AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > April > 06 > Entry
Should crudeness be protected as free speech?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
How someone delivers a message is just as important as what someone says. Ask any comedian or artist who confronts complacency with shock value. Or ask your average Joe on the street, like the driver recently ticketed for giving a fellow driver the finger: The police officer called it profane. The driver called it free speech. The driver won.
But requiring everyone to mimic a proper lady bent on manipulating hubby with her feminine charms is censorship — no matter how pretty you make the language or how much cleavage you show. As crude as it may be, a hand gesture is free speech. Yelling “Pardon me, good Sir. Would you mind getting out of the way?” muffled by a 70-mile-per-hour wind might endear you to Miss Manners, but it could get you in a wreck and, let’s be real, it doesn’t carry the same impact.
This issue is nothing new; it’s been in the courts for decades. A man walked into a courtroom during the Vietnam War wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with: “F$^! the Draft” (pardon the censorship). The courts decided the man was within his rights,” explains free speech expert Howard Wasserman. “The words you choose show the intensity of feeling and the emotion behind what you’re saying. How you say something is as important as the message itself. ‘F$^! the Draft’ is a different message than ‘I don’t like the draft.’”
But today, people are becoming less lenient about free speech because our culture has become more profane, explained Wasserman, a Professor at the Florida International University College of Law. “However, the ultimate problem courts have recognized is that we can’t draw an arbitrary line. The First Amendment can’t draw lines about what is and isn’t protected under free speech.”
As an example of profanity’s cultural equivocation, Wasserman points to the recent ticketing of another driver, this one with a political bumper sticker affixed to her car: “Tired of the Bush—s$^*”. It’s offensive to some but others wouldn’t consider it profanity. What makes the bumper sticker funny is its play on words, he says. “And although it’s not the kind of stuff I want my kid to hear, profanity has become part of our culture. And you can’t dictate culture.”
Rebuttal
What most people don’t realize about free speech is that exercising it can still legally have consequences. Since the 1800’s, American courts have held to the interpretation of British jurist Henry Blackstone, who said freedom of speech and the press primarily means “no previous restraints.” In other words: say what you like – the government won’t stop you — but be prepared to suffer the consequences. As Blackstone put it in 1758: “In laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published…every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public … but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity.”
Okay, so we can see how a policeman might ticket someone for obscene gestures. Go right ahead sir: be as crude as you like. I’ll be waiting here with my ticket when you’re done.
Now, that is sometimes wishful thinking: in that case, it didn’t hold up in court. But other courts have punished public crudeness, especially when it could be perceived as threatening. A South Dakota teenager recently fought against the legal consequences and lost, after he repeated that obscene gesture and mouthed the f-word at his principal one night in a parking lot. He was angry the principal was refusing to allow him to skip eighth grade.
Hm.
Just as you can’t prevent crudeness, you can’t prevent stupidity. You think that gesture is going to help your petition? There are a bewildering number of people who do patently foolish things and then cry that their “free speech rights” are being violated. But no free speech rights prevent private employers from firing employees foolish enough to blog disparaging comments. Or prevent private schools from punishing students who break their agreement not to use foul language.
You can’t dictate culture, true. But courts have long agreed that for the health of a free society, free speech penalties are often allowable – even necessary. Blackstone again: “…speech is subject to [later] restriction by the police power for the protection of the moral health of the community.”
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By E
April 9, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
People have a right to say what they think, but the way they say it could offend others. If someone is going to wear a t-shirt or a bumper sticker with profane words on it, the people who make the product can at least censor it to symbols instead of some letters. People will still (probably) know what you are trying to say, but it won’t be as “in your face”. Even as I post this comment, I am using my feedom of speech rights, but right above the text box is a warning that says “Inappropriate and profane comments will be edited at the discretion of the editors” so no one will be offended. As stated by the the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” But of course this is assuming people know and agree to what is appropriate. It is the commutity’s and the people’s, not the government’s, job to ensure that profanity is censored.
By candide
April 10, 2006 07:07 AM | Link to this
There is something worse than crudeness in speech. It is the southern way of over-politeness which conceals meanness worse than crude language. All the racial and religious bigotry of the south has always been covered over with exterior politeness — even the KKK could be polite as it did its dirty work. Think of all those redneck Christian preachers preaching hate while they talk about Jesus and love.
Forget crudeness. Tell it like it is.
By Pam B.
April 10, 2006 08:05 AM | Link to this
H$LL yes, I believe in FREE F$%@KING speech!
By Jack
April 10, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this
Bless your heart Candide. LOL
By NotMyProblem
April 10, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this
Everyone is guaranteed freedom of speech, and nobody is guaranteed the right not to be offended. If you don’t like what someone is saying, then exercise your right say something back. Or if the person/people saying the things you don’t like are a famous actor or singer, exercise your right to express your opinion by not going to their movies or buying their music. You’re seeing that in progress as we speak, with Hollywood struggling to get people into the theaters because they’ve turned off so many people with their out-of-touch political views and their complete and utter lack of relating to the majority of Americans. The Dixie Twits are another great example of that. With one statement they alienated their entire genre, not even just their fan base, and will be enjoying the consequences of their free speech for the rest of their lives. Yes, they have an album coming out, but the only people who are going to buy it are those with the same leftist coolaid drinker mentality. They’ll never regain the country fans they lost. But yes, they have every right to say what they want.
