it’s forgivable, ‘cause they’re good ‘muricans. Whatever D’s do is not only NOT okay, it must NEVER be forgiven. What part of this has Bill O’Reilly failed to make perfectly clear?
The sooner we deal with the reality of this, the sooner we can understand why we must all either shut up and agree with the monkeys, or move to France.
By Sanhan
February 8, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
Jack, no, the other treasonous activity, where he lied to the American people about our reasons for going to war as “a last resort” when Congress gave him power for the second UN resolution, and the fact that he declared war (not Congress) with the one member of the Axis of Evil that doesn’t have nuclear weapons, and diverted arms and money from the one guy and his organization who did attack us. How is that keeping us safer from Bin Laden and Al Quaeda? Answer: It’s not. But Bin Laden is much more valuable to Bush alive than he is dead so he can use the fear that Bin Laden represents to manipulate policy.
As for the wire tapping, that in itself is not the crime. The crime is not getting a FISA judge to issue a warrant. It’s too hard for Bush to work in the confines of the law. Or too dangerous for Bush to create a paper trail to indicate how many people have been listened to without benefit of a warrant, and not informing the Intelligence committee about what he was doing, which could have been done in a closed session (from which there has historically never been a leak). Who is charged to hold the president accountable? And why aren’t they doing the job they swore to do?
Remember, if you can be spied on without a warrant, you can be framed for a crime you didn’t commit. Under this president you can be declared an enemy combatant and rended to a secret prison. You can also be arrested for wearing a T-shirt in the People’s House.
Bush is more of a threat to democracy than Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein ever were. And if the forum for his follies happens to be a funeral, it’s better than no forum at all, with all due respect to the departed and her family.
By Jack
February 8, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
Thanks for getting my back RF.
Kimberly, you may beat me anytime. Please use the riding crop. And PLEASE don’t move to France. Those poor Frenchmen wouldn’t know what to do.
By chuck
February 8, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Hello group. I think it is obvious that companies should not have control over SOME aspects of the private lives of their employees, but there are a few areas that crossover in that they affect JOB PERFORMANCE, PRODUCTIVITY AND SAFETY. Smoking is one of those areas. I don’t know if any of you watch “Survivor”, but have you seen the guy who is on nicotine withdrawal? He’s having the worst time trying just to get through the day without a tobacco fix. He is jittery, irritable and unable to get much done. Most public buildings have a ban on ANY smoking in or around the entrances to them. I’m betting that those people who are addicted to smoking are less productive in that environment than those who don’t smoke. Alcoholics and drug addicts would also be included under those areas of life that employers would want to keep from hiring or push out the door. While I don’t want this to turn into a debate on homosexuality, I think that that is another area where employers should be allowed to choose whether or not they want that kind of lifestyle representing their companies. I would also think that if there were serious problems with the overall health of a POTENTIAL employee, they would be facing almost certain loss of productivity and should be able to make the decision to hire or not hire based on that. OF COURSE THEY SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE HEALTH SCREENING IF IT IS GOING TO BE A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT. There are probably other areas where employers should have the right to choose whether or not to hire someone. I think the key is that they should follow the applicable laws which PERMIT certain types of “discrimination” but prohibit other types. It is all about the free market AND following the law.
As for the politicization of the funeral yesterday, the more I see Jimmy Carter the more disgusted I get. I think that he has turned into a bitter old man, disgruntled because his presidency is universally seen as a failure of monumental proportions. When he first got out of office he tried to rehab himself by doing good and I even admired him for a while. Then he broke the unspoken rule of decorum concerning those who follow you in office. He has gotten to the point now where even his strongest character trait…integrity… is in question by telling outrageous lies about everything to do with GWB. It is really sad.
I don’t have much time this week so I thought I’d get my joke in early:
A Florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies: “I’m sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week” The florist is pleased and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open there is a thank you card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: “I’m sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week” The cop is happy and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a thank you card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Later a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: “I’m sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The Republican is very happy and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a thank you card and a dozen different books such as “How to Improve Your Business” and “Becoming More Successful.” Then a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: “I’m sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The Democrat is very happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there’s a dozen Democrats lined up waiting for a free haircut. And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between left and right.
By Jack
February 8, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
I having too much fun today.
By chuck
February 8, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
So SANHAN, were you asking those same questions about your buddy Bill Clinton? George Bush showed up for duty. Where was Bill?
Consider the following FACTS:
Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting all contractual conditions of registering for the draft.
Selective Service Number 3 26 46 228. Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964. Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968. Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969. Bill Clinton refuses to report and is not inducted into themilitary.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United StatesArmy Reserves on August 07, 1969, under authority of Col. E. Holmes.
Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment. Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the Universityof Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistmentwith Army Reserv. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40(2)(a) registrant who has failed to report…remain liable for induction.’
Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1, 1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report forinduction is INELIGIBLE!
Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justiceunder Public Law 90-40.
Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while afugitive from justice.
Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from Carter. Bill Clinton FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON ever to serve as Presidentof the United States.
All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, publiclaws, and various books that have been published, and have not been refuted by Clinton.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, President Clintonpromised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
Af udi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clintonpromised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clintonpromised that those responsible wouldbe hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 &injured 39U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
********************************************* Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an estimated 3,000 peoplein New York and Washington, DC. who are now dead, would be alive today.
AN INTERESTING QUESTION: This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Withoutcasting stones, it is a legitimate question.
There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops cheapsoftware and gives billions of dollars to charity.
The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why was it thatthe Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the eight years in office, than Osama bin Laden?
THINK ABOUT IT! ********************************* It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for heforthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written. This from two people who spent 8 years being unable to recall past events while under oath.
By Netbanker
February 8, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! Looks like y’all are doing a wonderful job on here. I’m WAY over my head so I’ll try to stop in late this week or next week.
I tell you corporate america punishes people who actually take the vacation days they’re owed. I still have 2.5 weeks from last year that I didn’t have the time to take, took ONE lousy day off yesterday to spend with my best friend while she was in town, and came in this morning to 75 email, 4 meeting requests for TODAY on top of the 4 I already had booked, and have been assigned 2 more projects.
On that HAPPY note…off to “Do more with less”
By kimberly
February 8, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this
Chuck: Interesting accusation. Jimmy Carter is a LIAR? Haha! Please tell us specifically what lies came out JC’s mouth. Please! The President so absurdly honest that even his OWN people couldn’t stand him…. HAHAHAHA! The world awaits your amazing myth-busting powers! HAHAHA!
By Scalia
February 8, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this
JBM: I never said that he was “put on” anything. I said that he should not be put in front of a firing squad if said debate ever happens. I never made the claim that the King funeral was a firing squad.
By kimberly
February 8, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
Hey Chuck, what specifically is it about bashing Clinton that gives you guys a h@rd-on? Seriously Dude. He likes girls. He’ll never b-ne you, not matter how hard you try to twist history to make everything his fault. Give it up. You’re embarrassing yourself.
By RF
February 8, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
JBM- I understand. I guess what I was trying to say, and trying to type in a rush between classes, was that regardless of why he was there, the fact that he was speaks volumes. I can’t think of a single situation where that many heads and former heads of state, have bothered to show up and say anything of any importance. Just the fact that two republicans AND two democrats could show up and praise the woman, even if out of a sense of duty, is an important step in the right direction, don’t you think?
By The72John
February 8, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
Lol - trust Chuck to always take a moment to bash gays, no matter what the topic.
Personally, I think companies should be able to ban fundamentalist Christians from working in them, seeing as how they don’t actually grasp reality.
Why hasn’t God “taken you home” yet, Chuck? Can’t come too soon for me.
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
Scalia, I was referring to your 11:22, where you said:
I don’t want the president, or anybody for that fact, to be put on something and them being treated like it is a firing squad.
By chuck
February 8, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
KIMKIMKIMKIM, as usual you ignored the CONTEXT OF THE POST. It was in response to a statement that SANHAN made in which he accused GWB in the following manner:
If you think GWB is a great leader, ask yourself if you think he would be willing to die to protect the Constitution. He wasn’t willing to serve his country to his full ability as so many others did during Vietnam.
I just wondered if this philosophy extended to Bill Clinton as well. Clearly, it is hypocritical to denigrate Bush for his ACTUAL service, while excusing Clinton for his cowardice and REFUSAL to serve. If that is bashing, then so be it.
By The72John
February 8, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Hey look, Chuck bought into yet another hoax.
http://www.truthminers.com/hoaxarticles/draftdodger.htm
By The72John
February 8, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
Bush would be happy to let others die to defend the Constitution. He would sit in comfort on his ranch in Texas while poor people were killed instead.
Hey Chuck - why don’t YOU enlist. Put your money where your mouth is and take a bullet for cough-cough freedom. I promise to send flowers to your funeral. Big, brightly colored flowers.
By chuck
February 8, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
KIMKIMKIM, as usual you ignored the CONTEXT OF THE POST. It was in response to the accusation made by SANHAN when he said:
If you think GWB is a great leader, ask yourself if you think he would be willing to die to protect the Constitution. He wasn’t willing to serve his country to his full ability as so many others did during Vietnam.
I just wondered if that same philosophy extended to your hero Bill Clinton. If not, I think it is extrememly hypocritical to denigrate Bush for his ACTUAL service while at the same time excusing Clinton for his cowardice and REFUSAL to serve even when he was legally required to do so. If that is bashing, then so be it.
72john, I agree with you. Companies SHOULD be able to choose whether or not to hire a person who is a Christian. The point is that at this time, it is ILLEGAL to base hiring on race, religion, creed, gender, or national origin. There is no such restriction on hiring practices concerning other groups including homosexuals. I think that EVERY business should be able to hire ANYBODY they want to and NOT HIRE anybody they want to. If what they do is unpopular, people will stop doing business with them. Social engineering in the work place is inherently not productive.
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
RF: No. I’m afraid we disagree on this matter, bruh. I am not even slightly impressed, or appreciative, or pleased by GWB’s attendance yesterday. I was pleased by his speech, but that’s about it. My (original) point was that he wasn’t there out of love and honor, he was there out of respect and duty. So, to me, it wasn’t a big deal that some political comments were made that were in line with Mother King’s views and out of line with GWB’s deeds. Not a big deal to me at all, simply because he wasn’t there for the same reason the majority of the folks were.
By Scalia
February 8, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
72John, would you do the arrangement yourself? I’m thinking marigolds…:)
By Jack
February 8, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Chuck. You need to realize that Bill Clinton did no wrong, ever. He didn’t even inhale. He did not have sex with that woman. Shame on you for talking badly of him.
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
And Chuck, I am becoming more and more convinced every day that you have some secret desires that you battle with. There is no other explanation for your being so consistently compelled to discuss homosexuality in every single forum.
And by the way, even if you are bi-curious, that was very jerk-like of you to raise. Isn’t it funny how we went three days without even a mention of the subject, but the moment you appear - here we go again!!!
By Jack
February 8, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
This one is for Kim.
President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are sitting in a bar.
A guy walks in and asks the barman, “Isn’t that Bush and Rumsfeld sitting over there?”
The barman says, “Yep, that’s them.”
So the guy walks over and says, “Wow, this is a real honor! What are you guys doing in here?”
Bush says, “We’re planning World War III.”
And the guy says, “Really? What’s going to happen?”
Bush says, “Well, we’re going to kill 140 million Muslims this time and one redhead with big breasts”
The guy exclaimed, “A redhead with big breasts? Why kill a redhead with big breasts?” Bush turns to Rumsfeld and says, “See, I told you no one would worry about the 140 million Muslims”.
By chuck
February 8, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
I would be more than happy to enlist 72j, but I’m too old and gimpy kneed to pass muster. At the time I could have served, we were not in any war nor was there a threat of it. I went on to college and dedicated myself to public service in the CLASSROOM, where there are days I should receive combat pay. So tell me Mr. homodefender supreme, what have YOU done for your country? Yeah, I thought so. NOTHING.
I have actually looked in to going over to Iraq to teach. We haven’t really gotten to that point over there yet, but I would be willing to go.
By kimberly
February 8, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Snopes (www.snopes.com) also disavow’s Chuck’s little “tale” about Clinton. (I believe it’s called BEARING FALSE WITNESS, brother.) However it does confirm Rush Limbaugh’s claim that a cyst on his a— kept him from serving in the Vietnam war.
Jack, oh yes he did! {;-> That’s why the rep-uglies in DC hated him so much!
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Interesting website, John.
By chuck
February 8, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
JBM, that is just such a stupid statement. The topic is about whether or not COMPANIES should be able to discriminate in their hiring practices based on PRIVATE behavior. I stated that I didn’t want to begin a debate on that topic, but was just pointing out that companies can discriminate in some cases but not others and homosexuality was just an example. I am decidedly an equal opportunity discriminator. I just think that a private company should be able to hire or not hire anybody that they want to. Let the market decide.
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
Speaking of Clinton… there was one thing that rang out pretty loudly about CSK’s celebration yesterday. Black people lovvvvve Bill Clinton.
I wonder why.
I mean, I don’t think (most) black people even care about him letting a girl suck him off. They couldn’t care less what bad decisions he’s made, screw-ups, poor judgment, whatever. Black folks just love Bill Clinton.
By Jack
February 8, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Marigolds no. Pansies, yes.
By The72John
February 8, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
I think you ought to say public disservice, schmuck, based on your obvious flaws as an educator.
But hey - I’m not the one ranting and raving about how great the war in Iraq is. YOU are. Please - go on over and step on the first IUD you can find. You are in no way qualified to judge my contributions to society, especially through your neo-Nazi, neo-facist lens.
Actually, Fundymoron, you would probably be MUCH happier in that part of the world. You would be free to hate people as much as you like, with no laws making you hire anything but good, ole white males. Except, there just aren’t that many white males over there - or Christians…you’d have to lower yourself to working with lesser folk.
What’s it like being the embodiment of evil, Chuck? Do you find the horns and tail chafe a little, or are you used to them now after so many years of wearing them? Do you get tired of small children running from you, dogs barking at you, and Italian grandmothers spitting at you?
By Sanhan
February 8, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
Chuck, you’re mistaken in your assumption that I was a Clinton supporter when he ran for president. I wasn’t. I never voted for him. Honestly, most of my respect for him comes from realizing what a great president he was in comparison to GWB.
I have never seen any of that information you posted about Clinton being a convicted felon or being AWOL, which is surprising since every other aspect of his life was attacked and laid bare at every turn by Republicans, who needed to be united against an enemy; since communism was no longer a threat, they needed a new enemy, so they created one in Bill Clinton. They lied and lied about him, tried him in the press, and the only thing they could find to impeach him for was lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. With all the money they spent investigating him, you’d think they’d have found something bigger… Same with the wiretapping thing. If he had done this illegally, you know darn well it would have come up prior to now.
I thought he was a Rhodes scholar and had an education deferment.
But to answer my original question, yes, in retrospect, I think Clinton would have been willing to die to uphold the Constitution, which the Vietnam war was not about, as I thought I made clear.
Speaking of convicted felons working in government, how about Negroponte and the others convicted in Iran-Contra, also an act of treason, pardoned by G H Bush, now back again under W.
Oh, and I wonder if W tapped the phone call of the Bin Laden family he helped escape immediately following 9/11.
You keep raising those questions about Clinton, about which we can do nothing, and I’ll keep asking questions about Bush’s disdain for the Constitution, which he termed “that G******* piece of paper,” and his disdain for democracy, which as patriots, we are obligated to question.
On that note, Be more. Namaste. Till next week….
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
NO, CHUCK. THE TOPIC IS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT COMPANIES SHOULD BE ABLE TO DISCRIMINATE IN THEIR HIRING PRACTICES BASED ON HEALTH HABITS… PRIVATE BEHAVIOR RELATED TO HEALTH. But, I know, same difference right? Because of course health habits mean sex habits because sex habits include homosexual sex habits which lead to health problems, right???
Of course.
Please accept my apology. You’re right. This topic has everything to do with homosexuality and the only reason you were the first to bring it up is that the rest of us are way too ignorant to see the correlation between the two.
By Scalia
February 8, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
Yeah, it’s wild.
It seems to really irritate quite a few folks, for example, Chuck.
By The72John
February 8, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Touche, Jack - but I don’t do flowers. Gay =/= girl, ya know?
Really, Chuck - now you’re just lying. Again. If you “hadn’t wanted to start a discussion” you could have picked something else, like Religion. Good ole Chuck never misses an opportunity to gay bash - that’s why I despise him so very much.
There are reasons we have hiring protections in this country, and it has nothing to do with social engineering. It has everything to do with separating those qualities that have no bearing on how well one performs ones job from hiring decisions. I’m sure Chuck would LOVE at society where people could be fired on a whim by their boss for not being Christian enough. Thankfully, we’ve grown beyond that.
By Chilao
February 8, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Is it Friday already? Man this week has flown by.
Just overheard on X-Radio, DJ:
“They are coming out with a sequel to Brokeback Mountain, it will be called Brokeback Mountain II: Dances with Men.
The DJ also added “Com’on, man, that’s funny”.
LOL
someone else got it earlier, if a business wants to only hire left-handed Hispanics, that is their right. However, if they only hired left-handed Islamics, I would be concerned if it was a restaurant.
We all done with lunch, right?
By The72John
February 8, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
He stole that from Letterman’s top 10 list: You know you’re a gay cowboy if…
…Native Americans refer to you as “Dances with Men”
By Jack
February 8, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
Oh Sandy. Please don’t talk about pardons. Look who BC pardoned. Not your most wholesome group.
Chuck. Still waiting on that quote from the bible. Hard time finding it uh? Lozen s evil twin Lozenge couldn’t find it.
By Netbanker
February 8, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
FOR GOD SAKES STOP WITH THE CLINTON CRAP!!!!!!!! What difference does it make nowother than to continue to give conservatives the required Dem to hate and wail on?
He’s been out of freakin’ office for 6 years!!!!!!! He never claimed to have God on his side or to be of high moral character.
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
Yeah, Chuck. Why didn’t your statement say: While I don’t want this to turn into a debate on religion, I think that that is another area where employers should be allowed to choose whether or not they want non-Christians representing their companies.??????????
That would have made your point, wouldn’t it?
But, you purposefully chose to raise homosexuality because you have a fixation on homosexuality.
By Chilao
February 8, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
Oh is that where he got it.
thanks for the, what was it(looking in history) truthminers.
that whole clinton bj thing kinda cultural. I read the Thais put out an editorial back then that said if their prime minister Declined a bj from a younger girl, they would want him impeached.
By The72John
February 8, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
Well, you have to give Chuck-the-schmuck one thing - at least he’s consistent in his hate-mongering.
By Jack
February 8, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Hi Net. Are you the willing led by the unknowing, doing the impossible for the ungrateful?
John. My flower post was directed at Chuck. You know for his resting place.
By lozen
February 8, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Geez, I come back from lunch and scroll down quickly to see how much i missed. As soon as I saw the loooooooog posts I knew who was baaaaaaaack!
By Chilao
February 8, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
yes, yes, I KNOW the impeachment proceedings were not about the exact act, I know. LOL
By The72John
February 8, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
Just razzing you a little, Jack :-)
By RF
February 8, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
okay, JBM, we have met an impasse, and I am known for my rose-colored views at times. I have this knee-jerk reaction to try and see the positive in a situation :-)
Okay, who opened the dang door and let the dog, I mean Chuck, in the house?? You guys are gonna have to clean up the mud he tracks in!!
By Jack
February 8, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
Companies should monitor their employee’s habits. They shouldn’t smoke, drink, do drugs, exercise to excess or eat. They must be in bed and asleep by 9:00 and may have any fun at all.
By lozen
February 8, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
Social engineering in the work place is inherently not productive. And it sure wasn’t when done in the past in the south keeping blacks and whites separate and “unequal” and “protecting the little woman from hard work/high wages.” Were you ranting back then? Would you be ranting about it if it existed now? No. Didn’t think so.
By RF
February 8, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
Net- so why do we keep bringing up any president’s past? DRAMA, man, DRAMA. Anyone will use anything the can to defame someone they don’t like. It’s all about the soap-opera, ya know?
By kimberly
February 8, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
RF, he has left the house now after being smacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper for breaking a commandment. Which commandment is “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness?” I forget, but I always thought that was a biggie. He’s busy confessing his sin and asking forgiveness. Soon he’ll be arguing with the Lord because he soooooo wants to do it again tomorrow.
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
I know one cotton-picking thing. If one of my close friends spoke at my homegoing celebration, and said something in my honor, carrying my torch, preaching my message, and it offended another guest who wasn’t one of my close friends or family, I wouldn’t give a doggone.
By Scalia
February 8, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
72John, this is hilarious:
What’s it like being the embodiment of evil, Chuck? Do you find the horns and tail chafe a little, or are you used to them now after so many years of wearing them? Do you get tired of small children running from you, dogs barking at you, and Italian grandmothers spitting at you?
By lozen
February 8, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, for instance, has more balls than most of the men on here. However, I wouldn’t really frame it that way if I weren’t trying to rile good ole Jack!
By Netbanker
February 8, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Hey Jack! Enjoy the game on Sunday? I’m more along the lines of the p** off being directed by the ungrateful, to do the outrageous for the incompetent.
Thanks for the explanation RF. I generally live in a drama free zone. So how was Momma’s cooking on Sunday?
I started to laugh with your dog references to Chuck. The problem we’re having with Abby right now is the word NO. She’s hearing it a quite a lot at 5 months old (the doggie equivalent of the terrible 2’s), but I’ve noticed this look on her face that seems to say “What is this NO thing you keep talking and sometimes yelling about?”
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
Speaking of doggie problems, my 2 year-old Shih Tzu has begun snapping and biting at us when we take something from her or when it’s time to take her to bed at night. Any suggestions?
By Jack
February 8, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Lozen :)
By Netbanker
February 8, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
Lozen…my friend Sue would call it having some backbone and Kimberly definitely has one.
Jack…ain’t no way I’m working that company!