By Dusty
April 10, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this
Yes, Candide, tell it like it is. Only in your case, nobody would be around to listen because no one enjoys crude, rude, lies and discrimination. You are so outdated that you are just a snarling old anachronism.
You talk about ministers and church. But I bet you haven’t heen “to church” in the last decade. The KKK? Long gone. Over-politeness? Some call it consideration of others, a talent you never discovered.
So, welcome South, sister. You can come. Or you can GO. The door opens both ways.
By Sanhan
April 10, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this
I think the Dixie Chicks will indeed enjoy the consequences of their free speech, and have a far better chance of being vindicated in the history books than Bush and Cheney, and those who mindlessly shill for this administration. They may have turned off members of their fan base, but they’ve gained a following of folks who value free speech and democracy more than entertainment. As far as I can see, they stand by their statements in the face of losing remuneration, which is far more than neocons, corporatists, and even Democrats have done. And they’ve done it with class and without profanity, as far as I know.
So yes, NMP, people will express their opinions about the famous by not supporting them, much like Pat Robertson’s eroding support for his obscene policies and statements, all uttered without a swear word, but obscene, I’m sure, even in Jesus’ eyes.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
LOL @ Bless your heart, candide. recent convos with a southern woman, I mentioned the woman here at work trying to get me married, I referred twice to her as “she means well” and then asked “Am I supposed to say that Bless Her Heart thing before or after the ‘she means well’ thing?” She lauughed.
back in a few, I have strong opinions on this topic. gotta go take a bowel movement LMAO (sorry)
By Jack K
April 10, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this
Chilao-WTF???
Thanks for sharing though.
By Mara
April 10, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
Just like a Republican…Hollywood struggling to get people into the theaters because they’ve turned off so many people with their out-of-touch political views and their complete and utter lack of relating to the majority of Americans
No, they’re struggling because the movies they’ve been making have sucked, big time. When they best they can come up with is a remake of “The Shaggy Dog” or “The Posieden Adventure” you’ve got to expect people to balk at paying upwards of $10 a pop for tickets (not to mention the overpriced concessions!). Witness the success of “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy. If they’d make good movies, we’d go to them no matter the politics of their leading lady or the ideology of the gaffers.
I do notice that anytime there’s an actor or a “Hollywood elite” willing to come out of the closet and admit that they lean conservative the Republicans are all over them, wriggling and licking hands, like a lap-dog hoping for a table scrap.
As for crudeness being protected speech, sure it should be. While one may perhaps regulate it to a point (example - the FCC regulations, movie ratings etc) to “protect the chil’uns”, like porn, crudeness is in the interpretation of the consumer. Who gets to say what words will be banned? George Carlin?
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this
Joking, I did not really have to run down the hall.
First time I was aware that my inability to use the phrase bowel movement instead of the more common expression we all know, was contributing to the moral decline of Western Civilization. Good one, Shaunti, I am guilty as charged.
I never ever, from day one way back, (used to argue with my Mom all the time,) understood why what can only be described as Standard American English was considered so Forbidden. Religions difficulties with sexuality and the associated body parts comes to mind as the primary reason.
I was watching a PBS thing about some ‘scholars’ attempting to recreate Roman baths in Turkey, like they would have done back then(no modern technology). And learned public restrooms used to be just that, no individual stalls like we have now. Noone knew when that became a private thing, behind closed doors. You might even be rubbing elbows with the person next to you, with all the associated sounds and aromas.
No, I am not done, heads up, I’ll be back. LOL be back with more (kicking in stuffy British accent)flatulence(hot air)
Hope we all caught Whiley’s late FRI humour, who knew? (until the next drivethru)
By Carlton Wyatt
April 10, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this
It is too bad Shaunti is allowed such “free speech” to write yet more irrelevant drivel. She misrepresents and twists tales so completely they become something unrecognizeable. Such a tool of the religious-reich she is, it is a wonder she hasn’t been hired by Faux News.
The 1st Amendment affirms that THE GOVERNMENT, or any agency representing the government, cannot restrict our right to free expression. Private persons and entities are not bound by our Constitution to offer the same affirmation, however. Shaunti’s erroneous example of a cop waiting to write a ticket has just been shown to be false: the cop (i.e. the government) LOST the case. Strange how Shaunti blatantly attempts to make it seem otherwise. Also, the example of the S.D. teen had nothing to do with free speech, but again Shaunti twists it into something it isn’t to try and bolster her ludicrous argument.
Truly offensive “speech” comes from people like Shaunti who pretend to be so righteous and trustworthy, but are far from it. People like Shaunti would relish being able to limit everything anyone else may see or hear according to their overzealous beliefs. The American Taliban lives!