By RF
February 8, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
JBM- I don’t give a doggone either. I think everyone who came to the funeral expected the speeches that happened. Here’s an interesting thought: wouldn’t the speeches have been pretty much the same if GWB wasn’t there? I don’t think the message would have been any different. That’s fine with me—it was indeed in line with what CSK herself would have said. I was just glad the white boys were there, at least trying to do something right. I can give him a little credit for showing up and taking what was dished out. He knew it was coming, and could have avoided completely. At least he showed, that was all I was trying to say.
By Jack
February 8, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
JBM. Knock her across the room. Then she’ll think twice before biting the hand that feeds her.
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
Jack, shame on you.
RF, like you said: impasse. :-) I just don’t think any credit is due for GWB attending the services. We really see this very differently. But, that’s okay. We agree on just about everything else! LOL
By RF
February 8, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
Net- we ended up going to eat Chinese. The Momster was a bit under the weather and slept most of the afternoon, bless her heart. I was hoping for some home-cooked goodies, but oh well, Chinese is always a good second choice.
By Jack
February 8, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
Ok JBM. Just say, “bad dog”. Then, after she bites one of the children on your block and their lawyers are at your door you will wish you had done it.
By RF
February 8, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
JBM- soooo right! And you better bet I have been taught better than to argue with an educated, articulate woman (really any woman, but a smart one is even worse!!—LOL)
On the dog, I’d pop her little nose for sure if she bit me. She’s getting an attitude like a child, and has to learn. I watch that trainer guy on Animal Planet sometimes, and he says it’s a control issue. You wouldn’t let your daughter smart off without a response, so don’t let the little one either. Time for a little ‘come to Jesus meeting’.
By chuck
February 8, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
You people are so IRRATIONAL sometimes. It is ILLEGAL at the present time to discriminate in hiring practices based on RELIGION. I was giving an example of a form of LEGAL discrimination to support the idea of discrimination for OTHER LEGAL reasons like SMOKING.
AS for the supposed refutation of the post on the draft dodger Clinton, 2 people referred to GWB as “dodging” the Viet Nam War. He did no such thing. He legally joined the Air Force Reserves, he LEGALLY reported for boot camp, he LEGALLY served his duty which never required that he GO to Viet Nam, and he was LEGALLY HONORABLT dicharged from that service.
Clinton did NONE of those things. As for the Snopes web site, they confirmed EVERYTHING that I posted EXCEPT they took Clinton’s “word” for it that he had permission to not enroll in the ROTC program. The fact is that if he accepted that reserve deferment with no intention of ever reporting so that he could avoid induction for another year, then he did in fact commit a felony.
AND JBM, I did mention that I think it should be legal to discriminate in hiring practices for ANY reason IF it is a PRIVATE business. Companies should be able to hire whomever they wish. They should not have to get permission or meet any kind of quota. If they discriminate unwisely, you can bet they will suffer the consequences of that…WHATEVER the reason.
By kimberly
February 8, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Awww… I went away to work and y’all were saying nice things about me. THANK YOU! Yes, I have a spine and a gorgeous chiropractor to maintain it. BTW, what I REALLY need is a man who has at least one more testicle than I do, as having an equal number seems to be a dealbreaker for most.
By Netbanker
February 8, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
Well JBM…I opened up a can of whoop a* on Abby the other day and scared the bejesus out of her with some serious yelling followed up by a pop on the rear. She was pretty darn sorry after that for a few hours. I overheard my partner cosmiserating with her afterward…”See how it is, Abby? I told you not to p iss him off. The Rath of Momma isn’t pretty.”
By Juliette
February 8, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
This is a hugely controversial topic with extremely interesting comments. I don’t think anyone’s “entitled” to employer-covered health insurance; it’s one’s choice to work for an employer that offers it versus one that doesn’t. I agree that rising health care costs are the reason for soaring premiums. Why do we acquiesce to $25 syringes and $50 for a pair of rubber gloves? Doesn’t everyone agree that it’s outrageous? The system indeed needs complete overhauling. Buying one’s own health insurance is a good start. That way, the insurance companies instead of the employers can be the “bad guy” and “discriminate” according to preexisting conditions, high risk, etc. Or possible a cafeteria plan at work like some employers offer, adjusting premiums according to several factors including deductible, family members, type of network, etc. Why would there be extra cost to the employer? They still pay a certain cost in insurance premiums per person anyway, right? Wouldn’t the extra cost be caused by absenteeism, etc. due to illness? If a bulemic spent last evening gorging and purging, there’s a good chance they’ll call in sick next day. Why would insurers pay for an abortion when the woman did not use birth control? Oooops, let’s not go there ..
By Just Being Me
February 8, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
Chuck, this week’s discussion is about whether or not companies have the right to dictate their employees’ health habits. So, there is (in my opinion) no valid explanation for your raising homosexuality as a point.
By kimberly
February 8, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
CHUCK, my daddy was a pilot in the Alabama Air National Guard in 72-74, after serving more than a decade of full-time duty. He never saw the Bush boy either. Are you calling my daddy a liar, Chuck? Let me tell you something else, CHUCK. My daddy not only has a gub’mint record that he was there, but he has PICTURES — of him and his planes, him and his squad, him on the tarmac with his planes and his buddies in uniform, in front of their planes, etc. If Dubya HAD actually shown up in Alabama like he said, then there would be some evidence beyond a gub’mint record that says so, now wouldn’t there? SOMEBODY would have come forward in 2000 or 2004 with a photo of him and Dubya in front of their planes, don’t you think? Did you ever see one? Ask someone who served: would there be something more than a paper in a folder somewhere to confirm you were there?
By Netbanker
February 8, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
Chuck…we all know (yourself included) that what is legal and what is right aren’t necessarily the same thing. GWB may have LEGALLY done what you said, but how exactly is it that his name jumped over 100 others to the top of the list? Daddy getting involved was LEGAL, but was it right to protect his boy’s butt at the expense of the others.
By kimberly
February 8, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
BTW, the definition of “LEGAL” is highly subjective if your daddy is a rich, powerful, well-connected government official. I’m just sayin’.
Why do people who claim to value the virtues of hard work slam somebody who came from humble beginnings, earned scholarships and rose to power through hard work, while praising a spoiled rich kid who had everything handed to him? I just don’t get it.
By The72John
February 8, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
C’mon Chuck - you’re just mad that your specious attempt to paint Clinton as a felon FELL through. Do you teach your students to reason the way you do? No wonder Georgia is failing in the education arena. It’s got idiots like you for teachers.
And who’s irrational? It really doesn’t matter if discriminating against Religion IS illegal. You don’t like it, so you COULD have made that point. Instead, typically, you chose to rail against gays. Again. Like the nasty, mean-spirited, spiteful little fraction of a human being you are!
Let’s be realistic. George W. could barely PASS his classes. He would never have been a Rhodes scholar. Both men used political influence to avoid going to war. Clinton made use of HIS time in one of the most prestigious scholarship programs available. GWB got a cushy assignment that let him snort coke and booze it up with his buddies.
Personally, given a choice between a draft-dodging intelligent scholar and a draft-dodging redneck drunk with money, I’ll go with the scholar.
But then, you don’t really value scholarship, do you Up-Chuck?
By DasKrait2
February 8, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - I think our Dubya was too drunk and wacked out on coke to ever get that film down to the developers, and then his dog ripped up the cannister, exposing the film and all. LOL
By RF
February 8, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
Wait a minute,JBM, I thought sin was unhealthy. Mom always told me if I played with that thing I’d go blind…
By The72John
February 8, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
I’m sorry - I forgot the law of Republicans. Thou shalt continue to make jokes about not inhaling, but never, ever, ever, evereverever mention the Annointed One (hereafter known as W) and his past life of debauchery, boozing and snorting of cocaine.
How does it feel to be, just, like, the biggest bunch of hypocrites EVER?
By lozen
February 8, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Can you believe that 72John? We must be doin’ somthin’ right when Chuck calls us “irrational.” This is the guy who posted paragraph after paragraph proving mathematically that two animals of every type could be put on the Ark!
By Eirik
February 8, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
I wonder who causes the most illness-related absences, a healthy gay man like myself or some breeder bringing in all the diseases his kids pick up. I used to work in an office with several young unmarried and childless people and no one was ever sick, now my office is full of married with children types and every year it’s like the plague…one runny nosed brat ends up making everyone in the office sick because the parent can’t stay home, or is already immune. Maybe we should allow companies to not hire people with kids…let the market decide.
By kimberly
February 8, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
The late great Hunter S. Thompson reported that Dubya came to one of his superbowl parties, and that he found him, drunk, in his bathtub. Not bathing, and still clothed, thankfully, but you know, sort of hiding in there while his head was spinning around. But since I only read this, and Dr. Thompson has been known to embellish, I’ll report it as such, and not as a matter of absolute FACT.
By The72John
February 8, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
You forgot the best part, lozen…you know, where Noah was trying to find room for the T-Rex on the ark.
Oh, oh - and the part where the fundies pick and choose the parts of evolutionary theory to explain why there weren’t THAT many species AT THE TIME to fit on the ark.
Oh, oh - and…well, pretty much all of it was a hilarious yet disturbing example of wilful ignorance.
By Chilao
February 8, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
Guess RF is using one of those voice-CRTS, which reads out what is displayed on the screen. How does it know where to start reading? How does the mouse find the form box for when you type? LMAO
By The72John
February 8, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
Only problem there, Kimberly, is that Hunter S. Thompson (who, actually I find to be a thoroughly reprehensible human being) spent so much time drunk himself that it’s impossible to distinguish truth from drunken hallucination.
Oh, to clarify - I don’t deny the man’s undeniable impact on non-fiction, nor do I deny that he was a brilliant writer. I just didn’t think he was that admirable of a human being.
By Eirik
February 8, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
72John,
of coure you know that the T-Rex was a vegetarian until the fall of Eden…one probably slept at the foot of Adam’s bed.
By Jack
February 8, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
It’s no fun passing out in a bath tub. Someone is bound to turn the water on.
By Netbanker
February 8, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Kimberly that’s a darn good point. In a really twisted way B. Clinton would be the prefect poster boy for the conservative ‘pull yourself up by your bootstraps’ mantra while W epitomizes the lack of personal accountability they complain about.
By Archie
February 8, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
“AND JBM, I did mention that I think it should be legal to discriminate in hiring practices for ANY reason IF it is a PRIVATE business. Companies should be able to hire whomever they wish. They should not have to get permission or meet any kind of quota. If they discriminate unwisely, you can bet they will suffer the consequences of that…WHATEVER the reason.”
Chuck that does not sound like a good christian. A christian should not want discrimination and it is not true that companies will suffer any consequences because,heck, that was the reason for people like Mrs. King. Let me say this, my company can hire another programmer and get the job done. They would suffer initially because said programmer would be unfamiliar with certain job functions but after a few months everything will run fine. Diane and Shanti are easily replaceable. People should not be discriminated against because they smoke. IF AJC hired all whites the paper would still be written or if AJC hired all non-smokers the paper would still be written but why should things get to point where there are consequences? Why should smokers have to file lawsuits and boycott? In other words the reason to avoid discrimination should not be based on profits but based on what is right. How much time is wasted in society by not doing the right thing because it’s the right thing to? I think all businesses should be required to hire as the law says. You will still end with companies made up of all women or all blacks or all whites. Some things you know if they’re right or not.
By The72John
February 8, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
It’s no fun passing out in a bath tub. Someone is bound to turn the water on.
I see you’ve met my friends.
By kimberly
February 8, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
72John, yeah it was kind of a sh—-y thing to do to his wife, to blow his brains all over the kitchen. I mean I understand the need to step off the planet and all, but she’ll probably always be hurt by the way he did it.
By lozen
February 8, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
Damn, you people are GOOD! I’m sorry - I forgot the law of Republicans. Thou shalt continue to make jokes about not inhaling, but never, ever, ever, evereverever mention the Annointed One (hereafter known as W) and his past life of debauchery, boozing and snorting of cocaine. How does it feel to be, just, like, the biggest bunch of hypocrites EVER? 72John
of coure you know that the T-Rex was a vegetarian until the fall of Eden…one probably slept at the foot of Adam’s bed. Eirik Netbanker everything you say!
Kimberly, ballsy woman.
Why does Chuck keep YELLING?
By Netbanker
February 8, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
JBM’s shih-zu must be decended from Adam’s T Rex.
RF you only go blind playing with that thing in the dark…and maybe from repeatedly getting lube in your eyes. Hope your Mom is feeling better!
You just had to mention Chinese food, didn’t you? My favorite neighborhood place CLOSED and now I don’t know where to get good chinese delivery or take out. The rest of the story that makes this even more sad for me is that the chinese place was in the building where the very first Waffle House opened. It is going to be torn down in the name of development. I’ve lost good Chinese food AND a historic building in one fell swoop.
By The72John
February 8, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
Lol Kimberly, I was thinking back way farther than that. I think the moment I realized that he was kind of a jerk was when he decided he wanted to write a story about getting a tatoo, but instead of getting it himself, he made his poor assistant get it - a giant panther that covered her whole back, if I remember.
You know that Duke and Honey from Doonsbury are based on him and his assistant, right? :-)
By The72John
February 8, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
Funny you mention Chinese food, Net. Now, I think I mentioned on monday how I work in an office where there are a LOT of obese people with LOTS of health problems because of it.
They order Chinese food takeout ALL the TIME, and it’s always the HUGE fried chunks of food, never the nice meat-and-vegetable-MIGHT-be-kind-of-good-for-you variety.
Now, that’s eating food at lunch AT WORK that is obviously really unhealthy for you, especially when you already have a profound weight problem.
So…should my company be able to dictate what its employees can order for lunch, too?
By kimberly
February 8, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Yes, I never miss a Doonesbury! I saved the ones from when BD lost his leg in Iraq. It made me cry like a baby. A cartoon! Wow… Oh, but I didn’t commit arson over it or anything, I just cried because I knew that it was, and is, happening to REAL men & women.
By Netbanker
February 8, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Lozen I missed that Ark thing. Did the posting also tell us how all the animals on the ark managed to cross oceans to get to Australia or North and South America so they could repopulate those continents?
By Netbanker
February 8, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
72J sometimes I think they should be able to dictate that except that my basis for the argument is based on the smell of the food rather than how healthy or not it may be.
By The72John
February 8, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
Here ya go Net.
Look around while you’re there - it’s a real hoot.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp
By Netbanker
February 8, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
Thanks…it’ll keep me occupied during my next conference call.
By Netbanker
February 8, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
72J so far it’s a hoot. I never knew I was a “biblioskeptic” and I’m loving the mental gymnastics over the reverse application of Mosiac law in relation to ‘clean’ animals.
By blablabla
February 8, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this
hello, folks. i’ve been away for awhile. i’ve missed you all.
it seems as though the topic was already largely discussed, but i find the question very interesting.
if i look at it from an employee’s viewpoint, then heck no, i don’t want my employer nosing around my personal life and discriminating against me based on my out of work habits.
however, if i look at it as an employer who is paying a portion of the health insurance premium on my employees, it is certainly in my best interests to have the healthiest workforce possible. and i should be able to pick and choose who i hire. but not only to minimize health insurance premiums, but to have employees miss fewer days of work due to illness, etc.
health care, IMO, is one of the fascinating debates of our age. is health care a right? is affordable health care a right? who should pay for it, the employee, the employer, the gov’t, or all three?
but before we get into who pays for health care, or if it is a right, the question i have is: why is the whole health insurance game so incredibly difficult to figure out? seriously. i went to the doctor for an annual checkup last may and the charge was $495. $495 for a checkup? they tested my blood, asked some questions and i had a 10 minute conversation with the doctor. does that really cost $495, or is that expense really subsidizing the cost of something else? and how come if the person didn’t have insurance the charge wouldn’t have been $495, but rather $595? or if i had a different insurer the charge would have been $395 instead of $495? why do some doctors ask you what your deductible is and then overcharge by that amount and send you on your way having paid nothing (and thereby getting all of the money from the insurance company instead of just the amount that exceeded the deductible)?
seriously, does anybody understand how their health insurance works? am i the only one who finds the entire gig to be nothing but one big shell game? no wonder the cost is out of control when the whole cost of everything is hidden in some black box.
By alprazolam
February 9, 2006 06:18 AM | Link to this
alprazolam http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pillsbuy/alprazolam.html ; Thanks!
By ambien
February 9, 2006 06:19 AM | Link to this
ambien http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pillsbuy/ambien.html ; Thanks!
By cialis
February 9, 2006 06:19 AM | Link to this
cialis http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pillsbuy/cialis.html ; Thanks!
By generic cialis
February 9, 2006 06:20 AM | Link to this
generic cialis http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pillsbuy/generic_cialis.html ; Thanks!
By generic viagra
February 9, 2006 06:20 AM | Link to this
generic viagra http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pillsbuy/generic_viagra.html ; Thanks!
By phentermine
February 9, 2006 06:20 AM | Link to this
phentermine http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pillsbuy/phentermine.html ; Thanks!
By tramadol
February 9, 2006 06:21 AM | Link to this
tramadol http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pillsbuy/tramadol.html ; Thanks!
By viagra
February 9, 2006 06:21 AM | Link to this
viagra http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pillsbuy/viagra.html ; Thanks!
By Brian Curtis
February 9, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this
Wow, we get our own spammer. And he’s not even religious!
By The72John
February 9, 2006 08:16 AM | Link to this
Apparently someone thinks we have a particular kind of problem…
By Lyrazel
February 9, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this
Blahblah, I bet you also had to cover lab tests expenses on your visit to a doctor. So how much additional expenses did you have there as well—or did you include lab tests with the whole doctor bill? … if the person didn’t have insurance the charge wouldn’t have been $495, but rather $595... no probably around $890. Fraud is rampant in uninsured billing procedures as well as claims made to government medical recipients be they welfare or VA. Hospitals in GA have been recently caught price gouging uninsured patients and over-billing insurance claims…its an on-going escalating battle.
Try calling a doctor and ask: what are the charges for an office visit with such and such procedure (like blood tests). Seldom will they give it—call a dentist—and they will give an estimate based on work to be done. Why? Could this be the insurance company fault since the majority of work-employment health insurance does not cover dental so dentists are used to uninsured patients? Why cant you get an estimate on how much the cost of an overnight stay at a hospital would be—if you are just going in for a routine surgery certainly they would have estimates having done this procedure for years—right? Key words: variables in care…prevents them from telling you how you will be billed, excuse me, gouged.
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this
Mornin, all!
By M
February 9, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
Companies should have the right not to hire someone who smokes, or, for that matter is morbid obese! However, if that person was hired when they were smokers, or, obese, then the company legally should not be able to change the terms of their employment in mid stream and fire them! If the employer changes their employment requirements, that should only apply to new hires after the policy change!!!
By The72John
February 9, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this
Not much time to blog today, but I did want to touch on one of Bla’s points.
In this case, we aren’t talking about governmentally-funded health care, so being entitled to healthcare isn’t really the issue.
Health insurance is provided as a perk by employers to attract good employees and as part of a total compensation package, given in return for work on behalf of the company. Companies CHOOSE to offer this perk.
That being said, if this is part of compensation for work done on behalf of the employer, does them employer have the right to demand things OVER and ABOVE that work in return for compensation? What else will companies start do demand in return for what is, in effect, a quid pro quo exchange?
This is indicative of the shift from balanced employer-employee balance to a relationship that is heavily balanced in favor on the employer. As I said earlier - history has shown us what big corporations will do to their employees given the chance. I, for one, do not wish to see another Matewan. But that’s just me.
By Renee
February 9, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
Morning’ ~~yawning~~
By The72John
February 9, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
My apologies for using “balance” or some version thereof three times in about as many words. My proofreading skills are lacking this early in the morning.
By Sanhan
February 9, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
Good point Lyrazel. I needed surgery in 2001 and after talking to literally 15 people in one day at the insurance company (United Health Care), no one could tell me the percentage of the surgery, stay, etc., at which I would be billed, until surprise, surprise, the day after the surgery, at which time they told me the wrong percentage. (I was charged 10%, which I found out months after the surgery because I had met the deductible.) I am still receiving bills from the surgeon even though I paid their portion, because the insurance company still has not paid them from 2001.
I have had to badger this insurance company for clarification time after time, which is not easy to do when you can only call during business hours and you hold down a full-time job. This was four insurance companies ago, and since then we have had to take what the employer offers with no real choice. We keep referring the bills to the human resources department of my husband’s old job, three jobs ago… a law firm that specializes in employee issues. Seems wasteful all the way around.
Not that anyone asked, but the total cost of my recent colonoscopy was more than $1500… not sure what my portion is yet…they found nothing new; I’m still a benign a**ole. :)
By blablabla
February 9, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
In this case, we aren’t talking about governmentally-funded health care, so being entitled to healthcare isn’t really the issue.
you’re right. and i agree that employers may be asking for over and above what they got in the worker-employer exchange previously.
however, i brought up “gov’t healthcare/is it an entitlement?” for two reasons: one, earlier in the blog i noticed some people had referred to health care for all. secondly, as the cost rises for the employer, chances are fewer of them are going continue offering it (in fact that is already the trend), which will increase the number of people that will have to purchase health insurance on their own, or simply go uninsured. that will almost certainly lead to a debate about gov’t funded healthcare.
By Confused
February 9, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
Renee-do you have to tell us about every bodily function of yours???
~yawning~scratching my head~burping~farting~going to take a p-i-s-s….etc….
~~~~rolling my eyes~~~~~
By The72John
February 9, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this
I think we’re about to hit on the key difference between conservatives and liberals on this issue, Bla.
You (and I’m just assuming here, based on past conversations, so feel free to let me know if my assumptions are off-base) see the concept of universal health care as entitlement.
I see it as the right thing to do - not because I think people are entitled, but because it’s the ethical thing for a wealthy, advanced society to do.
That’s a razor-thin distinction, I’ll grant you, but I do think that’s what it comes down to.
By Renee
February 9, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
~~~flipping you off~~~
By Jack K
February 9, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
Someone hit the nail on the head when they brought up the fact that the hospitals charge $25 for a pair of gloves and $50 for an aspirin!
No wonder health insurance is so high. I mean a profit is one thing but charging 100 times the cost of any item is robbery. We’re being scammed folks. And yet we don’t know how to stop these flim-flam artists!
By Brian Curtis
February 9, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
BBB: I certainly hope so. We’ve taken this sham of a healthcare system far enough by leaving it up to the private-care market, and the only ones making money are the HMOs and insurance companies.
National healthcare is a necessity; it’s also the only way to bring costs down. How long are we going to keep denying people affordable, preventive care, only to wind up paying much more money for the inevitable emergency-room treatment they require as a result?
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
No one rolls her eyes like JBM. I was going to say you missed a few, (functions) then saw the ‘going to…’. LOL
I think universal-health-care could be Constitionally- related to that commerce clause, like roads. That is, a healthy, well-taken-care-of work force is good for commerce, in the same way roads are good for commerce.
By Darby
February 9, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
I believe it was the POGO cartoon that said “we have met the enemey and they is us”. WE allow business and government to erode our personal freedoms. Controlling our off-duty time is just a beginning. Health care is one issue. The real issue is “Profit”
We, the people, want the best health care, best car, etc while we do not want to pay a higher price for it. Quality is not cheap. Do away with company paid health care. Would these corporations pass the savings on to the employees in the form of higher pay? would they pass them on to consumers in the form of lower prices? or just add it to the bottom line.
Stay out of my personal life as long as it does not effect my productivity at work!
By blablabla
February 9, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
lyrazel,
it was just simply all the regular run-of-the-mill stuff done as an annual checkup on a healthy male under the age of 30. the $495 was for everything, including whatever lab work they did.
Could this be the insurance company fault since the majority of work-employment health insurance does not cover dental so dentists are used to uninsured patients?
quite possibly, but my point, and my dismay at the whole thing is, i don’t know. i don’t even know who to get mad at, the doctors, the insurance company, the regulators, who knows? since you can’t figure out much anything costs, it’s hard to determine if there’s overcharging going on, and if so, who in fact is doing it, and why they’re getting away with it.
how many other things do you purchase without knowing how much the price is before you buy it?
By Renee
February 9, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
National Healthcare will just make an already bad situation worse. Take a look at Canada.
By Jack K
February 9, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
Does anyone think that insurance should pay an abortionist to kill an unborn baby by ripping it’s arms and legs off, crushing it’s skull and then throwing it in the incinerator? Is this HEALTH CARE folks? Why is this legal?
The above described abortion is called D&E and it’s done in EVERY abortion building in the country. Would you consider this act to be “health care” or “reproductive care”. How is paying someone to destroy an innocent life deemed to be covered by an insurance company.
Insurance covers murder? Oh, but it’s okay because we won’t call it murder-we call it abortion (so it doesn’t count).
The fact that Kaiser and most others pay for these sick acts of violence against the most defenseless in our society is an abomination!
——And guys-if you don’t like the fact that “abortion” was brought up then just don’t post anything about it.
P.S. But at least I didn’t mention anything bad about gays! ;)
By lozen
February 9, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
Chilao, I keep forgetting to ask you - what is the “French style” of peeing you mentioned earlier this week?
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
Hey Chilao, that wasn’t me rolling my eyes! Although I will agree that no one rolls her eyes like me. It’s a NY thang…
Umm, Confused, what the Sam Hill is your problem???
By Jack
February 9, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
Good Morning All.
—-yawning, scratching, streaching, pooting (oops)—-
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Oh lawdy, Chuck’s twin is back with more idiocy…
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
My experience with a dentist, this health-care related. Now at this emplyoyer I had dental, 80/20 copay. I had two wisdom teeth removed, mid thirties(y/o). He charged the insurance company X dollars, I thought it high. He stated that he would get the insurance company to pay for it all. I went in anticipating a 20percent copay. When it was all said and done, I felt like he had ripped off the insurance company, by over-charging them, in order for my 20percent to be taken out of their full-pay to him.
You could argue he was trying to do me a favor. But I left thinking he was ripping off the insurance company, since they planned on me doing the 20percent copay, which I had no problem with paying.
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
Geez, Jack, what did you eat???? You smell like death warmed over! LOL!
By Jack
February 9, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
How’s that greeting Confused? I can be way more descriptive if you like. Leave Renee’ alone. Dilbert.
By Confused
February 9, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
It was a JOKE! Don’t you guys know how to lighten up? What are ya’-a bunch of Christians?
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
lozen - french “commodes” have no bowl to sit on, they simply squat over an open hole. almost like going in a shower stall, with a larger hole where the drain is, contoured down towards hole. Applies to both excretements. a shocker the first time. LOL (WTH?)
JBM - that was not you?(I see with the SamHill) my bad, I figured it a private joke between you and Renee.
By Renee
February 9, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Thanks Jack.
Chilao, that just goes to show that the doctors and the insurance companies can move numbers around any way to get the desired result.
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Chilao, is this dentist of yours accepting new patients?
By Jack
February 9, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
If we did away with lawyers, everything would be less expensive.
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
LOL @ JBM - that was years ago, he probably retired now, in fact may even be deceased. Paramount, CA, referred by a coworker.
I think it is important to point out there, regardless of who actually pays the premium since some companies merely have a plan, but the employEE pays 100-percent of the premium(have had a few jobs like that), that the reason for companies involvement is to have GROUP plans, pooling healthy people with unhealthy people, which is really what insurance, of any kind, is all about.
By RF
February 9, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
Insurance companies have limits as to what they’ll pay. A doctor or hospital can bill whatever they want, but there are preset limits. Hospitals then either agree to the limits or argue with the company. We got a bill for a HUGE amount for my dad’s heart surgery last year. The insurance company told us that they would handle it and we eventually got a statement for much less as paid by the insurance company. I think the high hospital bills are a way to justify rising insurance costs.
It’s all about profit and loss—the insurance companies are just like all the others out there, and anything they can do to make more money so the president AND CEO can have yachts, they’ll do it.
By 68Corvette
February 9, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
G’day folks!
I just moved to the Atlanta area from the land down under. I can tell already that my new healthcare is going to be less than desireable.
Can someone tell me the best place to go for healthcare?
And where’s the best joint to go to for a good set of crab legs-preferably Dungeness? I say, the weather here is a bit of a booger. Snow and sleet one day and sunny the next. Yowsah.
By Mary
February 9, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
What’s next? Your employer is allowed to search your home for cigarettes and Twinkies, and can fire you if you have any? Company search patrols asking for ID on the beach, so that if you’re found not wearing sunblock, you can be fired? Your boss in your bedroom, checking to see if you’re using protection? Where does it stop?
By Confused
February 9, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
Jack-nice greeting! Thanks for playing our game today. You win the consolation prize behind the curtain. Which curtain do you want to pick-curtain #1, #2 or #3?
You also get a set of ginsu knives. Er, on second thought…
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
Mary, even if all that occurs, you still have the choice to work for that employer.
68Corvette, don’t walk in the door complaining. It’s not locked.
By Archie
February 9, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
“I see it as the right thing to do - not because I think people are entitled, but because it’s the ethical thing for a wealthy, advanced society to do.”
I agree with that statement 72John but each time I bring up the subject people give out party line statements. Also for those that think like an employer,please understand that the employer may be a smoker or eat unhealthy. Some of us forget that an employer is a human being which means that said employer may have unhealthy habits which means they contribute to the thing that affects them. Sometimes improvement means stepping outside a comfort zone and I thought about when looking at Mrs King’s funeral. When something(health insurance) isn’t working you may have endure some change. Blabla was right that no one knows how the health insurance industry works and that’s the first thing that needs to be found out then we can take action, but we need to this yesterday.
By Confused
February 9, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
It doesn’t stop Mary. This is America dadgumit!
By chuck
February 9, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
Archie, Your post was thoughtful and concise as usual. You pointed out the following:
Why should smokers have to file lawsuits and boycott? In other words the reason to avoid discrimination should not be based on profits but based on what is right. How much time is wasted in society by not doing the right thing because it’s the right thing to? I think all businesses should be required to hire as the law says.
To an extent, I agree with you. Companies SHOULD do what is right. The question is “Do we legislate that they be rquired to do what is right?” Another question would be “Who determines what is right?” Some things we can come to consensus on. Others, we never will.
I don’t think that we should try to legislate that. Why not let the market place work? If I hire people for any other reason than that they are the candidates who will do the best job, my business will suffer. Just as a practical matter, the market place is going to work. For almost every business, productivity is going to be the key.
The second matter combines personal responsibility and issues of morality. If I owned a business, I would not hire people who were known to be immoral. Those are not the kinds of people that I would want representing me and my business. I wouldn’t want people who can’t get along well with others. I wouldn’t want people with a history of laying out of work. I would want to hire productive people with high moral standards that would be an asset to my business AND would be someone I would WANT to work with. For a company owned by stockholders those decisions would be made by the boards. For small businesses it would be made by the owner.
The process is different for GOVERNMENT employers. The government belongs to all of us and it should to some degree reflect that. I still don’t believe in any kind of quota system. Government should hire the best workers they can get to accomplish the mission. These workers should be hired without regard to race, religion, creed, gender or national origin.
By 68 Corvette
February 9, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
Excuse me Just BeingMe. I did not say that I did not like my new home in Atlanta. It’s been quite wonderful. Didn’t mean to sound like a complainer to ya.
How bout those legs? Anyone know where to get some good ones? (Crabs fellas)
By Jack
February 9, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
Confused. Sorry, I thought you were being serious.
68Corvette. The biggest crab legs can be found on Metropolitan Parkway and some parts of Ponce de Leon & Glen Iris. After you find the crabs, visit your nearest county health clinic and they will treat you.
By Jack
February 9, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
Just kidding Vette. Spondivits is good. Joe’s crab Shack is ok unless you are like me and can eat ten plates. A place in Gwinnett The Chinese Super Buffet.
By 68 Corvette
February 9, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
Jack-you rascal you. You must know I wasn’t talking about THAT kind of crab!
Seafood man…talkin ‘bout seafood.
You sound like a good bloke.
By lozen
February 9, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
Chilao, somehow I missed that kind of john while i was in France. I do love bidets though. No wonder Europeans aren’t into religion; they have bidets!
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
Isn’t seafood one of those Leviticus abominations?
sorry, in a funny mood this morning. Somebody stop me (sounding like Jim Carey in, what was it, The Mask?)
By Cofused
February 9, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
Corvette-try the Crab House. It’s out of this world.
Jack-it’s all good.
Renee-I’m very sorry. I meant it as a joke.
Speaking of jokes-anyone think Hilary is going to run???
Is it F-R-I-D-A-Y yet????????
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
lozen - I doubt the french hotels have that kind of commode, but the locals do. Nothing like a bidet, that’s for sure.
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
ROFL Jack.
68Corvette, I’m glad you like it. So do I.
By Renee
February 9, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
LOL Chilao, you’re on a roll!
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
Chuck, do you eat seafood?
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Jack - thought you would have retired and moved to Vegas? How’d you get that “Steelers by 10”? and I am not going to quibble over a single point, in this context at least. LOL
By Renee
February 9, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
No prob confused!
I sure wish it was Friday!!! We could start our Friday jokes early…or continue talking about healthcare and it’s link to abortions and how homosexuals are driving up the cost.
By blablabla
February 9, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
brian,
when you say BBB, are you talking to me? i’m assuming so. if not, sorry.
i think the current system stinks. as i’ve said, i can’t figure it out for heads or tails. but i guess i am EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL of any notion that the gov’ts involvement in health care would reduce cost rather than increase cost. i can’t think of anything off the top of my head where the gov’t has grabbed control of something from the private sector and reduced its cost. if you can think of one, please share. aside from the cost though, most of the time i deal with my gov’t, i deal with bureacratic drones who quote policies and procedures and generally aren’t qualified to do much more than work for the gov’t. i don’t want those people to be the gatekeepers between me and my doctor. i’m concerned that health care becomes like the DMV.
the other reason why i’d be very concerned about a national health care system is the window that the gov’t will have into our lives. so many people on this blog have said time after time, and i agree with them whole-heartedly, that they don’t want the gov’t in their bedroom, and it is of no business of the gov’t who they sleep with. IMO, health care decisions can often be just as important and personal as sexual choices. it is the same line of thinking from which i say i don’t want the gov’t in my bedroom to say i don’t want the gov’t in my examination room.
72john,
is health care an entitlement? it’s a great question. i struggle with it personally. i completely 100% believe it appropriate for a society to look after the care of its weakest members. however, for something to be a right, or something one is entitled to just for existing, it shouldn’t impose an obligation on someone else. your right to free speech, or free assembly, etc, don’t impose obligations on me. health care doesn’t fit with that, bc to provide everyone universal health care will require the obligation of others. fundamentally, i have a problem with that.
the other issue i have is, where does that end? if health care is something we’re all entitled to, why not disability insurance? if we’re talking about a civilized society taking care of its weakest, people who get permanently disabled are probably up there on the weakness scale. is that next?
By Jack
February 9, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
I’m on the seafood diet. I see food, then I eat it!
By RF
February 9, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Lord it needs to be Friday. I’m tired!! My cat woke me up at 5:00 this morning wanting to go outside. He went—-landed about halfway across the front yard!! (only kidding, I would never throw him THAT far, unless it was 3:00 a.m…)
Crab legs are good at Spondivit’s. Joe’s is good for the atmosphere as long as you like it loud!
By Renee
February 9, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Joe’s is pretty loud. And everytime I’ve gone, the wait has been horrendous!
Was anybody else surprised about Marian Brooks and Bill Campbell affair??
By Netbanker
February 9, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
Chilao…that is not a french commode…you described a Turkish toilet. They also have little raised platforms on which to place your feet because when you ‘flush’ water just runs around the floor and down the hole. A commode is “a : a low chest of drawers b : a movable washstand with a cupboard underneath c : a boxlike structure holding a chamber pot under an open seat;”
On a totally different subject I do have a question for everyone. As I was standing in the freezing, flippin’ cold this morning waiting for the pup to do her thing I realized that we need to put new/more mulch around the trees in the front yard this spring. My question…Is it cannibalism when you mulch a tree with wood chips?
By RF
February 9, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
Ain’t much Bill’s done that surprises me anymore. What surprises me is how long he got away with it all.
By The72John
February 9, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
Chuck, the plane to Saudi Arabia is always waiting. You can have exactly the kind of business there that you’ve always dreamed of. AND you get to watch all those “immoral” people executed, just like you want.
Where can I send your complimentary ticket?
By Archie
February 9, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
Chuck thanks for responding and I guess we will disagree because we do legislate what is right. There are laws on the books that say thou shalt not kill. Of course we all have the right to defend ourselves but the law defines how. You can’t just take money from a company you started because there are certain laws that guide what is stealing and not stealing. The market-place philosophy does not always work and it may be a good philosophy but it does not work always. I don’t believe your business will suffer if you hire based-on something other than the best qualified because businesses have done that for years. Walmart is being sued for racial discrimination right now and for years Denny’s operated very well although they did discriminate. If the law was not structured so that people could win discrimination lawsuits those two businesses would have functioned without any problems. The point is that people should not have to wait decades,etc. until this market-place philosophy works. Look at the Nfl,they are a cash cow but they discriminate when it comes to hiring coaches. If they didn’t have the threat of a lawsuit the NFL would do business as usual which means no Dungy,Lewis,Edwards, or Smith. My point on healthcare is that companies or hospitals will not do right unless there is a structure in place to make them. Chuck as a christian you know God gives us the Bible and Jesus and inspite of that God tells us that there is a Hell. As a church-goer myself I know that if there were no Hell I would probably do little wrongs here and there because it’s convenient but since there’s punishment and reward, doing right is more attractive.
By Jack
February 9, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
Net. Everything returns to Mother Earth eventually.
By RF
February 9, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Net- I suspect the trees don’t mind much. It does help keep their toesies warm in the winter. I prefer wood chips over pinestraw. Lasts longer than the straw. I did learn somewhere to use cypress mulch close to the house. Termites don’t like it I heard.
Sounds like you need to fence in the back yard and let little Miss Abby have her time outside so you can stay in the heat!
By The72John
February 9, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
Just to point out further stupidity in what ChuckSchmuck thinks is “right”.
If the top expert in a particular field that you need for a business is, oh heck let’s just say gay since we know that’s what upChuck is driving at, do you not hire him just because of that even though he is the best candidate for your business?
Oh wait - we’ve already answered that question. Like, when the Army discharged a good chunk of its Arab-language experts because they happened to be gay.
Yup Chuck - you’re ideas are brilliant.
Brilliantly stupid.
By Jack
February 9, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
I see Arch is a believer in legalized discrimination.
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
Marion Brooks is gorgeous. I wasn’t shocked, but I didn’t know about it until yesterday. I felt badly for his wife, and I wonder whether she’ll stand by him in the end. Actually, I felt kinda bad for Marion too, in a different way.
Like RF said, I’m also surprised at how long he got away with what he’s done.
Still don’t think he’ll be convicted.
By Jack
February 9, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
I laughed when the omnipotent Maynard J. and his crew gave Bill a brand new gold lexus as a going away gift when he left office. Wonder what they paid for that?
By Renee
February 9, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
I don’t think he will be convicted either. I definitely felt bad for his wife and for Marion.
I like Bill Campbell though. All politicians do things similar if not the same as he did, he just happened to get caught.
By blablabla
February 9, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
you don’t think he’s going to be convicted, jbm? funny, i’m the exact opposite - i don’t see any way they don’t convict him.
i thought that article was pretty humorous. the whole time it talks about the affair between campbell and brooks, but then at the end one of the buddies says: bill loves his wife; she’s his pride and joy. classic.
By Jack
February 9, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
Bill could have had a child with that woman and there are many who would see nothing wrong with that.
By Renee
February 9, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
I read that too bla, pretty funny. I see his wife didn’t go to court yesterday….
By RF
February 9, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
Bill has good attorneys who will systematically poke holes in everything the prosecution presents. That’s all they have to do to make it look bad and cast doubt with the jury. I seriously doubt a jury will convict him.
By RF
February 9, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
I saw that article too. Yeah, he’s real ‘proud’ of his wife. I wonder how ‘proud’ she is of him! That nice gold Lexxus might just end up in another garage in HER name before it’s all over with!
By Archie
February 9, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
“If the top expert in a particular field that you need for a business is, oh heck let’s just say gay since we know that’s what upChuck is driving at, do you not hire him just because of that even though he is the best candidate for your business?”
72John this is the point I was trying to make. Many of the hire-who-I-want-folk would not hire the gay guy regardless of the market thus the need for legislation. Again,that gay guy you speak of here should not have to wait on the market to work, he should be hired and fired just as anyone else. Market-place-philosophy works with cable tv because the satellite companies around the corner will low-ball their prices and take customers from said cable company. Now with electricity if you have one company that dominates you need a public service commission to make sure that electric company does not gouge it customers but two powerhouses then the market might hold the costs down for consumers. Competition and market-place philosophy do work just not all the time,just as being liberal or conservative or moderate does not work all the time. At one time health insurance prices were dictated very well by the market but greed let it get out of hand and now no one knows what to do except to live with the status quo.
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
Netbanker - yes, thanks, I knew “commode” not the proper word, that being “water closet” related.
but it was kinda like people referring to their kitty-litter box as ‘the cat’s commode’. I nearly (well) when I heard that term, wondering how they ‘flushed’.
By kimberly
February 9, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
I think it’s nice that he took his girlfriend on trips and bought her stuff. What good is a boyfriend who never takes you anyplace or buys presents? I mean, it’s the LUV that’s important, but after awhile, if all you get is the LUV, and you never GO anywhere, then you’re not feelin’ LUV-ed. KnowwhutImean?
Still, why is THAT being dragged out in a court that’s not divorce court?
By The72John
February 9, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
I hope the man hangs.
By chuck
February 9, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
So JBM, are you from New York? I’m going there in April for a Dream Theater Concert. What do I need to know about NYC? I’ve never been there.
What are the “must see” things? We are already planning a trip to the American Museum of Natural History, MOMA, of course the ESB, and Staten Island Ferry (not fairy!!!). I think we will also visit the Central Park Zoo and the NYC Public Library. What else should we do?
By The72John
February 9, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
Go to Christopher Street and start ranting about your favorite topic, Schmuck. You’ll never make it back to Georgia.
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Chuck - great Aquarium at Coney Island, as well as the Bronx Zoo, world-renowned. DREAM THEATER? A brother comes out with the generic “Metallic sucks!” then refers me to DreamTheater, I listened to some, thought ‘generic rock and roll’. No offense, just reflects musical preferences.
NetBanker(laughing) - but I never saw that kinda of toilet in Turkey, just in France. Makes me wonder where the name came from. Not that there were none there, I just never used/saw one there. Might be something like if they were in the US, they might be called “Mississippi toilets” or something like that. LMAO
By Jack
February 9, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
Michael_D must be out of school today. Why don’t we meet so I can teach you some manners?
By The72John
February 9, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this
Just ignore him.
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
AJC just merely needs to ban his IP from posting, it will be real simple once they get involved.
talk about scum on the blog!
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
What an idiot.
Chuck, Yep. Born and raised. I notice you didn’t answer my question about whether you eat seafood, though.
I couldn’t begin telling you what to do/see in NY. Just about everything there is great for sightseeing, especially for first-timers. I love the water, so I’d recommend taking a harbor tour or a cruise to nowhere. I’m not sure what denomination you are, but if you don’t have church plans, visit Brooklyn Tabernacle. They have awesome church there, and it’s simply beautiful. St. Patricks Cathedral is also lovely, but I wouldn’t go for the service. Juniors if you like Cheesecake. Statue of Lib. Ground Zero. Empire State Building is a great place to take pics. Trump Towers is beautiful on the inside. Times Square is the best place to be at dusk. It is simply electrifying. There’s nothing like seeing a Broadway play on Broadway. There are a couple of awesome museums, my favorite is the Metropolitan. Walk across the Brooklyn Bridge. That’s a nice experience. I prefer the Bronx Zoo, but Central Park is nice too.
I can go on and on…. and on and on… I love New York!
By Jack
February 9, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
I’m surprised the little needle dick can type.
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
Must be a real drag going through life being thought of as dogsh!t. LMAO
By Brian Curtis
February 9, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
I see the jokes HAVE started a day early.
Yes, Bla (BBB), I am recommending national healthcare. Just like every other western democracy has.
Sure, there are flaws here and there, but I really don’t see what the nightmarish crisis of Canada is supposed to be.
*Long waiting lists and lines? We have that now. *No choice of doctors? Just check out your HMO’s “approved care provider” list. *Bureaucracy? No real difference from the forms and paperwork we already deal with, and the possibility of improvement. *Cost? As noted, it’s the insurance companies who are making all the money now. (And who were the strongest original opponents of a national healthcare plan back in the early 90s.)
And costs are ALREADY sky-high, as everyone would agree. Providing national coverage for everyone in the country would cost roughly what the U.S. is paying now—it’s just that everyone would be covered, rather than the lucky few.
I understand your skepticism about government intrusion into private lives—heck, I share it. But I already have an insurance company making my healthcare decisions as it is, and I can’t vote THEM out of office.
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
JBM - think the actual prohibition is “shellfish”, my bad.
Chuck - NYC also has a fine aquarium at Coney Island. and the Bronx Zoo is one of the best in the world. But Dream Theater? A brother came out with the generic “Metallica Sucks!” then referred me to DreamTheater, he and his wife kinda groupies of them. I heard some, thought ‘generic rock and roll’ and passed. No offense, just different musical interests. LOL
NetBanker (laughing) - funny that I never ran into a turkish toilet in Turkey, just in France. They may have been there, just never saw/used one. Makes me wonder where the term came from. Like if they were in the USA, would they be called “Mississippi Toilets” or something like that? LMAO
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
I agree with whoever said to ignore him. It’s kinda like roaches. If you stop feeding them, they go away.
By Netbanker
February 9, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
Welcom 68C…try The Fish Market on Pharr Rd. in Buckhead. They’ve got some of the best seafood around. The Dekalb Farmer’s Market also has pretty fresh seafood if you’re looking to buy and cook at home. With crab and shrimp they’ll steam it for you or you can take it home live/raw.
BC How long are we going to keep denying people affordable, preventive care, only to wind up paying much more money for the inevitable emergency-room treatment they require as a result? This is an excellent point. With anything (cars, homes, but especially human bodies) preventive maintenance is ALWAYS cheaper than waiting for the problem to occur.
I don’t recall who mentioned profits (RF, maybe?) but I see that as another challenge for health care and a driver of rising costs. It is the charity hospitals that have closed all over the state and country. The loss of these institutions has reduced choice in health care and even eliminated it in some communities altogether. The lack of charity hospitals also eliminated the possibility of receiving preventive care which has added to the burden on emergency rooms.
Access to healthcare is an adjunct topic that we haven’t really touched on. The article from a few weeks ago about our national report card on emergency health care scared the bejesus out of me. Hospital administrators readily admit that their emergency rooms are overwhelmed on a regular basis and are in absolutely no position to handle a terror attack especially if it is a biological one.
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
Chilao, yes it is shellfish, not all seafood. I assumed Chuck would know what I meant, but you’re right to clarify.
By Netbanker
February 9, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
Rf…The backyard is fenced because of the pool…that Ms. Abby fell in once already while my partner wasn’t looking. It’s a wrought iron style and she’s still small enough to pop through the posts or in some spots squeeze under. I don’t mind so much when she squeezes into the neighbor’s back yard to play with their dogs because they have a wooden picket fence she can’t get out of. It’s when she heads toward the creek or out into the side yard. I could still let her out there, but then I have to go down yet another set of stairs to the basement which we don’t keep heated….so I’ll still be cold!
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
Make me wonder, is there anything in the Bible that mentions ‘Tis bad for a man to lay with a woman as he would with a man’? (meaning, well, y’all figure it out).
just a thought LOL
a poster here made me think of that, wonder why? LMAO
By Renee
February 9, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Okay, I see somebody’s not watching the 2 year olds!
It’s a big deal about the affair since Bill Campbell was supposedly paying for the trips, air fare and other items with cash (gotten from his bribes). They didn’t want as much detail on the affair as they did on how he financed certain aspects of it.
Brian most of the Canadians are actually coming to America for healthcare.
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
NetB. You ever try wee wee pads? They work for Renee’s dog…
By Netbanker
February 9, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
JBM…I do have those since we’re house breaking her now. They’re hit or miss…pun intended. She peed on one last night when we didn’t move fast enough, but then later she peed on the carpet 2 feet away from the pad.
I LOVE NYC! Apparently so much I married a native. I worked for Macy’s ages ago and made many a trip up to Herald Square to meet with buyers. I always made sure to plan enough time to run around the city. Nothing better than picking up a slice somewhere and strolling around to check out the city.
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
Chilao, no, but the gospel according to St. JBM 5:14 says that it’s bad for a woman to lay with a man as she would with a woman… which, I guess is the same thing, right?
If I were uninsured, I would much rather have a crappy healthcare system with long lines and limited choice of doctors than no healthcare at all. The Canadians can come here all they want to. They still have something on us. At least they have healthcare.
This morning, there were a bunch of police vans forcing the homeless people to leave from under the bridges. I guess it’s because of the winter weather advisory… anyway, it was really upsetting to watch.
By Renee
February 9, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
NetB - that’s too funny. I have caught my doggie (Summer) with her legs on the puppy pad, not realizing that the most important part of her, is NOT on the pad, thus causing a mess.
By chuck
February 9, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
That would be exactly right 72john. If I was a business owner and found your behavior to be repulsive and disgusting, why would I hire you and subject myself to that every day in a business that I BUILT AND OWN? If I want to take the 2nd best or 35th best in the field, that’s MY BUSINESS. If you and your little BF want to boycott my business, then you should go for it. If I were to go OUT of business because of it I would have no one to blame but myself. In the meantime, (though I can’t imagine you being an expert in anything), If you are the top expert in your field then I’m sure you would be able to find a job.
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
LOL @JBM - had to read that a couple of times, ‘what book is that again?’ (I thought I knew them all but)
was wondering about hetero french and greek (trust you got that the first time..LOL)
By Scalia
February 9, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
Bill Campbell will get off. Our judicial system serves the rich and powerful. Look at O.J., Robert Blake, Michael Jackson. And the ones like Martha Stewart, go to some nice jail. They stay for some amount of months. Get out, get a book deal, and make more money than before they went to jail.
By Jack
February 9, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
‘Tis bad for a man to lay with a woman as he would with a man’?
I guess that means goin thru the back door?
By Jack
February 9, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
Needle Dick must be taking his afternoon nap.
By Scalia
February 9, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this
Bill Campbell will get off. Our judicial system serves the rich and powerful. Look at O.J., Robert Blake, Michael Jackson. And the ones like Martha Stewart, go to some nice jail. They stay for some amount of months. Get out, get a book deal, and make more money than before they went to jail.
Chuck: wow, that’s bad. But to each his own.
By Renee
February 9, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Chuck - I actually agree with you. I think at your company you can choose to hire whomever you please at your place of business. What I don’t understand is that you claim to be a man of God, a Christian, but your words and your statements seem less than Christian to say the least. You don’t want to associate with anyone except people who share the same beliefs as you. How Christian is that?? When I used to attend church, my pastor used to say that he didn’t want to preach to a church full of “perfect” people. He wanted to preach to sinners, to show someone the light who was in the darkness. Preach to a prostitute, a drug user etc. It seems you spend more time hating than loving. Christians are supposed to be Christ like, which would be a person who exumes loves, positiveness and can bring people to Christ with that same attitude. Jesus broke bread with lepers, spoke with prostitutes, he wouldn’t have “discriminated”.
Furthermore, while you spend all your time discriminating against homosexuals in your workplace, you will be letting some really criminal people in, and you will wish you had hired a gay boy or a lesbian who might be your best employee, instead of worrying about that straight Christian bilking you out all your money.
By The72John
February 9, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
First off, Schmuck, if you are worrying about your employees personal lives during the work hours, then you have no real business running a business of any kind. Your #1 objective should be the effective and optimum running of that business. If you let your petty prejudices and personal hang-ups get in the way of that then you are failing Business 101.
Second, I wasn’t suggesting that I was an expert in my field. Yet. Not that you’re remotely qualified to judge my intelligence or ability, given your patent innability to argue any point whatsoever without drawing on someone else’s work. You’ve hardly proven to be expert in anything yourself.
By True Confusion
February 9, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Some place uncomfortable… like the back of a volkswagon?
By RF
February 9, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
Here’s a question for ya. If Chuck is interviewing for his company, and a very qualified homosexual applies, but doesn’t give any outward sign of being of such sinful ways, then how would Chuck ever know? And what would happen if he found out after a year of successful service to the company? Hmmmmmm, I’m having visions of Tom Hanks in “Philadelphia” here. Wonder why…
By secretary
February 9, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Opening the door to employer regulation of personal life is a dangerous thing. Those who approve it assume the regulator shares the same standards but that might not always be the case. Go-pills are required for some flight pilots because it improves performance. How would workers feel if they were required to take medication to improve their performance? Pregnancy takes a woman out of the workplace for weeks if not months and necessitates time off work for doctor appointments, not to mention added health costs. Some employers might not feel a woman has the right to get pregnant while working for them.
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Jack - ya, see my 1:51.
ScatBoy was probably successfully blocked. It does not take much.
By RF
February 9, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
JBM- just read the “St. JBM”… he-he-he, pretty good one there! Must be one of those lost books of the Bible they’re always talking about. Bet that one has a much happier and more loving God in it. Oh wait, that’s right, the current one does when one chooses to read it correctly!
By The72John
February 9, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
RF, some companies used to include it on their applications.
Chuck loves to belittle gays with comments like “you and your little boyfriend”, but the fact is that both Cracker Barrell AND Chik-fil-a have removed that question from their applications, largely because of exactly those boycotts.
Boycotts of companies by Christian Hate groups, however, have generally failed miserably.
By Renee
February 9, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
There’s absolutely no way to tell if you are hiring someone gay. Contrary to popular belief, all guys who are gay won’t come in snapping their fingers and twisting, and all gay girls won’t come in looking and acting like a guy. Stereotypes are crazy! Everybody deals with someone in a work or personal relationship that is on the DL and they would be truly surprised to find out who.
By Archie
February 9, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
Chuck people weren’t allowed to become the top expert thus they did not get a job that they were qualified to get,back in the day. Things were circular 30 to 40 years ago in that a qualified gay guy would get entry level but never develop to expert level because employers would not put him in the position to develop. This happened to women and thus the reason for discrimination lawsuits. You don’t have to like everybody you hire but hiring them is the right thing to do. The market will not make you do the right thing because you’re(employer) are not rational in your hiring decision. Football is a good example, in that blacks were told they couldn’t play qb and not allowed to do so no matter the team. If a guy played qb in college he was switched automatically in pros,thus Hall of Famer, Warren Moon played for years in Canada. The Nfl didn’t suffer but Moon did by losing years on an Nfl career and that should not have happened. My point is that yes the market eventually catches up to bias and wrong but how many people die before getting an opportunity? Obviously Moon did play in the Nfl but how many other qualified guys did not get the chance to play. A business owner may never realize what he misses because the business owner has an un-rational bias. Chuck you can’t not hire people because of their morals, that in itself is immoral. Why? Because you don’t who is cheating in their marriage or other areas of their private life. Many were shocked about Campbell and I know I have been shocked about certain behaviors.
By lozen
February 9, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
Chuck can’t even talk about the NY ferry without throwing in “fairy.” Absolutely positive Chuck has some unresolved sexual issues!
By Brian Curtis
February 9, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
And rightly so.
Renee, you’re mistaken in thinking that “most Canadians come here {to the U.S.} for healthcare.” Most Canadians are doing just fine with the healthcare and prescriptions available in their own country… you DO recall how many people are trying to get access to Canadian drugs from here in the U.S., right?
Yes, SOME Canadians come here for special procedures. Procedures that were either developed here (and therefore have the primary experts) or are too expensive to get elsewhere.
But we’re talking about providing a baseline of coverage for everyone, not just specialty stuff for the ultra-rich. And that’s exactly what we DON’T have right now.
By blablabla
February 9, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
brian,
i share your concern for the cost of healthcare, and will also assume that you’re correct, it’s the insurance companies that make all the money in the business today, although i personally have never verified it.
but i guess i remain unmoved by the argument that every other western democracy has it, so we should too.
and perhaps i am wrong about it, but i don’t feel like the system is so irreparably broken that it cannot be fixed without gov’t takeover. said another way, i think we should at least try other solutions first. instead of seeing the system completely turned over to the gov’t, i would prefer to see some changes made to the existing system to shore up obvious problems (such as charging more for the uninsured, or exploring equitable tax treatment for those who purchase health insurance outside of what is offered by an employer). of the 45mm uninsured americans, approx 60% are either employees of small biz, or their dependants, so it would seem to me if the way was paved for small biz to better band together to purchase group insurance, a large segment of today’s uninsured could be covered. then the problem of uninsured drops from about 15% of the population to closer to 6%.
and i don’t know what kind of coverage you have either through your own means or those of your employer, but i don’t have to wait in lines to see a doctor, and i literally have a BOOK of doctors i can choose to see that are part of my HMO’s plan. seeing covered general practitioners or specialists isn’t a problem that i have with my existing plan. the paperwork is an admitted hassle, but then again, that’s what i have an HR department for. other than the fact that i don’t understand the shell game, i don’t have any issues with it - i get what i need and move on, and the cost for me today is very affordable for my wife and i. i don’t see what i would gain by changing, but i do see a lot of potential downside.
if i get insurnace through my employer and my plan stinks, i can always choose to leave that job and find another employer who has better plans. there may be other obvious trade-offs, but i wouldn’t have the choice of switching plans if it was all administered by the gov’t. i lose any ability to choose. i have a hard time wanting to give that up.
By Dazed
February 9, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
A mouse looked through the crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife open a package.
“What food might this contain?” The mouse wondered - he was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap.
Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning: “There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!”
The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, “Mr. Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you, but it is of no consequence to me. I cannot be bothered by it.”
The mouse turned to the pig and told him, “There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!”
The pig sympathized, but said, “I am so very sorry, Mr. Mouse, but there is nothing I can do about it but pray. Be assured you are in my prayers.”
The mouse turned to the cow and said “There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!”
The cow said, “Wow, Mr. Mouse. I’m sorry for you, but it’s no skin off my nose.”
So, the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to face the farmer’s mousetrap alone.
That very night a sound was heard throughout the house — like the sound of a mousetrap catching its prey.
The farmer’s wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness, she did not see it was a venomous snake whose tail the trap had caught.
The snake bit the farmer’s wife. The farmer rushed her to the hospital, and she returned home with a fever. Everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup, so the farmer took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup’s main ingredient.
But his wife’s sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit with her around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig.
The farmer’s wife did not get well; she died. So many people came for her funeral, the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them.
The mouse looked! upon it all from his crack in the wall with great sadness.
So, the next time you hear someone is facing a problem and think it doesn’t concern you, remember — when one of us is threatened, we are all at risk.
We are all involved in this journey called life. We must keep an eye out for one another and make an extra effort to encourage one another.
SEND THIS TO EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER HELPED YOU OUT AND LET THEM KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THEY ARE.
REMEMBER: EACH OF US IS A VITAL THREAD IN ANOTHER PERSON’S TAPESTRY; OUR LIVES ARE WOVEN TOGETHER FOR A REASON.
By Brian Curtis
February 9, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
Here’s a simple statistic for everyone to consider:
Canadians devote about 10% of their GDP to provide full health coverage for all citizens. American healthcare costs us around 14% of our GDP—and yet 45 million Americans have no coverage at all.
In addition, Canadians are healthier than Americans: they live longer and have lower infant mortality rates… even though they spend less on medical care than we do.
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
You obviously do not know much about coding. I could block you if I was at the ajc, so it appears they do not wish to block you.
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
It never fails. We ALWAYS end up on homosexuality or abortion, and it’s ALWAYS the same people raising the subject.
ALWAYS
ALWAYS
ALWAYS
ALWAYS
Is there no other social evil to eradicate?
Is there no other sin to preach against?
Are there no splinters in our own eyes to pick out?
Have we finally reached the friggin place of perfection where we can now focus on making other people “perfect”?
AND NO ONE ANSWERED MY QUESTION FROM LAST WEEK ABOUT HOMOS IN HEAVEN. Chuck, do you really think that homosexuals who still have homosexual feelings and tendencies, but give up the practice of committing homosexual sex acts for the sake of your god and his heaven will be happy in this beautiful place called heaven, having given up the person they love the most on earth, abiding for all eternity without the love of their most beloved, while all their straight sisters and brothers are reunited with their loving opposite-sex spouses?????????????
By Netbanker
February 9, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
Renee…I think our dogs are related. Abby has pulled that same move too. One of my frustrations with the house breaking is the wonderful advice of the ‘experts’ to yell at your pup when you catch them in the act so that they stop and you can quickly take them outside. They’ve obviously never met my stubborn lil’ darlin’ because once she starts she’s not stopping until the job is done! I know because I’ve tried that method and when I pick her up she just keeps on peeing.
My partner is convinced that Mr. Campbell will not be convicted a la OJ despite clear evidence to the contrary and testimony from credible witnesses. I hate to say it, but I think race will play a more important role than guilt. That thought makes me really sad because if it is the case those folks on the jury aren’t righting any judicial system wrongs from the past. IMO what the would ultimately be saying is that it’s acceptable for a black man to achieve success by being elected mayor then screw all the black citizens who helped elect him AND leave them holding a bag of financial crap along with pot hole laden roads and a sh itty (pun intended) sewer system.
By Renee
February 9, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
Yes, many Americans are trying to get access to Canadian drugs. But Canadians are coming here specifically for medical procedures that the waiting list is too long for in Canada. They can come to America and have the procedure done more expeditiously and probably more cost effectively.
And although you may be on a list of 100 people, that does not guarantee you a place in line to become the 100th person for the surgery. People have been known to be moved further up or down in the line with no reasonable explanation as to why. This is the government, you remember. And the waiting lists with a country as large as hours most certainly will not be limited to major surgeries such as open heart or transplants, but will be for hysterectomies, oral surgery and the list goes on and on. Do you want the government to control healthcare on top of everything else they already control.
We can’t even go to the DMV and get a drivers license in a reasonable amount of time but you think healthcare would be quick and effective?
By The72John
February 9, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
My argument isn’t that we should have it because every other Western democracy has it - I think we should have it because for a nation that is as wealthy as ours, and for a nation that makes loud and persistent claims that it is the greatest nation on Earth, to allow people to die because they can’t afford health care is obscene.
Should we have fully subsidised health care? No. But we SHOULD have at least a base layer of government protection to catch the most vulnerable, and then additional incentives, be they tax breaks, small group plans, whatever, to catch those who are self-employed who can’t otherwise afford coverage.
By Renee
February 9, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
NetB, LOL…mine is not stopping either until she gets it out. If I catch her in the at and yell at her, she will run away…..with a steady stream of pee following her. Sometimes I put 2 or 3 puppy pads next to each other so she will have more space, SHE STILL GOES TO THE EDGE OF THE FURTHEST ONE!! You gotta love em, lol…
Your second paragraph is actually true NetB, sad and true.
JBM…just a little irritated eh??? LOL
By Michael Fleming
February 9, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
I seriously doubt that my comment will be taken seriously after the definitive posts of Michael_D, but I will try.
Perhaps we need to question the motives of a system that even considers making a profit off of keeping people healthy. The Constitution may not promise free healthcare to all, but the the Declaration of Independence suggests it. All men are created equal… they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights… life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does this sound familiar?
If all men are equal then why do some men have better health coverage? Is it really because they earn more? Does the Declaration of Independence say, “they are endowed by the amount of money they have in their bank account with certain inalienable rights, barring financial catastrophe.” Your health is your life. Once your health reaches 0% I recon your life takes a turn for the worse.
Take an example: If John Q drops out of high school and never gets a GED he is relegated to a menial or labor intensive job. Increasingly these type jobs are not offering health care. And lets say John smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day in his 20s until he finally realized it was a problem. But then in his 40s John learns that the damage he did in his 20s has led to lung cancer. Should we let him die because he cannot afford the best treatment available? Should he be punished for his poor choices 20 years prior? What if it wasn’t John who got cancer, but his daughter? Should she be made to suffer because of her father’s mistake?
I suggest that health care for profit will never be concerned about health care. In fact, it will be concerned about profit and that means that only those who do not need it will receive insurance. In other words, health care for profit is an oxymoron, and an abomination to the Hippocratic oath.
By The72John
February 9, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Hey JBM - here’s something REALLY funny.
A couple of days ago there was a blog about the removal of the sales tax exemption for Bibles. Pretty much every poster seemed to agree that allowing an exemption for one religion’s holy text and not the holy texts of other religions was wrong.
Sadie Fields was quoted in the article as referring to the Baghavad Gita as “metaphysical mumbo-jumbo”, and several people had things to say about her in general and about that remark.
Now, not one single person mentioned either A) homosexuality or B) atheism.
BUT, near the end of the day, some idiot said something like “Well, I see that as soon as you mention Sadie Fields the militant homosexuals and the militant atheists start screaming”.
All I could do was laugh…it’s always the religious whackos who bring it up…they’re obsessed. Heck - they think about gay sex more than I do!
By chuck
February 9, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
JBM, If you read Acts 10 and 11 you will see that Peter’s vision to some degree anulled the Old testament dietary laws. A more clear picture is found in I Cor. Chapter 8. I don’t believe the laws found concerning diet in Leviticus 11 are still in force. They were put in place for a purpose that primarily had to do with hygiene and idolotry.
So yes, JBM, I eat shellfish AND pork.
I’m looking into the nighttime harbor cruises. That looks like fun.
Chilao, the Dream Theater concert is for my 17 year old son’s birthday. I like Dream Theater, but they are his favorite band. I don’t care for the really strident metal stuff like Metallica. For one thing, their message is almost always negative and they use a lot of profanity. DT on the other hand has fantastic musicians. Lead singer James LaBrie sang on broadway, Jordan Rudess the keyboardist trained at Juliard. My son’s favorite is John Petrucci the lead guitarist. He is about as good as they come. He’s played in the G-3 with Steve Vai. Makes Hetfield look like an amateur (almost). The bass player John Myung is pretty good too. My favorite is drummer Mike Portnoy. He’s about the best I’ve ever heard.
My wife has wanted to go to NYC for years. Her main desire is to go to the Library because of a book she read when she was a little girl. My daughter wants to go the zoo. Thanks for the tip about the Bronx Zoo. We’ll have to add it the list. I really want to see Lady Liberty. I think I’ll go down to Christopher Street and preach while I’m there.
By The72John
February 9, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
I suggest that health care for profit will never be concerned about health care. In fact, it will be concerned about profit and that means that only those who do not need it will receive insurance. In other words, health care for profit is an oxymoron, and an abomination to the Hippocratic oath.
You’ll get no argument from me - I have argued this in the past. However, the typical response is “they deserve money because they studied hard”. Forget the oath that every doctor takes - no one takes oaths seriously any more. They are antiquated curiosities.
By RF
February 9, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
John- it’s all the repression they preach these days. They have to think about it or they’d explode!
Government running healthcare. HAHAHAHAHA!! Now that’s funny! We’d let a bunch of fools who actually spend money to build bridges in the middle of nowhere in Alaska decide how to run our healthcare?? Thanks, but no thanks!!
By The72John
February 9, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
I can’t wait until a 250 pound body builder in a dress punches Chuck in the face.
By blablabla
February 9, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Should we have fully subsidised health care? No. But we SHOULD have at least a base layer of government protection to catch the most vulnerable, and then additional incentives, be they tax breaks, small group plans, whatever, to catch those who are self-employed who can’t otherwise afford coverage.
john, i could sign on for this. i could agree with this. but i’m not ready to go the extra step that i think brian is prepared to take and nationalize health care.
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
Chuck - Metallica swears? Never heard any(swears). LOL Oh, DT, that’s like the older guy at the supermarket a few years ago behind me in line, wearing a DANZIG T-shirt. I pointed to him, the shirt, did a “What’s wrong with this picture”. He laughed, said it was his son’s shirt.
By RF
February 9, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
Hmmmmmm, so laws put forth in THE BIBLE are not in force anymore…. So how do we know which ones are still in force and which ones aren’t?
Okay, is it just me or does that open up a REALLY big can of worms? Anyone want to take that ball and run with it? I don’t have the time.
By Netbanker
February 9, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Renee…LOL! I feel your pain!! (or is that pee?)
Ding, ding, ding WE HAVE A WINNER!
Michael F…my primary motto is (say it with me now everyone) “Follow the money!” We have actuaries and accountants making decisions instead of medical personnel. How many of you have been screwed by changes to the prescription formulary? My insurance just changed ours so that Ambien is no longer convered so it is now $110 and so far the only thing that works for my partner. With the change they will cover several other sleeping pills that all work differently, stay in one’s system for 8-10 hours which tends to result in sleeping pill hangovers, and are all HIGHLY addictive according to my partner’s doctor so no more than 2 pills in a week. I feel like telling my partner to go ahead and take as many as he needs to sleep because if he does become addicted our insurance WILL cover rehab so we can screw them over in the end. The decision is based on MONEY not what is best for the patient. When talking to the doc about it she told us about another patient whose insurance decided not to cover zoloft even though the woman had been on it for 3 years. They insisted she switch to any of 3 other drugs that hadn’t worked for the patient in the past. Despite appealing all the way to the CEO the doctor never got anywhere and the patient got stuck with the decision to either come up with $500 monthly for the pills or suffer dibilitating depression.
Personal opinion is that 72J is right. How can we talk about how fantastic a country we are and everyone knows we’re the wealtheist country yet we can’t guarantee basic health care to everyone? This is terrible especially in light of the our leadership’s piety and claims of being a Christian nation. We’re a christian nation that does not house the homeless, feed the hungry, or clothe the naked.
Discussing a minimal level of health care doesn’t mean we MUST model that system after another country’s system. It also doesn’t mean that one can’t buy up to a better plan or that there isn’t room for a free market type system.
By Renee
February 9, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
~passing the ball to JBM~
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
Oh what I would give to be able to respond to that in person, Chuck.
But, I’ll settle for this forum. Are you saying that Peter’s dream trumps God’s levitical law? And, are you saying that only the laws concerning diet are no longer “in force”?
In all seriousness (no sarcasm), be very careful if you plan to preach on Christopher Street. You have a family to think of, so while martyrdom may be honorable to you, I’m sure your family would prefer to have you around a little longer. Your daughter will love the zoo, and the evening harbor cruises are the best!
By Jack
February 9, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
If you favor government run healthcare, visit a VA hospital. You will change your mind. I’ve had more than one relative die at one.
By RF
February 9, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Hmmmmmmm, so some laws in THE BIBLE are no longer in force. So who decides which ones are still in force and which ones aren’t? I do believe we’ve seen Leviticus quoted for evidence against homosexuality before, haven’t we? If passages about pork are no longer valid, then what else might not be?
Anyone else see the can of worms that opens up, or is it just me? Laws in the Bible no longer in use. And here I was thinking we were supposed to live according to the whole thing. Interesting debate coming forth??
By RF
February 9, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Unless the federal gov’t wants to hire a private company to run it’s minimum healthcare, then it will never work. Look at Medicaid and Medicare!! My parents are semi-retired now and keeping jobs so that they can keep some healthcare. My mom almost went nuts trying to figure out what the heck to do with Medicare. God help us if we try to offer socialized medicine!!
By Netbanker
February 9, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
Slow down there kids….the dietary laws and none of the other from Leviticus aren’t in effect anymore. The ‘rule’ against f ags will always stand. They’ve got to keep the masses focused on an enemy (gays/lesbians) and also provide an issue to feel good about (abortion/right to life). This will keep the dolts from realizing that they’re giving lots of money to an organization that doesn’t care about humans once they’re born unless they’re gay because they’re the enemy.
So in the end it’s ALL about abortion and homosexuality…and MONEY from the mindless.
By The72John
February 9, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Please, oh please, don’t open up the can again! I’m just not in the mood.
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
LOL @ passing the ball… lol
The Leviticus debate is one of my favorites. Bring it on.
By Netbanker
February 9, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
Oh puhleeeese….Chuck won’t get beat up preaching on Christopher Street. The gay people will either ignore him or ask him to leave. They’ll behave in a more loving and forgiving and Christ-like manner than Chuck or any other conservative christian.
God put gays and lesbians on the earth to be a thorn in the side of religious fanantics because they aren’t really “Doing unto others as they would have done unto them” nor are they concerned with Jesus statements about “Whatever you do to the least of my children you do unto me” or even about the overwhelming message of LOVE in the Bible. For those people it’s usually about making themselves feel better by belittling and demonizing a group of people they don’t even really know and who have no effect whatsoever on the daily lives of the religious nutballs.
By Michael_F
February 9, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
Yes, the government can’t do anything right. What was I thinking? We should get rid of all government. Let’s start with the police. Get rid of the police then the national guard and then the army. From there we will get rid of the CDC and the FDA. Oh wait, don’t forget the court system. The Department of Energy, Homeland Security, Social Security, the Coast Guard, the Department of Labor, the EEOC, oh the list goes on and on.
It’s a good thing these agencies are completely useless and provide no service to us. Why haven’t we thought of this before. We can all just live in harmony together. I trust you, you trust me. We can make it work, right? Come on my brothers and sisters, we do this. Let us all cast aside the binds of big brother and become a nation of the unled. We will decide everything by a giant committee of 300,000,000. Everyone gets a voice; everyone gets to put their two cents worth in on how each and every daily activity should be run. I’m so excited. This will work. Don’t you think? Let’s go. Who’s with me?
By RF
February 9, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
Just seems MAJORLY inconsistent that we can “overlook” parts of the Bible because, well, they just don’t fit our world anymore. I just about peed myself when he posted that. I wonder when it’ll hit him what a faux pas that was. How consistently inconsistent!!
I like your take on it Net. Sounds about right to me!!
Well, have fun gang. I’m heading home a bit early so I can recharge the batteries (that and make sure that dang cat’s out BEFORE I go to bed tonight!!—LOL I love him, but he drives me nuts sometimes).
By Renee
February 9, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
The government should be here, the sectors that protect my life, personal freedom and property, which would include the police, coast guard, homeland security, CDC, and FDA (to an extent).
We don’t need the government in each and every facet of our lives, telling us what to eat, what to believe, what not to eat etc, who to marry, etc…
By Netbanker
February 9, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
Jack…are you recommending taking relatives we don’t like to the VA hospital? One of my friends is a head nurse at the VA (shhhhhh…don’t tell anyone he’s gay) and he’s highly frustrated at time about rules the gov’t puts in place that either contradict or water down general nursing practices that are accepted in non-government hospitals.
By The72John
February 9, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
Tell that to the Stonewall folks, Net ;-)
Actually, you’re probably right. A Chuck-like jerk set up smack-dab in the middle of the parade, right at the gates to the park last year, and no one killed him.
By Noah
February 9, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
As a born again christian I have to say Jesus never said anything about homosexuals. He did say, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” and “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” People like Chuck are not following the Bible teachings. They are trying to do something entirely different and using the Bible to support their intolerance and their hatred of their neighbors. And they will be called to pay for those sins of judging and hating. Your sex life is between you and your God; God created all of us in his image and God loves you!
By Juliette
February 9, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
???What are you all on????
By Brian Curtis
February 9, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
Michael F: Good point about the profit motive. Especially given that one argument I’ve heard against putting doctors on a salary is that “If they can’t make tons of money, they won’t be motivated to provide very good care.” Huh???
I acknowledge the concerns about putting too much under government control. But I do hold out the recognition that the alternative (corporate control) is worse… and at least government is nominally accountable to the people.
I don’t go so far as to say “government control = public control”—after all, we do have plenty of corruption to deal with. But on the whole, given a choice between the profit motive of an insurance company, and a government agency that’s required to be transparent and accountable to people who can be voted out of office (in theory), the choice to me is clear.
Assuming those are the only two options, of course. But somebody’s going to have decision-making power, and it apparently can’t be entirely up to the individual as long as someone else is chipping in to pay for it. So what’s an alternative?
By The72John
February 9, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
???What are you all on????
Perhaps you could be more specific? Or are you just another newcomer who thinks they should dictate the week-to-week discussion on a blog they’ve never before frequented?
By Jack
February 9, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
Juliette. We are on a “blog” high. Nothing like it. as addictive as heroin.
Michael_F. Put down the bong.
By Noah
February 9, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
Juliette, I can’t answer for anyone else but I’m filled with Christ’s love for you and every other human being. Well, sometimes it’s hard and I can only try. I don’t understand how people can twist the Bible with it’s message of love into hating groups of people who are just like everyone else and wanting to keep them from having rights we all should have. So Juliette, my dear, what are you on?
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
Juliette psst, psst, got some real good sh!t here, want some? LOL
By chuck
February 9, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
JBM, the answer to your question is that of course they will be happy in heaven. The Bible says that in Heaven there is no “marriage”. We will know our loved ones and probably have some sort of relationship with them but it won’t be marriage. The Bible teaches that we will be “as the angels”. We will have a body that has CHANGED from the physical to the spiritual.
By Michael_F
February 9, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
First of all, I never suggested that the government would necessarily be the entity that would control health care. I said that health care for profit was an oxymoron.
I know we live in a capitalist society, but even here we have more than just for profit and government. We have a thing called non profit and not for profit. Don’t say it can’t work because the Scottish Rite system was born of donations to the Shriners. I’m absolutely certain it is not the only hospital of its ilk.
In Athens my wife, her boss and her OBGYN all dedicated time to a community clinic that saw people at no charge.
Then we could also look at hospitals that charge just cost. If you have ever spent the evening in a hospital I’m sure you’ve asked more than one nurse why a single Tylenol costs $6.00. When my daughter was born, after having exemplary prenatal care, she spent 20 days in the NICU. It cost me $20,000.00. What exactly do you suppose really cost $20,000.00. The nurse that stood by her side 24/7 did not cost that much, even if you count over-time. The doctor on call did not either. Especially if you pro-rate her worth over all of the other NICU babies.
Or you could do Not For Profit hospitals. These would be hospitals that take donations, and charge cost + a small percentage, maybe 2%. If they come out on top, good for them.
Or, better yet, how about charging nothing for emergency visits. That way the greedy little doctors can get what coming to them at their private office.
I also never suggested that profit health care be eliminated. I said it was an oxymoron. I still think it is. But those who believe in it can still go to money hospitals, or moneypitals. Everyone else can go to hospitals.
I don’t think the government need be involved necessarily. But the current system of private/for profit health care is tragicly flawed, if you believe in equality. The government is going to have to step in at one point or another. Probably sooner than you think.
By Netbanker
February 9, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Nite, RF! I love him, but he drives me nuts sometimes You are still talking about the cat, right? Cause that sounds pretty much like my hubby…and vice versa.
By lozen
February 9, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
Chilao, LMAO, it really is good s-h-i-t but stop trying to give it all away! Rewind Juliette … he didn’t really mean that.
By Just Being Me
February 9, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Chuck, I beg to differ. As you stated (and I agree), in heaven, we will know our loved ones and have a relationship with them. Since we won’t be in the physical flesh, there will be no physical relationship, but there will be knowledge (or perhaps, recollection) of love.
What makes you think that a person, albeit a spiritual being, would be happy spending eternity unable to love the person they love most? I guess it’s easy for you to assume they would since, in your opinion, you and your wife will both be in heaven enjoying eternity, worshipping the Father together. But, there’s no way a person could give up the person they love most, and be happy for all eternity without them.
And, you overlooked my 3:29 question.
By Netbanker
February 9, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
Your sex life is between you and your God It’s a good thing my partner doesn’t read or participate in this blog. He’d think you were telling him he was a God…and a sex god at that!
By FatMoose
February 9, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
Hello all, hope you are doing alright.
Last (5?10?100?)times I dropped in here this was the same conversation. Kind of like the twilight zone in here - time stands still and Chuck never learns.
Enjoy and be safe.
(anyone here remember crystal and her “stay sweet” post each friday? I think she must have gotten blog therapy and is now in recovery. Hence the friday drop-ins to see the old addicts - keeps you real and in touch;)
By The72John
February 9, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
You’re ignoring the obvious flaw in your reasoning, JBM.
Chuck believes that you shouldn’t love the person you love. And if you do love that person you aren’t supposed to, you should be chaste and unhappy your whole life.
Obviously, heterosexual people get to love and marry anyone they want and be deleriously happy, but gay people, who are already shat upon by society on a regular basis and think the Trials of Job sound pretty familiar, are supposed to be even more miserable. Thanks, Chuck!
By Jack
February 9, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
“Your sex life is between you and your God It’s a good thing my partner doesn’t read or participate in this blog. He’d think you were telling him he was a God…and a sex god at that!”
Ain’t touching that one!
By Randy
February 9, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
Chuck doesn’t need to learn, he is the one who has it RIGHT.
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
lozen - actually I was tryin’ to be a bizman. LOL
we was goin’ talk prices once she come into the dark alley.
man, that took me back. LMAO
wait, wait, that was just something I saw in a movie once, yeah,yeah, that’s it.
By Jack
February 9, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
Chilao. And you didn’t inhale did you?
By Netbanker
February 9, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
Hey Chilao! You can give some way over here cause I just had to buy mine. It’s too cold outside to be growing my Mrs. Madrigal Garden.
72J…that was a very different time. Have you ever been to the Stonewall Inn? It’s actually kind of dark and creepy in there.
JBM…don’t you be begging anything when speaking to Mr. C! I don’t care if it’s only to differ. I get what you’re saying, but I think you’re as likely to get your message across to Abby as you are to Chuck.
By lozen
February 9, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this
I volunteer at a clinic in DeKalb county run entirely on donations. The doctors, nurses and pharmacists donate their time. Drugs are donated. They ask for a small contribution if you can pay it. Volunteers do the paperwork and the reception. I love the people there. I found it when I moved here, my Cobra payments were so high I just couldn’t afford to pay them, and I had no job. I continued going until my income was too high to qualify and was really upset when I couldn’t go there anymore. So I became a volunteer to repay them for what they gave me and because it’s a great bunch of people to hang out with. They are so nice and never, ever make anyone feel they look down on them because they’re down on their luck, unemployed, or making such low wages. Imagine that!
By Chilao
February 9, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
Scout’s Honor..I did inhale. LOL
By The72John
February 9, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
In bizzaro-world, Randy.
By FatMoose
February 9, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this
Chuck doesn’t need to learn, he is the one who has it RIGHT.
He who says I have it RIGHT has never been farther from the truth.
We could have a calm, sytematic discussion outlining the message of the bible and the contextual changes that, if you are of decent intelligence will prove AT THE VERY LEAST that you do not have it RIGHT.
Given another 30min (without your two’s usual talents of posting gobs of material as a tangent), I could prove that you are flat out wrong.
But all that proof still depends on your ability to reason and care about TRUTH - which does not exist and makes helping you live a more full life a futile effort.
We will all still pray for you though.
By Brian Curtis
February 10, 2006 07:46 AM | Link to this
It’s Friday! JOKE TIME!
Mr. Jackson came home early from work, only to find his wife in bed with another man. Furious, he shouted, “What the heck is going on here?�
“See?� Mrs. Jackson said to her lover. “I told you he was stupid.�
A college basketball coach goes to the university president and demands a raise.
“But you already make more than the entire English department put together,� President Stafford objects.
“Sure, but you should see what kind of garbage I have to deal with,� the coach replies. He grabs a passing athlete coming in from the field and says, “Hey, Michaels: run over to my office and see if I’m there.�
“Sure thing, coach,� the young man replies and takes off for the admin building at top speed.
Ten minutes later he returns, sweaty and out of breath. “Nope, you’re not there,� Michaels reports.
Amazed, President Stafford shakes his head. “I see what you mean,� he muses. “I would’ve just called.�
Three veteran drinkers are arguing over where to go this Saturday night.
“Let’s go to Jimmy’s Place,� says one. “On Saturdays, every third drink is free.�
“Nah, the Rockwell is better,� the second objects. “Every other drink before 9 p.m. is free.�
“Hah!� interjects the third. “I just heard about a place where every single drink is free… AND you can get some hot action in the parking lot afterwards.�
“Wow, that sounds great,� the first grins. “Where’d you hear about it?�
“From my wife.�
By Randy
February 10, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this
Did anybody see the special by Elizabeth Vargas(of ABC news)last night, on Jesus’ being crucified??? If you have any doubts about Jesus being the messiah, that show would have ended all doubts. They talked about how all the disciples totally changed after they talked to Jesus after he was resurrected(between 500 and 600 people talked with Jesus after he was crucified and resurrected) and many went to their deaths (spreading the word of the lord). That people just don’t do that for someone who died(and never resurrected) on the cross in that day. How the Jesus movement would have died out in just a generation or two(at most), had that miracle not occurred. Basically, it’s not human nature to follow someone who dies on the cross, give your life for that cause, unless something unique happends that proves he is the son of God. So instead of that cause dying out 2000 years ago, now we have over 2 billion Christians. Powerful show.
By The72John
February 10, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this
Gee Randy, that would be just dandy if it weren’t for all the OTHER religions that have had similar histories.
Your filter for reality remains intact, I see.
By Julia
February 10, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
Exactly Randy!!!
And once you come to know Christ and feel the power of the Holy Spirit there is NO WAY you can have any doubts about His existance. He makes Himself very well known.
Big difference between believing in something as an adult(like the tooth fairy)that never gives you any reason to believe in it versus believing in Jesus who makes Himself known to you thus removing ALL DOUBT about His existance.
If you’ve never felt the presence of the Holy Spirit it’s something that you just don’t understand because it’s not “real” to you. But, trust me, for us Christians He’s as real as the stars in the sky.
There’s a physical realm and a spiritual realm. The physical is obviously easy for anyone to see, feel and touch. But the spiritual isn’t something you can put in a box or take a picture of in order to “prove” it’s existance. That’s one reason it’s so hard for non-believers to grasp and understand it’s existance.
OK, I’m ready for some good jokes today…
Good morning by the way. :)
By Jack
February 10, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
If there wasn’t some truth to it, the story would not be told more than 2000 years later. Had it been B.S. as Randy said, it would have died out after one or two gernerations.
By The72John
February 10, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this
The only problem with that rationale, Jack, is that there are other religions with diametrically opositional stories that ALSO continue to thrive.
Bhuddism and Islam, for instance, are both built upon the teachings of a single individual.
By Eirik
February 10, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this
On the contrary Jack…myth always survives longer than reality..myth can’t be proven but it can’t be disproven either. If there was some solid evidence for Christiananity it would be subject to scrutiny. Since there is no evidence…even that Jesus actually existed, the only thing that is left is faith.
By Jack
February 10, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
If it was B.S., there would not be as many to worship. Give humans more credit Eirik.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this
I remember, as a child, “feeling” santa’s presence as x-mas got closer. It was a “real” feeling; but alas he was not.
I also remember putting my hand on the stove and “feeling” getting burned, although the stovetop was not on and the “feeling” instantly dissapated once I knew that.
Now, I believe in jesus, but how you phrase your points show a combative nature that is not coherent with jesus or the spirituality he avocates. For example, I could state that the reason that 2+2=4 is because I wear black shoes - but the two have no connection.
In short, your purpose for avocating jesus is for your agenda and not his. You USE him and his word to continue your evil nature and not to better yourselves or society.
Any good jokes today beside randy, julia, and chuck?
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
If the whole story was proven, there would be no need for faith.
Bible-believers believe that it is impossible to please God without faith.
By Jack
February 10, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this
There was a preacher whose wife was expecting a baby so he went before the congregation and asked for a raise. After much discussion, they passed a rule that whenever the preacher’s family expanded, so would his paycheck.
After 6 children, this started to get expensive and the Congregation decided to hold another meeting to discuss the preacher’s salary. There was much yelling and bickering about how much the clergyman’s additional children were costing the church.
Finally, the Preacher got up and spoke to the crowd, “Children are a gift from God,” he said. Silence fell on the congregation.
In the back pew, a little old lady stood up and in her frail voice said, “Rain is also a gift from God, but when we get too much of it, we wear rubbers.”
And the congregation said, “Amen.”
By Sanhan
February 10, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
“And many went to their deaths (spreading the word of the lord).”
Beware of paradox; exisitence is is rife with it.
Not to denigrate Christianity, nor fan the flames of religious intolerance, but to illustrate the power that religion has on people, one could make the argument that suicide bombers go to their deaths, too, spreading the word of their lord. This is particularly true when politics and religion are are combined into theocracy.
While many Christians who post here are convinced that their one religion can save the world, some of us recognize that plurality, different and sometimes contrary beliefs will always exist because the human brain in its unenlightened form depends on dichotomies. For example, how do you know good without knowing evil, light from darkness, etc. Add the difficulties of language, cultural differences, gender issues, and it’s not so surprising that people are willing to die and kill for these beliefs.
Perhaps our challenge is to build on what each of these religions and philosophies has in common, “Love your neighbor,” as the end point and starting point to complete our spiritual circles, instead of just being a footnote in linear thought.
“Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders; but after observation and analysis when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept and live up to it.” Buddha.
Not that I would even pretend to have Buddha’s eloquence or enlightenment, but notice that Buddha did not say you should try to convert others to your way of thinking. Perhaps attemping to live up to the high standards of reason are as close as many of us can get to salvation or enlightenment. Perhaps in a world of paradox, close enough is the whole enchilada….
Just “food” for thought on a Friday morning…
Namaste, all.
By Julia
February 10, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
Exactly JBM-it’s about faith.
FatMouse apparently you are trying to be cute-but it isn’t working.
By Chilao
February 10, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
A tour bus driver is driving with a bus load of seniors down highway when he is tapped on his shoulder by a little old lady. She offers him a handful of peanuts, which he gratefully munches up.
After about 15 minutes, she taps him on his shoulder again and she hands him another handful of peanuts.
She repeats this gesture about five more times. When she is about to hand him another batch again he asks the little old lady why they don’t eat the peanuts themselves.
“We can’t chew them because we’ve no teeth”, she replied.
The puzzled driver asks, “Why do you buy them then?”
The old lady replied, “We just love the chocolate around them.”
By Julia
February 10, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
Well put Jack. Good morning!
Glad to see they removed the postings from that you-know-what yesterday. Sorry he was so disgusting to you Jack. Where did this guy come from???
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
FatMouse apparently you are trying to be cute-but it isn’t working.
Not trying to be cute at all. But you think you know what I am thinking, just as you think you know the truth.
Your assertions and especially the presentation/purpose of such assertions are polar to jesus’ teachings as well as the good of ANY faith.
What 99% of all humans (disciples included - especially paul) have done sick things to the bible and its message. Read over Cor. and check out the rebirth of OT ideas - most of the NT writers had re-invented the OT although it was in opposition to what jesus was teaching. He even said, before dying on the cross, that all of his disciples would betray him. And here you are listening and trusting those same fallible humans that he gave us warning about.
By Eirik
February 10, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
So Jack,
Are you saying that something is true if enough people believe it?
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
ROFL Chilao!!!! That was hilarious!
By The72John
February 10, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
Sorry, but “It’s all about faith” is a cop-out.
I’m not as soft-voiced as Sanhan. I’m a rationalist, but I don’t reject spirituality, I just reject human constructions that attempt to frame and limit the Divine.
All of the things Julia describes - her certainty that Christ exists as an active presence in her life, her experiences that convince her that her faith is the RIGHT, ONLY faith…do you not understand that in every faith you will find people who are as absolutely convinced of the rightness of THEIR faith?
Personal conviction does not equal absolute truth, and I’m sorry, but the unwillingness to appreciate that fact, the continued assertion that you MUST be right and others MUST be wrong is exactly what leads to all of the evils that “religion” as a man-made construct enables.
Human beings have committed more atrocities in the name of Faith than for any other cause, throughout the history of the world, BECAUSE of absolute certainty in a faith that neither requires nor accepts critical analysis.
I have no objections to people having faith…but certainty can be a very scary thing.
By Julia
February 10, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
An atheist complained to a Christian friend, “You Christians have your sacred holidays, such as Christmas and Easter. Jews celebrate their national holidays, such as Passover and Yom Kippur. But we atheists have no recognized national holidays. It’s unfair discrimination.”
His friend replied, “Why don’t you celebrate April first?”
By Jack
February 10, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this
No Eirik. That is not what I meant. John you sure are not as nice as Sandy. (our Upstate New York icicle)
By Renee
February 10, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
Today is joke day. No serious talk!!!
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
WARNING: This joke contains gross stereotypes, and may be offensive to some. But, shucks, it’s still funny as heck.
Gabriel came to the Lord and said, “I have to talk to you. I have Black folks up here in Heaven who are causing some problems. They are climbing over the Pearly Gates trying to take shortcuts, got barbecue sauce all over their robes, ham hocks, chicken, spareribs, and pig feet bones are all over the streets of Gold, and my horn is missing. Some folk are walking around with one wing! They are late to worship, and never want to take their turn to clean the stairway to heaven. There are watermelon seeds all over the clouds. Some of them refusing to wear their halos, saying it is messing up they hair. Lord, I just can’t take it anymore!”
The Lord said, “Heaven is home to all my children! Each person here adds to the wonderful tapestry of heaven and that’s how it’s supposed to be. If you think you have problems, ask satan about his problems.”
The Lord picked up the speakerphone and called satan. The devil answered the phone and said, “Hello? Dang, hold on.” The devil returned to the phone and said, “Hello Lord, what can I do for you?” The Lord replied, “Tell me what kind of problems you are having down there.” The devil said, “Wait one minute,” and put the Lord on hold. After 5 minutes he returned to the phone, and said “Okay, I’m back. What was the question?” The Lord said, “Gabriel’s a little down. Tell him about the kind of problems are you having down there.”
The devil said, “Man, I don’t believe this…. hold on, Lord.” This time the devil was gone for 15 minutes. The devil returned and said, “I’m sorry Lord, I can’t talk right now. First, these black folks done put the fire out, and now, they’re trying to install air conditioning!”
By Sanhan
February 10, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
J72- I’m not sure my husband would agree with the “soft-voiced” description…
Eirik- If people believe that something is true, it becomes absolutely true in its consequences. Just not “absolute” truth.
By RF
February 10, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this
Fishing in a boat one day, two men see a bottle floating by. The guy sitting in the back picks up the bottle and pulls out the cork. A genie appears.
“I will grant you one wish since you have freed me,” says the genie.
The guy up front blurts out, “I wish the lake would turn into beer!”
Just like that, they are floating on a lake full of beer.
“Way to go,” the guy in the back says angrily. “Now we have to pee in the boat.”
By lozen
February 10, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
Round and round and round we go: God exists because his holy book says so and the bible is the word of god because it says so. And you must have faith to believe in a fantastical story that goes totally and completely against nature because otherwise you would not be able to believe it. You must believe it because you must have faith to believe it and having faith that mythical fantastic stories are literal truth is good. Wow. One thing I know for sure: human beings are so suggestible and so susceptible to mass hypnosis. I met a woman who unquestioningly believes the Archangel Michael is head of the heavenly military flying space ships and waiting to pick us up when the great catastrophe happens (if your heart is pure, if not you won’t be able to stand the transition)! I’ve read stories about Buddha, Mohammed, Zoroaster, Confucius, Zeus, Isis, Spider Woman, White Buffalo Woman, and Jesus. The Jesus story doesn’t seem any more real to me than the others. “Everything the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements…” Einstein
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this
John, I agree with you that personal conviction does not equal absolute truth. This is why I, personally, don’t take the “my way is the right way and if you don’t go my way you’re going to hell” approach. Whether I believe that or not is irrelevant.
Think of it like this. You’re walking down the street, minding your business and all of a sudden you feel this overwhelming warmth. Heat consumes you. You turn around to see what you believe is an alien following you. It is clear to you that this is no human, but some other life form, right here in Atlanta.
You tell people about it, perhaps your partner, boss, police, fellow bloggers. But, the only people who believe that this “alien” exists are those who saw it too. Some people may start to believe saying that they had a heat flash one night, so it must have been the alien - which may or may not be true. Some will never believe.
Either way, you John, know that the alien exists because you had a personal experience with the alien.
I would call that strange faith. You would call it absolute truth.
It’s the same with Jesus. For me, it could be proven TODAY that the Bible is fake. A complete myth. Someone could present hardcore factual evidence that it was just some book written by some men, and that there is no divine creator. My mother could tell me that she was wrong, and there is no Christ. My pastor could tell me he was wrong, and there is no Christ.
And you know what? I would still believe. Because I had a personal experience with Him, so I know with that “scary certainty” that He exists.
By Chilao
February 10, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
Playboy advisor had a question awhile back.
Guy writes in and asks: “My girlfriend has learned I shave in the shower and she is all grossed out, says it is really tacky. What should I do?”.
Advisor response: “Don’t tell her about the peeing”.
Okay, ladies, it’s a guy thing. LOL
By Netbanker
February 10, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
Good Morning everyone! And a happy Friday to all! Stock up on your supplies because it sounds like a good weekend for staying curled up inside on the sofa with a fire going in the fireplace and a great book (as well as a large bottle or 3 of red wine).
Jack…I don’t know about giving humans more credit. We’ve all seen some pretty darn idiotic behavior from humans and I readily admit that I’ve done some stupid things myself. General education is only a very recent improvement in human life quality when taken in context of the amount of time that humans have inhabited the earth. I’d venture that a 2nd grader today has more education than most adults had 200 years ago. For a very recent example just look at Fantasia What’sHerName from American Idol who has a mother who is functionally illiterate in the 21st Century! Just consider the number of 2nd and 3rd world countries where education is not a given and then take a look at growth trends in religion (Christianity is growing most in Central/South America,Africa, and Asia). They are pretty much in alignment. It would be very easy to continue to have myths perpetrated over the course of that time, especially when being the holder of the myth provides power over the non-holder.
The Catholic Church was a master at this and especially adept at survival. For example take how the church introduced confession of sins to a priest which is absolutely nowhere in the Bible. This gave the church inside information on all of the royal leaders in Europe and could be used to pit one against another or to always remain in favor with the winner of a battle because of what they knew.
As Sandy mentions almost all religions have the same central tenets to them and revolve around the message of ‘Love your neighbor.’ If this is the case, then why is there so much animosity between religions or even within different branches of the same religion? Why the arrogance of Christianity that they are THE only method of salvation? It just doesn’t reconcile that an omnipotent and supposedly loveing God requires all of his creation to believe in a single method especially in light of the lack of effective mass communication any time prior to the last 100 years. Add illiteracy to that and you have a very ineffective omnipotent being. Why would people choose to believe this instead of those of us who believe that God appears to each and every one of us in a way that is meaningful to us? That just maybe God is more concerned about HOW we treat the people around us instead of living a life of words rather than deeds? I was raised in an extremely conservative Lutheran church and was taught that one’s relationship with God is personal. What happens is between you and God. If this is true (and i accept that it is) then what is Chuck’s or Randy’s or anyone’s justification that I must have THEIR relationship with God?
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
Lozen, I understand why you don’t believe. Given all that I know about logic and reality, if I hadn’t had an experience with Christ, I probably wouldn’t believe either.
By Renee
February 10, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
LOL funny JBM…I’ve heard that one while ago and loved it then!!
This is how it goes. One one side we have the devout Christians, who have complete faith in the Lord, and who cannot understand why others do not share that love for the Lord and faith with them.
On the other side we have nonbelievers, who want something tangible to hold on to, and cannot understand people having faith in what could be true.
So regardless of what you believe in, or don’t believe in, we can all coexist and get along. Because it doesn’t matter, it’s Friday!!
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Wonder Woman is so hot.
By Jack
February 10, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Amen.
By Renee
February 10, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
ROFL - where did that come from JBM???
By chuck
February 10, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
Good morning!
JBM, we can get into Levitical law if you like. The easy explanation is this. The ENTIRE Bible must be read in CONTEXT. The Old Testament was written to point to Christ. It was part of God’s overall plan. In God’s PERFECT Will, man would have never sinned and would have had a perfect relationship with the Father…but God did NOT CREATE PUPPETS. He wanted love from humans who had the power to choose so He created us with a free will. In His omniscience and Prescience He knew what would happen and made a way for us to come to Him. In the OT it was through a Priest who once a year would go into the Holy of Holies to make a sacrifice for the sins of the people.
Do we still follow that pattern? NO we don’t. Christ became the ONCE AND FOR ALL SACRIFICE for our sins. The simple rule of thumb is that the Old Testament laws that have not been negated by the New Testament are still in force. ON THE OTHER HAND, there are many OT laws that have been confirmed and even strengthened by the New Testament. One of those is the prohibition of homosexuality. OT says it is an abomination to God. NT says the same thing and even describes that when repentence doesn’t occur, God gives them over “to a reprobate mind”.
Bottom line JBM, as one who claims to be a Christian, you really need to stop playing “gotcha” and learn how to study scripture inductively. It is about what scripture SAYS not about what you want it to say. There is no disharmony between the Old and New Testaments.
By RF
February 10, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
I like the invisible plane. Anything see-through is always nice!!
By RF
February 10, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
Chuck- I’m a little rusty on my New Testament here. So where in the NT does it say it’s okay to eat pork? And where does it say that the NT negates OT laws as directed by God? I think man may have decided on those changes. I don’t recall (and haven’t looked lately, to be honest) where that stipulation is laid out that says the NT changes some OT law but not others. Still seems to be too much human interpretation there.
By chuck
February 10, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
RF, Acts 10 and 11, ICor. 8
By lozen
February 10, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
Netbanker, I never thought about how confession came into being. See, I learn something from you just about every day. It’s impossible to learn anything from those who stamp their feet and say, “It’s true because I say so. It is. It is. It is.” This is Randy’s entire argument. I had an experience once and I still don’t know what it was. I suddenly began to feel out of time and place. Everything was different but it was the same. Then I began to see a woman’s face coming at me when I closed my eyes. Her face was different colors, pretty pastel colors, but she was frightening. I was terrified of her. And, no, I was not doing any drugs either! I became more and more afraid and then decided to imagine I was surrounded by all the people who loved me and they were protecting me. It worked. The face went away. I saw her one other time and never again. Who do you think that was? Do you believe in evil spirits? Maybe she wasn’t evil and I was so frightened because noone had ever told me to expect that or what to do if something like that happened. Maybe she was a good spirit who had something to tell me and I missed it forever. Maybe it was just my imagination.
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
Renee… I think it was Lozen’s reference to Spider Woman that made me think of her. LOL! I lovvvvve Wonder Woman. I think she is the hottest character ever televised.
Chuck, please don’t ever tell me what I “need to” do. I guess it’s a personal thing, but it really irks the heck out of me. Seriously.
I study scripture and Biblical history more than you’ll ever know. I don’t just read what the pastor tells me to read, and interpret it the way he says so. I study the Word, and use a variety of well-respected reference materials to do so.
And, for the last time: I DO NOT CLAIM TO BE A CHRISTIAN. I would die before I took on that label. I do not ever, EVER want to be associated with Christians, and believe me, you don’t want to know what I think of you Christians.
Now, on the points where we agree: the entire Bible must be read in context. So true. And, I also don’t believe (or purport) that the new testament negates the old, or that there is “disharmony” between the two testaments.
However, just as we cannot be guilty of taking out 8 of the 10 commandments and teaching that these are the ones that apply to us today; we also cannot be guilty of sifting through the levitical laws to determine which ones make sense for us to utilize today.
That is hypocrisy to the utmost.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
Given all that I know about logic and reality, if I hadn’t had an experience with Christ, I probably wouldn’t believe either.
Can you honestly say that you have not “felt” the anticipation (just a sweet transvestite; Inside joke for only a few) of a loved one coming home after being away? Or, like I brought up before, santa’s presence as a child the night before xmas? Or that someone is watching you while you are sleeping and you wake to find someone IS there?
“Feeling” something is no proof of squat and not rational at all. It has been proven that the worst type of testimony in a court is eye-witness; but because we humans think that if we “feel” and “percieve” something then it must be true and real.
Example for you all: My ex-girlfriend called me out of the blue a couple nights ago (12:30 at night). She said that she had the strangest thing occur: She was woken by what sounded like “Tiny Dancer” being played on guitar. And after looking around her apartment and finding nothing, she figured she would see if I was by chance playing guitar. Sure enough I was just playing it and was thinking of her to boot (it was one of the last songs we enjoyed playing).
Now, you could take the stance that she actually heard me; that it was purely a coincidence; or that it was somewhere in-between: I rationalize, seeing as she has heard me play it many times, all she would need is the slightest indication (minor collective consciousness..quantum fluctuations…) that I was playing, and her mind just filled in the blanks.
This is no different than trying to describe jesus - and how he “makes” you feel. He, like buddah et al, is just a fluctuation that reminds us that we are connected - but they are NOT the ones doing the connecting. Their presence really doesn’t matter as long if you recognise the profoundness of being connected. But if one cannot realize this on their own - one adopts jesus (or any other idol) as the ONLY truth - which is back to being a separatist from other people and breaks up the harmony jesus et al tried teaching.
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
Chuck, neither of those scriptures you quoted directly relieve Christians of Levitical law, or eating pork or shellfish. That’s man’s interpretation, and one which you choose to accept.
And, while we’re in that great book, where are Christians excused from the instruction to honor the sabbath and keep it holy? Is that in Acts too? Did Peter have a dream that we don’t have to honor the sabbath anymore?
By lozen
February 10, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
Actually Chuck would love to get into Levitical law - Chuck is one of those legalistic religious who put their entire emphasis on the rules and regs. A stickler for the law shall we say. Following the rules is far more important than the big message of loving you neighbor and loving god with all your heart. JBM loves god and obviously is a good person. All chuck can think about is that she’s a lesbian and that’s a sin and she better change and see things his way and follow all his rules and regs or she is damned! I bet the missionaries who are doing all the converting with those uneducated people in other countries don’t start out by teaching them the rules and regs!
By chuck
February 10, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
RF, also Colossians 1 and 2
By Jack
February 10, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
I like Cat Woman. Zena is hot too.
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Hmmm. I don’t recall saying that feeling something was proof; nor do I recall speaking of feelings at all… Let me scroll back up and see if perchance, I am wrong.
By chuck
February 10, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Matthew Henry Commentaries on Leviticus 11 put it this way RF.
These laws seem to have been intended, 1. As a test of the people’s obedience, as Adam was forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge; and to teach them self-denial, and the government of their appetites. 2. To keep the Israelites distinct from other nations. Many also of these forbidden animals were objects of superstition and idolatry to the heathen. 3. The people were taught to make distinctions between the holy and unholy in their companions and intimate connexions. 4. The law forbad, not only the eating of the unclean beasts, but the touching of them. Those who would be kept from any sin, must be careful to avoid all temptations to it, or coming near it. The exceptions are very minute, and all were designed to call forth constant care and exactness in their obedience; and to teach us to obey. Whilst we enjoy our Christian liberty, and are free from such burdensome observances, we must be careful not to abuse our liberty. For the Lord hath redeemed and called his people, that they may be holy, even as he is holy. We must come out, and be separate from the world; we must leave the company of the ungodly, and all needless connexions with those who are dead in sin; we must be zealous of good works devoted followers of God, and companions of his people.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
ON THE OTHER HAND, there are many OT laws that have been confirmed and even strengthened by the New Testament. One of those is the prohibition of homosexuality. OT says it is an abomination to God. NT says the same thing and even describes that when repentence doesn’t occur, God gives them over “to a reprobate mind�.
It may be written in the OT but was Not said by jesus. Only paul and other humans revive the OT in the NT - and by no rational; meaning they state what they THINK and have no backing for it. They do not refer to jesus, but the OT as their justification of keeping some laws and trashing others - and like now it is culturally based, not jesus/spiritually based assertions.
Enough - I just remembered why I have not visited the blog for a while;) Too much ignorance.
I will read your jokes though.
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Neither of those have anything on Wonder Woman.
By Renee
February 10, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
It’s Friday…jokes…believe in laughter!!
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
Anybody else smell the savor of ironic condescension???
By Lyrazel
February 10, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
Happy Friday! RF if Wonder Woman is in a see-through plane how come she was always visible in it?
By Jack
February 10, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
We used to not eat fish on Fridays. If the NT told us we could, why did I ever get denied the pleasure of meat on Friday? I’m old but not that old.
By The72John
February 10, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
An interview and review of a book by one of the foremost biblical scholars in the country. He’s probably read the oldest versions of the OT text more times than Chuck has read the english version…yet I’m sure Chuck will still claim that he knows more than this person.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5174963
By Lyrazel
February 10, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
looks up and sees a pair of buttocks in the air zooming past
By Jack
February 10, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
That would be quite a sight Lyrazel.
By Jack
February 10, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
A man was walking down the street when he was accosted by a particularly dirty and shabby-looking homeless man who asked him for a couple of dollars for dinner. The man took out his wallet, extracted ten dollars and asked, “If I give you this money, will you buy some beer with it instead of dinner?” “No, I had to stop drinking years ago,” the homeless man replied. “Will you use it to go fishing instead of buying food?” the man asked. “No, I don’t waste time fishing,” the homeless man said. “I need to spend all my time trying to stay alive.” “Will you spend this on greens fees at a golf course instead of food?” the man asked. “Are you NUTS!” replied the homeless man. “I haven’t played golf in 20 years!” “Will you spend the money on a woman in the red light district instead of food?” the man asked. “What disease would I get for ten lousy bucks?” exclaimed the homeless man. “Well,” said the man, “I’m not going to give you the money. Instead, I’m going to take you home for a terrific dinner cooked by my wife.” The homeless man was astounded. “Won’t your wife be furious with you for doing that? I know I’m dirty, and I probably smell pretty disgusting.” The man replied, “That’s okay. It’s important for her to see what a man looks like after he has given up beer, fishing, golf, and sex.”
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
LOL Jack.
By Steve
February 10, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
I agree that smoking is a bad behavior and there should be incentives for quiting, however if we start then we could end up going all the way to genetic testing for future illness. We are required by law to have insurance for our autos and if you have too many violations the government regulates an assigned risk pool. Why then do we not provide health insurance to all. I think it would in the end lower costs especially if good prevention and prenatal care is included.
By lozen
February 10, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
A good one Jack!
By RF
February 10, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Yep- I just read Colossians again (been a few months). Paul wrote to the Colossians with instructions about how to live, but he never specifically said ‘you are, by God’s instruction to me, free from old testament law.’ What he says is “do not listen to those who say ‘do this, do that, don’t do this or that’”. He’s telling the Colossians not to worry when their choices come into conflict with Colosse’s laws and to follow Christ. I can read a LOT into that if I choose, but if I take it at face value, it just doesn’t specifically say that the Old Testament is the history of God’s people and how he set them apart from the world, and that we are no longer bound to those standards and laws. In all my years of study, I’ve never once found a passage that specifically says “God instructed me to tell you that you have new laws to live by that negate some of the old ones but not all”. Why isn’t there a companion to Leviticus in the NT to tell exactly which laws are, by God’s authority, no longer valid? Sure would simplify this discussion.
I can find interpretations to back up just about anything. I can find verses to back up lots of different ideas. That’s the problem—it’s subject to interpretation, and I can’t see how one interpretation is better than another. Basically everything in the current version of the Bible has to be studied within the context of the people and times in which it was written. How do we know which interpretation is right? Faith, and my faith can differ from yours and both be right as I see it.
By blablabla
February 10, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
john,
that was interesting reading. thanks for posting that.
By The72John
February 10, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
The interview itself was very interesting listening. He basically says you have to look at the Old Testament not as a unified document but as an anthology of works collected and combined over time.
For instance, he addresses the two separate creation stories in Genesis and says that you SHOULDN’T try to reconcile the two, because they are two versions of the story, not facets of each other.
By RF
February 10, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
Good one Jack!
lyrazel- I always wondered why we could see her too. Made her plane seem more like glass than invisible.
I looked up a while back to see a pair of buttocks in my window. Seems a young man in PE thought it would be cute to moon his friend in my room across from the gym. Of course, it didn’t occur to the young man that teachers in three classrooms just MIGHT see him do this. We all had a good laugh watching the embarrassment that kid went through when the administration got hold of him.
By Renee
February 10, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
good one Jack lol!!
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
OT is like gradeschool.
After you get into college - you no longer need a hall pass to go pee, or to walk single file on the right of the hall, or to even show up for class. Yet, all those things were needed as children - and some may still serve a loose purpose (go to the mall and watch how people still walk on the right and somewhat single file).
But, as adults we no longer need to abide by these hard-and-fast rules. So, as jesus states “He is not here to abolish the OT, but to fullfill it.” Which is not unlike fullfilling your gradeschool years with graduation, bc you do not wipe your memory of what you learned; but realize that it has gelled into a system of sorts which cannot be explained simply by a collection of its parts.
By lozen
February 10, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
Paul was taking the message about Jesus to the gentiles. He thought it was okay to change a lot of the jewish teachings to make it more attractive to gentiles. He even said men did not have to be circumcised to be christian. He and Peter had quite a few differences and it’s easy to understand why. Paul wasn’t a disciple and he wasn’t there when Jesus was crucified nor when Jesus supposedly rose from the dead. I have always questioned Paul’s credentials (silly me). His story sounds like the story of the sorry drunk who has a vision, changes his ways, and spends the rest of his life preaching at people who have a glass of wine with dinner!
By lozen
February 10, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
As long as you believe you must lean on crutches, you can never walk without crutches.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
lozen,
Exactly. There are a LOT of christians/teachers that question Pauls obvious additions to biblical laws - and as it should be.
He really took the ball and ran with it farther than I am comfortable with; seeing as jesus spoke nothing regarding all of pauls comprimising and reviving of OT laws.
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
RF & Lyrazel… Umm, if you couldn’t see Wonder Woman, how would you know the plane was flying?????????? Duh! LOL.
And, RF, the last paragraph of your 11:35 was really good.
By lozen
February 10, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Einstein said religion comes originally from fear of the unknown. But as people/civilization matures it changes to a higher level of morality. However, there is a third stage of religious experience he calls cosmic religious feeling. “It is hard to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of god corresponding to it.” Einstein believed religious geniuses of all ages had reached this level which knows no dogma and no god conceived in man’s image. “Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who are filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, but sometimes also as saints.”
By Netbanker
February 10, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
Round and round and round we go See that’s one of their tricks too, Lozen. You get dizzy and then can’t think clearly.
By chuck
February 10, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
John Wesley’s commentary on Leviticus 11.
11:1 From the laws concerning the priests, he now comes to those which belong to all the people. God spake to both of them, because the cognizance of the following matters belonged to both: the priest was to direct the people about the things forbidden or allowed, where any doubt or difficulty arose; and the magistrate was to see the direction followed.
11:2 These are the beasts - Though every creature of God be good and pure in itself, yet it pleased God to make a difference between clean and unclean, which he did in part before the flood, Genesis 7:2, but more fully here for many reasons; as, To assert his own sovereignty over man, and all the creatures which men may not use but with God’s leave. To keep up the wall of partition between the Jews and other nations, which was very necessary for many great and wise purposes. That by bridling their appetite in things in themselves lawful, and some of them very desirable, they might be better prepared and enabled to deny themselves in things simply and grossly sinful. For the preservation of their health, some of the creatures forbidden being, though used by the neighbouring nations, of unwholesome nourishment, especially to the Jews, who were very obnoxious to leprosies. To teach them to abhor that filthiness, and all those ill qualities for which some of these creatures are noted.
By RF
February 10, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
Net- I usually feel dizzy after the bottle or three of wine!!—LOL
JBM- well OF COURSE everybody knew WE could see her but noone on the ground could!! DUH!! ;-)
By Jack
February 10, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
I thought today was Friday. Must we debate religion AGAIN? Let’s change the subject to abortion.
By RF
February 10, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Okay, who’s closer and can SMACK Jack for that suggestion? Must have eaten another tough old church bird again, didn’t you?
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
Chuck, and what do you say about the sabbath??????
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
It is your, and other religious christians, ability to ignore a volly of words on a serious and deep topic and instead post a static/non-pertinent cut/paste.
It is the same as putting your fingers in your ears and yelling “LALALALA - I CANT HEAR YOU…”
If you had even ioda of compassion/truth, you would compile a list of only jesus’ words and find how the rest fits with that.
Everthing about you religious/judging “christians” holds ignorance high - above all else; including and especially jesus’ message.
Scarey man, scarey.
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
Oooh, I wanna smack Jack! LOL!
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
And in breaking news…
Franklin Cover, who played Tom Willis on The Jefferson’s has died.
By Jack
February 10, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Whats all this beep, beep business about?
By Jack
February 10, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
Remember. Use the riding crop or the cricket paddle with the holes drilled in it.
By Chilao
February 10, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
How did the Jews “Seventh Day” change from their Sabbath on our Saturday to our Seventh Day being on our Sunday? It’s ONLY the FOURTH COMMANDMENT, after all.
Don’t try to argue that Jews lost track of ‘counting’ somewhere over the centuries. LOL (okay, that wasn’t nice)
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Okay, this isn’t necessarily a joke, but it had me just about rolling on the floor for real!
Telemarketers suck big time. Here are some proven ways to rid your life of them for good…
If they want to loan you money, tell them you just filed for bankruptcy and you could sure use some money.
If they start out with, “How are you today?” say, “I’m so glad you asked, because no one these days seems to care, and I have all these problems. My arthritis is acting up, my eyelashes are sore, my dog just died … “
If they say they’re John Doe from XYZ Company, ask them to spell their name. Then ask them to spell the company name. Then ask them where it is located, how long it has been in business, how many people work there, how they got into this line of work if they are married, how many kids they have, etc. Continue asking them personal questions or questions about their company for as long as necessary.
(This works great if you are male) Telemarketer: “Hi, my name is Judy and I’m with XYZ Company. ” You: Wait for a second and with a real husky voice ask, “What are you wearing?”
Cry out in surprise, “Judy? Is that you? Oh my God! Judy, how have you been?” Hopefully, this will give Judy a few brief moments of terror as she tries to figure out where she could know you from.
Say “No” over and over. Be sure to vary the sound of each one, and keep a rhythmic tempo, even as they are trying to speak. This is most fun if you can do it until they hang up.
If MCI calls trying to get you to sign up for the Family and Friends Plan, reply, in as sinister a voice as you can, “I don’t have any friends, would you be my friend?”
If the company cleans rugs, respond: “Can you get out blood? Can you get out goat blood? How about human blood?”
After the Telemarketer gives his or her spiel, ask him or her to marry you. When they get all flustered, tell them that you can’t just give your credit card number to a complete stranger.
If the Telemarketer is selling raffle tickets, tell him or her that you work for the same company, and that employees cannot participate.
Answer the phone. As soon as you realize it is a Telemarketer, set the receiver down, scream, “OH MY GOD!” and then hang up.
Tell the Telemarketer you are busy at the moment and ask if he/she will give you their home phone number so you can call him/her back. When the Telemarketer explains that telemarketers cannot give out their home numbers say, “I guess you don’t want anyone bothering you at home, right?” The Telemarketer will agree and you say, “Me either!” and proceed to hang up.
Ask them to repeat everything they say, several times.
Tell them it is dinner time, but ask if they would please hold. Put them on your speaker phone while you continue to eat at your leisure. Smack your food loudly and continue with your dinner conversation. For added effect, clanging of cutlery and dishes is recommended.
Tell the Telemarketer you are on “home incarceration” and ask if they could bring you some beer.
Ask them to fax the information to you, and make up a number.
Tell the Telemarketer, “Okay, I’ll listen to you. But I should probably tell you, I’m not wearing any clothes.”
Insist that the caller is really your buddy Leon, playing a joke. “Come on, Leon, cut it out! Seriously, Leon, how’s your momma?”
Tell them you are hard of hearing and that they need to speak up… louder… louder!
Tell them to talk very slowly, because you want to write every word down.
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
Chilao, because Christ rose from the grave on a Sunday, His followers began to celebrate/worship each week on that day.
By chuck
February 10, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
FM, Who do you think wrote down the WORDS OF JESUS? His DISCIPLES!!!! They also wrote that JESUS TAUGHT MANY OTHER THINGS.
The disciples who later wrote books of the Bible were writing based on what they had been taught by Christ as it applied to situations being faced by the early church. Even then, various groups were trying to appropriate the scripture for their own uses. They were preaching “another gospel”.
Earlier, there was a discussion concerning the martyrdom of the to apostles and the comment was made that people fly planes into buildings because they believe they are right. That is an accurate statement that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the disciples of Christ. They were Martyrs because they WITNESSED THE RESURRECTED CHRIST. The Islamic terrorists died for what they believed based on the teachings of ISLAM, but the disciples of Christ knew the TRUTH. If there was no resurrection they would have known it and would KNOW THAT THEY WERE PREACHING SOMETHING THAT WAS FALSE. While many might die for something they believe in, HOW MANY WOULD DIE FOR SOMETHING THEY KNEW TO BE FALSE?
By RF
February 10, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
tooo funny, JBM!
By lozen
February 10, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Jack I don’t find the debates on religion to be useless. I always learn things from Sanhan, Netbanker, 72John, JBM, Brian Curtis, etc. Religion has always been one of my favorite topics of discussion. There is so much mystery in being human, so much detective work to do, so much beauty to be awed by. Because I am not religious in the conventional sense, I’ve been free to explore the thoughts of many religions, archeologists, anthropologists, poets, sociologists, psychologists, art and so much more in search of the clues and thoughts about the meaning of our lives. I truly believe for many people “Religion is death for a thinking brain.”
By Chilao
February 10, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Another high-falutin’ philosophical question.
On that PBS ad, BECOME EMPOWERED, that shows the goldfish watching the salmon on TV, he jumps out, hitches a ride on the bottled water carrier to the bridge, then jumps into the river, so he can join his fellow fish in jumping the rapids:
Why don’t they show him being a snack for a grizzly?
JBM - then it is no longer the “Seventh Day”, correct? If you look at our western calendars, the first day of the week starts on Sunday.
By kimberly
February 10, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
JBM, here’s my favorite Telemarketer dissuader: In my thickest, neckest, squeakiest voice, I shriek, “Mah HUSBIND says I cayn’t give y’awll inny mower munney, or he’s gonna KICK MAH A—!” To which the Fraternal Order of Police will always reply, “Even US?” “Ex-peshully EWWWWWWWE!” Hahahaha! Works every time.
By Jack
February 10, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this
Off the subject since no one wants to do jokes. IMO they should let the 37 year old and her 15 year old husband live happily ever after. Why jail her? Why jail him?
By Chilao
February 10, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
What is more important in Christianity, the fact that Jesus died for all our “sins”(on Friday eve) or the fact he arose from the dead(on Sunday).
By lozen
February 10, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
Chuck shouldn’t you be in a closet praying? Please stop yelling! What about the beam in your eye? Done anything about that lately?
By Chilao
February 10, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Jack - because they have both snubbed their nose at ‘authority’, that means they will be punished more for that ‘snubbing’ than the other stuff.
Not agreeing, just thinking like Judges/Prosecutors think.
if you dare defy their authority, watch out!
By Renee
February 10, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
I agree Jack!
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Who do you think wrote down the WORDS OF JESUS? His DISCIPLES!!!! They also wrote that JESUS TAUGHT MANY OTHER THINGS.
Given the ignorance of that statement I find it hard to believe that you have much knowledge of the bible besides googling a topic with the INTENT of proving that notion - not discovering truth.
The disciples are very clear on what jesus actually said; and the rest is what they think he/god means and thinks. The split bw the two is significant and beyond your understand it would seem: For instance, I could recite what you posted, which would be accurate; but the moment I interpret what you MEAN, I am in err to some extent. The same goes for paul et al - when they recite jesus’ words, I know to listen closly; but when they begn to make assertions that do not come down from god/jesus, it is evedent that they are shooting from the hip.
I do not think that most of them had ill intents, but their views and introduction of cultural norms as a means to comprimise the word is incidious - and must be read as such.
The fact that you cannot see that, even though jesus and god warned the reader of it (“i am hidden,” “What seems like the way is not” etc), and more-over that you do not care to heed the warning and read critically, is absurd.
By The72John
February 10, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
I see no real benefit to jailing either of them, Jack. It’s just additional tax payer funds going to keep someone locked up who really doesn’t need to be locked up.
By Netbanker
February 10, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
How does WW see the controls of the plane if they’re invisible too? Or how the heck does she find where she parked it? Way back when I was an analyst in the mortgage industry and having to create test loans I did a super heros series. When trying to list assets for the Wonder Woman loand I had a great time looking as people’s faces when I asked them how much they thought an invisible plane, golden lasso that makes you tell the truth, bullet proof braclets, and a boomerang tiara were worth.
Lozen…I certainly can’t tell you what to beleve because I wasn’t there, but if you were afraid there was reason. If surrounding yourself with your loved ones protected you from the entity that caused fear then I would tend to say that it was NOT a benign or good being. I fully believe that we are all much more connected into something larger than any individual based on my own experiences. There are occurances in the universe that I do believe affect us and that some of us are more sensitive or attuned to them than others of us. There is some really interesting research such as the Global Consciousness Project that you should check out.
From a logic standpoint what makes us sentient beings are the electrical impulses that run through our body. If one accepts the physics principle that energy can not be destroyed then one should question what happens to those electrical impulses when they are freed from the confines of the body. Is this our ‘soul’? What level of consciousness continues with the energy that, in effect, is us once it is not confined to our bodies and can no longer access the memories stored chemically in our brains?
I know that I feel most connected to and aware of the universe when I am alone (meaning not with humans, but maybe with animals), outside in nature, quietly standing or sitting, and not thinking but experiencing and focusing on the sounds around me, the feel of the wind/sun/rain on my skin. I see movements with my peripheral vision when I am alone and tend to be upset or very concerned or thinking very hard about an emotional issue (sometimes I even hear my name being called), and if I stop and just be for a moment I am aware of calming,loving, reasuring feeling around me and know that no matter what I am not alone in the world even when I’m by myself.
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
I completely agree that the 37 y/o and 15 y/o should be allowed to live their lives without police interference. It’s just unfortunate that he’s sacrificing his best years to be a teen hubby and daddy.
Chilao, if Sunday is the first day, then Saturday is the 7th day.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
Jack,
IMO they should let the 37 year old and her 15 year old husband live happily ever after. Why jail her? Why jail him?
I thought that in the inverse situation (37yo male and 15yo female) you avocated letting the girls father have an hour or two with him as consiquence.
What gives with the hypocracy? Or am I missing something?
By Renee
February 10, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Knowing Geogria, this will probably be dragged out forever now. Apparently if they keep the woman in jail until she gives birth, the state can take custody of the baby.
By Netbanker
February 10, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Instead of smacking Jack how about…”A spanking, a spanking, we MUST have a spanking! And then comes the….?”
Who can finish the quote and name the source?
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
It’s a really sad situation.
I think that if the police had intervened before the marriage, they would have been justified in arresting the woman for statutory rape, and whatever other charges would apply.
But, in that the two are married, and legally so, why on earth would the district attorneys want to prosecute? I say that if any punishment is to be meted out, it should be the punishment of life’s trials and tribulations.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
NetB,
Is that from The Holy Grail? The maidens?
Cannot remember the rest of the quote….
By Jack
February 10, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
FM. I was talking about rape. I kinda doubt she raped the poor boy.
By Netbanker
February 10, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
FatMoose has the source! It was the maidens in the castle to which of the knights I can’t now recall.
The rest of the line? Anyone?
By kimberly
February 10, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
Jack, while many around me screech for the woman’s head on the chopping block, I can take no joy in their suffering. But then, if it were my daughter and a 37-yr-old man, I’d personally remove his ‘nads.
NetB - sounds like a military officer I used to date.
By Jack
February 10, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
FM. There is justified hypocracy if the rolls were reversed. There is a sight physical advantage for a man vs. woman. A 37 y/o man that is with a 15 y/o girl needs to be flogged. Repeatedly. With the cricket paddle with the holes drilled in it.
By Renee
February 10, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
JBM - well said!
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
No clue, NetB.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Naw, Jack.
We were talking about 15-16 girls that WANTED an older man and how/if those men should be leagely treated.
You were quite strainght forward in your assertion that it don’t matter if it was concentual.
If you tell me that I am completely mistaken; I will back off and check - but I remember the volly vividly.
But to put that aside as pointless, are you (at least now) saying that in a concentual situation bw a 30+yo man and a 15+ girl - you have no problem with the govmt/law staying out of it?
By kimberly
February 10, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
With the cricket paddle with the holes drilled in it. Jack, did we used to date?
By The72John
February 10, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
Ah, the old “a girl is taken advantage of, a guy is just lucky” mentality.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
There is a sight physical advantage for a man vs. woman.
What does that have to do with anything - we are talking concentual here, not force/rape. Physical prowess has nothing to do with it. If you said mental prowess bc of age, I would agree, but that applies to both situations.
By Jack
February 10, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
I would remember that Kim.
FM. They should be locked up and become Bubba’s “friend” Concentual or not. Sorry. The candy may look good but it is off limits.
By healthcareemployer
February 10, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
Steve, your employer, and anyone else that PAYS for your health insurance has EVERY right to tell you how to conduct your life. Even if you pay all your premium, your risky behavior increases the premiums for all of us because insurance companies still operate under the “community rating” system, which passes along some costs of risk to all their insured members. That is especially the problem with any publically funded healthcare system: we’ll all be in everyone else’s business - which is wrong. That is why Health Savings Accounts are the answer to most problems in the U.S. healthcare system today. They let you pay for your own care, individually. If you want to skydive, ride motorcycles, have unprotected sex, eat at McDonald’s 5 times a week, then that’s your perogative. Just don’t ask me, and everyone else, to pay for it.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
Ah, the old “a girl is taken advantage of, a guy is just lucky� mentality.
Bingo.
Which leads to women are just big girls and need taking care of…which I do nt subscribe to btw. But, if you raise people that way, people will let you take care of them - until they are sick of it but relize that they have not learned to take care of themselves (this happens with both males and females - so, no sexism here). It is just unfortunate that it is practiced more frequently with females and can seem to be a gender trait.
You want to do your part in equality - raise them equally.
By Jack
February 10, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
“Ah, the old “a girl is taken advantage of, a guy is just luckyâ€? mentality”
Correct. Deal with it. Ask a father with daughters.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
FM. They should be locked up and become Bubba’s “friend� Concentual or not. Sorry. The candy may look good but it is off limits.
And vv. Less you want your 14yo son to be stolen off to alabama for marriage and fatherhood.
It is stealing a childhood in either case, and neither is MORE acceptable based on gender. Or, it is just the way things go sometimes - but not one set of rules for one gender and another set of rules for the other.
That is just plain dumb.
By RF
February 10, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Our world is rife with double standards gang. It may not be logical, but a 37 yr. old woman with a teenage boy is just different from a 37 yr. old man with a 15 yr. old girl. Maybe it’s a throwback to our past that women are the ‘fairer sex’, but I think anyone could agree that females are pretty much viewed that way in most of the animal kingdom.
JBM- life’s trials and tribulations…if that boy only knew what he was in for! He’ll be in his twenties when she hits menopause. That’ll be more than enough punishment for him!!
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
It may not be logical, but a 37 yr. old woman with a teenage boy is just different from a 37 yr. old man with a 15 yr. old girl.
I dissagree - we think of them as different; but both genders are having years stolen by someone who has superior abilities of manipulation.
We as a society have no problem berating 18yo boys for creating children that they cannot afford/raise - what do you think it is like for a 15 or 16yo male? You think it is easier?
The double standard hurts both genders. It requires one (the males) to be more than they are, and expects less from the other (females) than they can be.
By chuck
February 10, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
fm,You completely ignored the 2nd paragraph of that post which said in part:
The disciples who later wrote books of the Bible were writing based on what they had been taught by Christ as it applied to situations being faced by the early church.
Nothing they wrote conflicted with the words of Christ. Jesus is the one who said: “13”Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
Jesus is the one who said: “Matthew 5:29
29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
Matt 10: 28 28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
I know it is popular to ignore Scripture that doesn’t fit OUR expectations, wishes and desires, but don’t try to say that the non-red portions of the Bible are NOT SCRIPTURE. EVERYBODY wants to explain away any kind of verse that would cause us to have to abandon our “pet sins”…the ones that WE want to participate in, but God doesn’t play those games. There is perfect harmony between all of the books of the Bible IF you know how to study it in its entirety.
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
It may not be logical, but a 37 yr. old woman with a teenage boy is just different from a 37 yr. old man with a 15 yr. old girl.
And this is true whether we like it or not. Bottom line.
By The72John
February 10, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
I’m not saying your anger at the man would be misplaced, Jack…
I’m just wondering if you would equally angry at the woman.
In this particular case, I just don’t see that there is any benefit to locking either one up…
By chuck
February 10, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
The benefit to locking someone up for CHILD MOLESTATION escapes you 72john? You one of thos NAMBLA folks?
By The72John
February 10, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Chuck continues to be full of it…he tells you that you HAVE to interpret the bible’s text but apparently only his interpretation is right.
By Netbanker
February 10, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Kimberly is that a good thing or a bad thing? I did grow up next to and on a military base…and NO, it wasn’t the one in Roswell, NM.
By The72John
February 10, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
Yeah, Chuck. That’s it. I’m a NAMBLA guy. After all, I MUST be, since I’m gay, right?
Tell me, jerk, what BENEFIT do you see to having another child given over as a ward of the state.
By The72John
February 10, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
And just to clarify for you, ChuckSchmuck, child molestors don’t generally marry their victims. A hundred years ago a 37-year-old man marrying a 15-year-old girl wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow in many parts of this country. Heck, your precious little bible fictional characters did far worse things to children.
Tell me, Chuck-brain-in-the-muck, if your little Bible is so perfect, why do you even OBJECT to this situation. After all, GOD thinks it’s OK, so should you.
By kimberly
February 10, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
NetB: hee hee. I’ve said too much already.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
There is perfect harmony between all of the books of the Bible IF you know how to study it in its entirety.
Ok Chuck, here is a test for you to prove you KNOW how to study it in its entirety:
Without googling, what is the direct translation of “The Garden of Eden? What are the words relevance? If translated back to hebrew, do you know the phraze it creates?
Let me hear your explaination of that ONE sentence showing you have SOME deeper understanding of the bibles message. (No google and cut/paste jobs here - just your “learned” understanding off the cuff)
By Jack
February 10, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
Is it getting warm in here or is it just me?
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
John, that 2:19 is priceless.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
Jack,
Is it getting warm in here or is it just me?
Must just be you anticipating your spanking…
And the first harsh word award goes to chuck the christian calling a person he does nto agree with a pedophile!
Yes, Chuck is the epidomy of love and acceptance!
By Chilao
February 10, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
My point about the Saturday vs Sunday worship-day thing was people in the past have CHANGED the literal aspect to suit their mood/need/interest/area-of-concentration.
and it being the FOURTH commandment, on the religious side of the slab, even. LOL
Like the FIRST does not say there are no other gods, just ‘thou shalt put no other gods BEFORE me”.
By Jack
February 10, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
The anticipation is killing me. Will it be the riding crop or the cricket paddle?
By Chilao
February 10, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
that might be the second, the ‘no other gods’ thing.
By The72John
February 10, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
Does it have to be either/or Jack? Can’t you have your cake AND eat it, too?
By RF
February 10, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
If God is so wonderful, then why must we ALWAYS start quoting punishment and hell? Oh yeah, that’s man using a few verses that fit the mood of the moment.
YAAWWWWNNN…anyone else tired of the fire and brimstone??
By Chilao
February 10, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
Warm? riding crop will do that to ya. Or so I have heard. LMAO
Another ‘saw it in the movies’ thing, yes yes, that’s it, that Sean Young/South Carolina movie.
By Chilao
February 10, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
Sean Young’s Love Crimes, 1992.
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
JBM <—— ticked off that there were only like 3.5 jokes today.
By Jack
February 10, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
I liked the SNL skit with the gay pirates. Beluchi saying,”Not him captain. Beat me Captian, beat me!”
By Renee
February 10, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
Well get them rolling JBM!
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
Chilao, I agree and we share the same point. That’s why I asked Chuck to point out where Peter or someone else in the NT had a dream or something that eliminated our charge to keep the sabbath holy.
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
~~~~folding my arms and stomping one foot~~~~
I don’t have none. ~~lips poked out~~
By Archie
February 10, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
I agree with FatMoose that we should not have the double standard between the 37 year-old female and the 15 year-old boy and the 37 year-old man and the 15 year-old girl. I thought about that situation when the R. Kelly thing first came up. There was preacher in Atlanta taking young girls to Alabama to get them married to grown men so that the girls wouldn’t be fornicators so this preacher named Arthur said. I think statutory rape is what it is regardless of gender and I have said before to the ladies that being equal requires,requires that you accept criticism,punishment,etc. for your actions.
By Scalia
February 10, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Oh JBM, Wonder Woman. Ah, I love the Amazon princess. I love the new comics with her with this tight short haircut. She’s so hot. I’ve always wanted to visit Themyscira. (the island that she is from). I love the lesbian overtones. My favorite one was when the man died on the island. The women were all like, “We’ve never had a man buried here!” LOL
The movie is going to rock. Joss Whedon, who did Buffy, is going to write it. With his gift fro creating strong female characters with a soft side, it’s going to be great.
By The72John
February 10, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Joss Whedon is my hero.
By kimberly
February 10, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Joss Whedon RULES. I’m so there.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
How do you know that the toothbrush was invented in alabama? Anywhere else and it would have been called the teethbrush;)
By Brian Curtis
February 10, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
A few idiot jokes to start off the weekend:
A guy comes into work with his ears all bandaged up. The boss says, “Good grief, what happened to you?� Looking embarrassed, the guy explains, “Well, I was pressing my pants while watching the game, and the phone rang. I wasn’t paying attention to anything but the TV, so I wound up holding the red-hot iron to my ear. Ouch!� The boss snickers. “Well, that explains ONE ear; what happened to the other one?� “Well, I had to call the doctor, didn’t I?�
Stevie’s walking home drunk one night when he bumps into a tree. Rubbing his nose in pain he backs up, then goes forward and smacks into it again. Finally, he backs up and tries again—only to smack into it a third time. �Great,� he says to himself. “I’m two hours late getting home, and I get lost in the woods.�
Two friends go fishing every weekend with a rented boat at the lake. One Saturday, they hit it big, pulling in over 30 fish. “This is a great spot!â€? one exclaims. “Be sure to mark it so we can come back tomorrow.â€? On the drive home, he asks, “Did you remember to mark it?â€? Sure did,â€? his buddy replies. “I put a big X on the bottom of the boat.â€? “You numbskull!â€? his friend says. “What if they give us a different boat tomorrow?â€?
By blablabla
February 10, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
The double standard hurts both genders. It requires one (the males) to be more than they are, and expects less from the other (females) than they can be.
fatmoose, that is a very good comment. well said.
By The72John
February 10, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Ok, here’s a game that’s fun to play with a bunch of people…it’s called “Who’s more BadA$$”. The rules are simple…you take two people and determine - obviously - who’s more BadA$$…then you have to take that winner and compare to another.
Ok, even if y’all don’t want to play, I have to do just this one…
Who’s more BadA$$ - Wonder Woman or Buffy.
By Netbanker
February 10, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
72J does make some good points. There was an awful lot of begatting and morally reprehensible relationships (by today’s standards) in the Bible. Additionally, age differences 100 years ago weren’t a big deal. Heck, we’ve had 16 year olds marrying each other for centuries! It’s a matter of perspective.
Would any of you feel differently about the older man/younger girl scenario if you knew the man and he asked for your daughter’s hand in marriage? I wonder if the issue isn’t more about HOW the relationships have occured rather than that they have.
By lozen
February 10, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
FM, Chuck won’t answer that question any more than he would answer JBM’s about the Sabbath! But only he knows what games god does and does not play. “…. but God doesn’t play those games…” What arrogance, what hubris! It is amazing to watch this egotist play his holier-than-thou games week after week.
By Jack
February 10, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
John. My answer to that is Kimberly.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Bla, thanks for the kudo.
Harsh joke showing disdain for the south, but you wanted jokes:
A door to door salesman is walking through a subdivision in Madison County, GA when he sees the yard across the street has about a dozen kids in it. As he walks on, a 20yo trashy woman walks out the screen door and yells “Bubba! Come ova here!” And ALL the kids run up to her obedienly.
Curious, the salesman approaches the lady and asks “These all your kids?” And she replies, “Yes they is.” And he follows up with another “And they are all named Bubba?” In which she replies “Yep. Named them all after my pappy.” Quite stunned by this, he inquires “What if you just want one of them to come?” “That’s simple” she replies, “I just call them by their last name then.”
By The72John
February 10, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Jack cheats.
By Jack
February 10, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
I would ask the 37 y/o man what was wrong with him that he has to chase a 15 y/o.
By lozen
February 10, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
Buffy would be the Baddest A-S-S but Wonder Woman is the most attractive IMO.
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
Archie, that preacher’s name is Rev. Arthur Allen, and coincidentally, I interviewed him and many of his church members when that scandal broke out.
Actually, he didn’t take minors across the border to marry adults. In many cases, both bride and groom were minors (not that this makes it better, I’m just pointing out that error).
By The72John
February 10, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
Not once Buffy got done with her, she wouldn’t be, lozen.
By blablabla
February 10, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
no way, people. wonder woman is much more bada$$ than buffy. buffy flies commercial, WW takes the invisible plane. case closed.
By Jack
February 10, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
That would be fun to watch!
By Chilao
February 10, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Buffy! the baddest a-s-s.
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Definitely Wonder Woman.
And, Lozen, thanks for pointing that out about Chuck. I too, took note that he picks and chooses which questions he’ll answer.
NetB. in my case, my feelings would be determined solely on the maturity level of my daughter. It wouldn’t really matter to me whether I knew the man or not (of course, I would want to get to know him if he proposed marriage to my teenaged daughter).
At 16, I was definitely mature enough, and responsible enough to marry.
I highly doubt that when my daughter turns 16, she’ll be even close to ready for marriage. It just depends on the kid, to me.
By The72John
February 10, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Buffy died and came back.
Twice.
By Netbanker
February 10, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Buffy is definitely more bad a*.
Alrighty…the voices are telling me to go home so I’d better listen before they start arguing and make it impossible to concentrate on driving. grin
Hope everyone has a GREAT weekend!
By Chilao
February 10, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
But Buffy has an army of side-goons.
By kimberly
February 10, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
72John, it would depend on the true nature of Wonder Woman. Buffy doesn’t fight regular humans, but she is usually able to take out the supernatural types. WW is supernatural to some extent. Her wrist bands deflect bullets, but Buffy doesn’t use a gun. WW usually fights evil men; Buffy fights monsters of ALL sorts. I’d say Buffy takes WW out.
Jack, btw, I fight evil men and mostly LOSE, so either one could take me out, but wouldn’t.
By Chilao
February 10, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
reminded me Alyson Hannigan is out with a movie this weekend. my boss interrupted earlier just as I was about to check it out at yahoo.
she is such a babe.
By RF
February 10, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
If one of my boys wants to marry a woman in her thirties when he’s fifteen, I have to be honest and say I’ll likely have a hissy fit for a while. I know he’d end up doing it one way or the other, but I just couldn’t give my blessing to it right away. If they were willing to wait and let me get to know the woman, then mmmmmmmaybe.
At 15-16, I THOUGHT I knew a lot. I was very mature and responsible, but as the saying goes “if I only knew then what I know now…” A lot of maturing and learning occurs in the next ten years.
By lozen
February 10, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, I agree with you that the wholi-est times for me are when I am simply in the moment, aware of the sounds, the wind, this moment only. When I studied with Arica Institute in the 60’s and meditated several times a day, I became aware of a buzzing in my ears like an electrical current. It’s there all the time although I’m not aware of it all the time. I talked about it to others and they don’t have that buzzing (or they are not aware of it). I wasn’t aware of it until I spent a lot of time in meditation. Wonder what that is? Electricity? *”…what happens to those electrical impulses when they are freed from the confines of the body. Is this our ‘soul’? What level of consciousness continues with the energy that, in effect, is us once it is not confined to our bodies and can no longer access the memories stored chemically in our brains?” I plan to become partly butterfly, partly fish and partly cat living with wealthy single woman. Have you read the thing about why you want a physicist to speak at your funeral?
By Chilao
February 10, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
I like the Mark Twainism(I think it was him)
When I was 15, I thought my dad was a real dumb-ss. By the time I reached 30, I was surprised how smart he had gotten.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
I wonder if the issue isn’t more about HOW the relationships have occured rather than that they have.
I like you ability to discern the multiple layers in these questions - bums me out that you won’t be procreating! (sorry if I am wrong about the procreating - I am assuming here)
FM, Chuck won’t answer that question any more than he would answer JBM’s about the Sabbath!
Lozen, I know he has no capability; but the important thing is to reveal these heretics for what they are: social engineers that warp the world based on their hatefull beliefs by abusing the bible and other (otherwise) decent sources that explain humanity and spirituality.
By FatMoose
February 10, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
What level of consciousness continues with the energy that, in effect, is us once it is not confined to our bodies and can no longer access the memories stored chemically in our brains?�
What I figure, by the way of Quantum Physics, is that all memories are stored in both places - the spirit and here. Electricity is in the same/simalar plane as the electomagnetic field and light (hence the god/light analogies prevelent in the bible) which has no time. We, in physical form, rely on those stored chems bc the connection bw here and spiritual world is not a constant conduit - but can be accessed through meditation (hence your buzzing) and is not totally unreachable. When one dies, all those memories - as well as truths and reasons for your actions here on earth - make up what you are (hence there is no judgement - except by you).
To tie it together: if you did things based on hate, you know that without the ability to deny it (hell); and if you acted on love and acceptance, you will know that too and be joy-filled bc of it (heaven). But both are our doings and no god needs to judge us - we will be quite capable of that ourselves without denial or drugs to cover up the chemical memories/actions we do not like.
By chuck
February 10, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
FM, I don’t know how NOT studying something before answering proves that you know how to study, but then you’ve never been known for being logical. The Garden of Eden is that it is the place where God walked with man. It is synonomous with the word paradise as used in other parts of the Bible. I have no clue what the DIRECT TRANSLATION is but I imagine it has something to do with being a paradise/fruitful place. Something along those lines.
As for the question of the Sabbath, a great explanation comes from Christian Answers web site:
The basis for the command to observe the Sabbath, as stated in Exodus 20:11, is that God rested on the seventh day after six days of work, and that God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. The Sabbath day was instituted as a day of rest and worship. The people of God were to follow God’s example in His pattern of work and rest.
However, as Jesus said in correcting the distorted Sabbath view of the Pharisees,
“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” -Mark 2:27
The point Jesus made is that the Sabbath was not instituted to enslave people, but to benefit them. The spirit of Sabbath observance is continued in the New Testament observance of rest and worship on the first day of the week.
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. -Acts 20:7
Now about the collection for God’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. -1 Corinthians 16:1-2
A shadow of the redemption, a symbol It must be remembered that, according to Colossians 2:17, the Sabbath was “a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” The Sabbath observance was associated with redemption in Deuteronomy 5:15 where Moses stated, “Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.”
The Sabbath was a shadow of the redemption that would be provided in Christ. It symbolized the rest from our works and an entrance into the rest of God provided by His finished work.
THE NEW TESTAMENT
Although the moral principles expressed in the commandments are reaffirmed in the New Testament, the command to set Saturday apart as a day of rest and worship is the only commandment not repeated. There are very good reasons for this.
New Testament believers are not under the Old Testament Law (Romans 6:14; Galatians 3:24-25; 2 Corinthians 3:7, 11, 13; Hebrews 7:12).
By Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1), His continued appearances on succeeding Sundays (John 20:26), and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Sunday (Acts 2:1), the early church was given the pattern of Sunday worship.
The early church met on Sunday regularly (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2).
Sunday worship was further hallowed by our Lord who appeared to John in that last great vision on “the Lord’s day” (Revelation 1:10).
It is for these reasons that most Christians worship on Sunday, rather than on the Jewish Sabbath.
By The72John
February 10, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Chuck…as usual copied from a website that for some reason I can’t post on the blog…it’s christian answers.net.
All Chuck has ever been able to do is regurgitate other people’s “work” as his own. It’s sad, really.
Hope his students aren’t learning research techniques from HIM.
By CRB
February 10, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t obesity cause as many or more health problems for employees than smoking does? It can cause gout, diabetes, kidney failure, high blood pressure, and a host of other problems.
I’m not a smoker beyond the occasional cigar at a football tailgate or a special occasion but it seems to me that anyone who wants to force employees to stop smoking should also force employees to lose weight and get in shape…
By Randy
February 10, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
On Christianity, the difference in it and other religions is simple, Mohammad is in his grave, Buddah is in his grave. Jesus is not in his grave and hasn’t been in 2000 years(minus 3 days). Christianity is not like other religions. However, if I wasn’t a Christian and wanted to believe differently, I would manufacture the same “weak” responses that some have manufactured today. It’s like I told my wife once about a neighbor who wasn’t a believer, some people wouldn’t believe in God(Jesus) if he came down from heaven and shook their hand. At least the dispicle Thomas(doubting thomas)believed Jesus was raised from the dead after doubting, when Jesus told him to feel the holes in his side. Face it, God exists and Jesus is absolutely the son of the Creator.
By RF
February 10, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
Well, this has been, ahhhmmm, fun, yeah that’s it!!
I’m heading out for a weekend of frolicking, sinning, and demoralization (translation: I’ll be having a cold one or two while watching something mindless on TV and folding laundry for my boys- and I wouldn’t miss a minute of it for the whole world!!)
Enjoy life. It goes by way too quickly folks!!
By The72John
February 10, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
Yes, your “Face it, I’m right” argument is sooo compelling. Not “weak” at all.
By Jack
February 10, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
Nite All!! Try to be good boys & girls!
By Randy
February 10, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
John72, Would you want to believe in Jesus if someone could prove it absolutely???? I say no, you don’t want to believe, would mess with your lifestyle, I think you would fight it tooth and nail. Actually, Jesus pretty much proved everything said in the bible. Left just a small place for doubt as he isn’t into recruiting Robots and wants faith.
By The72John
February 10, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
John72, Would you want to believe in Jesus if someone could prove it absolutely???? I say no, you don’t want to believe, would mess with your lifestyle, I think you would fight it tooth and nail. Actually, Jesus pretty much proved everything said in the bible. Left just a small place for doubt as he isn’t into recruiting Robots and wants faith.
Actually, Randy, I think that if Jesus came down to chat, it wouldn’t be me who would be surprised. I think you might find that you had wasted your life being a narrow-minded ignoramus.
By lozen
February 10, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
Mohammed is in his grave. Buddha is in his grave. Jesus is in his grave. Face it Randy. Your arguments suck, bless your heart.
By The72John
February 10, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
Technically, Buddah would WANT to be in his grave…since he achieved enlightenment, he would have been able to escape the prison of illusion that is what we perceive to be reality, and moved on to Nirvana.
It’s called understanding other religions, Randy. Give it a try before you make assinine statements.
By Renee
February 10, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
Even proving Jesus does (did) exist does not make one want to, or choose to, follow him and his teachings.
By lozen
February 10, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided of course he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for a religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A god who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God’s eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Albert Einstein
By lozen
February 10, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Randy, Would you want to believe in Isis if someone could prove it absolutely? See what a stupid question that is Randy?
By Just Being Me
February 10, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
Ohhhhhh how I wish I had the time to tear into the notion that because the “early church” did it, then it must be right… GOD said that WE are to rest on the Sabbath, AND keep it holy.
Jesus confirmed that by saying that the sabbath (meaning rest) was made for us, not us for it.
Then, after Jesus died, his followers began meeting on Sundays to celebrate the day that He rose from the dead.
This is just one more example of you, Chuck, using the scriptures that are convenient for you, and misinterpreting those that are not.
And who gives a hoot who appeared on what day? If he appeared on Tuesday, would we be worshipping on Tuesdays now? That’s ridiculous. I don’t even have the time to point out all the flaws with that reasoning, but it’s sad that so many CHRISTIANS just take another man’s word for it, and then go preach it like it’s law. God took the sabbath very seriously, and instructed us to do the same. NEVER were we released from that mandate.
By lozen
February 10, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
Good weekend to you all!
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 10, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
God took the sabbath very seriously, and instructed us to do the same. NEVER were we released from that mandate
Agreed JBM, my religion teaches that the Sabbath is holier than all other “holidays” more holy than Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah or Sukot.
By Chilao
February 10, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this
I just never understood how the days got switched, and who better to KNOW what day of the week it is SUPPOSED to be on, then the people who started it.
And I still do not know how the days got switched, it is almost like creating a few other gods, and just making sure none are ‘before me’.
wait, we have that already with American Idol, all the sports figures, music figures, film stars etc, etc, etc LOL
By Sanhan
February 10, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this
Or conversely, Randy, some of us believe that when we shake the hand of our neighbor, we are shaking God’s hand. That’s what Namaste means: I recognize the divinity in you. Divinity has infinite forms, not just limited to Christianity. Good weekend, all.