By Gil Gibson
April 10, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this
Wonder what Diane thinks of the speech codes on most college campuses enforced by liberals against speech THEY don’t like to hear.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
way to go Sanhan - I have two, plan on this latest, of the Dixie Chicks.
They aren’t even Country, they are Bluegrass. Not sure they are concerned about being banned on CMT, if they are. Nickel Creek ever on there(CMT?), they seem to do well.
By Renee
April 10, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
Ummmm Chilao - oh ok, free speech I get it…lol.
Free speech is what it is. People should be allowed to express themselves freely. I do think personally people should take in account that children may see what’s being advertised either on clothing or on cars but they don’t have to.
By E. Lewis
April 10, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
“Nowhere in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it protect anyone from being offended or offended by speech. Non-offensive speech does not need protection under the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the United States of America. No one would try and stop non-offensive speech. We have to be able to feel, to say, to write, or to create whatever we like, to be individual and free. People need to lighten up, and not be offended by everything that people say about them. Words only have the power that we give them. They have no power of their own to hurt, or offend anyone. Only we as individuals can give them that power over us, the power to hurt or offend us. Words have no meaning or purposes other than what we give them. We have the power to control the effect words have over us, and our lives as human beings. We have the power to control our own minds, to control our own feelings, to control our own lives, to control our own destinies, and to control how much power someone else has over us, by the words that they use.”
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this
Nobody has a right to make other people obviously uncomfortable or afraid.
There are rights, but then there is trying to push your rights to the limit just to be obnoxious.
By NotMyProblem
April 10, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
Okay, Sanhan. You just keep telling yourself it’s because the movies suck and not because America is fed-up with the Hollywood “elite”. Seems to me that within a three to four year period there had to be SOME movies worth seeing. Nobody from Lord of the Rings has become polical, so I agree. There’s no reason not to see those movies.
Bluegrass, country, whatever. They lost their millions-strong country fan base and gained a base of thousands of leftist whiners. Woo hoo. They sure showed us.
By GOB
April 10, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
Nobody has a right to make other people obviously uncomfortable or afraid.
Whiley - If I said your comments on this blog made me very uncomfortable, would you no longer have the right to post?
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
Okay, I certainly have to agree that out of respect for others, who may not wish to hear what I consider Standard American English, that people, myself included, should say the more proper polite society expressions. We have learned them, right?
Especially relevant would be religious-words, the one that abbreviates GD, since people seem to get more offended about religious-related swears, insults, etc. People who drive Chrsylers would probably get less offended if I said “Chryslers are junk” than if I said something that offended their religious sensibilties. Never understood that one either, siunce both might be direct insults to them.
We learn to be polite in society, which of course restricts speech. But glad the cop, in the case of giving a ticket to someone who gave The Bird lost that one. He’ll think twice next time. Wonder if the state involved will now pass a law, making the same gesture the equivalent of an assault?
I know some people live in the distant past, but 1758? Nothing more recent? (sorry, could not resist..LOL).
By Renee
April 10, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Could it be that Dixie Chick’s personal views outweighed their need for this huge success they are missing out on. Furthermore, if a large portion of their fan base is gone, what of it??? They aren’t complaining about it.
By Jack
April 10, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
The Chics were crying on TV about free speech. They were too stupid to realize they wern’t being crucified not for what they said but where they said it. Poor little Dixie Chics. Maybe they should move to France.
By Jack
April 10, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
Chilao. Hope everything came out ok. LOL
By Roger
April 10, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
Hurt ‘em a lot I’d say. This is POST their comment.
“The Dixie Chicks wrapped up the summer on top of the touring season with $61 million in gross North American ticket sales, despite a spring controversy over an insult lead singer Natalie Maines made at President Bush.
The trio was the top-grossing country tour of the year, with 57 sold-out dates, and was third in overall concert sales, behind the Rolling Stones and Elton John/Billy Joel, according to Pollstar.”
By Monica
April 10, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
Sure, everyone has a right to free speech. Just don’t let your free speech slip in front of my two small children. They have a right to innocence, even though that one is not in the Constitution. I saw something over the weekend on television about a guy whose favorite word was the “F-Bomb” until his 19 month old starting saying it!
Speaking of George Carlin, did you know that he narrated some of the Thomas the Train episodes for kids? Talk about irony!
By Jack
April 10, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this
One thing good about the “F” & “S” words are they can be a noun, adverb and adjective.
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
Whiley - If I said your comments on this blog made me very uncomfortable, would you no longer have the right to post?
Good question, do I have the right to make obscene gestures to you & explain in detail where I’d like to use this cigar on you?
By Mara
April 10, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
E. Lewis, who was the 9:26 quote from?
NotMyProblem - it was I, not Sanhan, who posted about movies sucking. As for the politics of LoR cast, try educating yourself before posting -
“Viggo Mortensen, who plays the title character in The Return of the King, has used the publicity platform provided by his role to trumpet his anti-war and anti-Bush views. Since the release of…The Two Towers, he’s turned up for numerous press interviews wearing a “no more blood for oil” T-shirt and freely offered his bitter critique of U.S. foreign policy.”
By deborah
April 10, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
It really doesn’t matter how protected speech is so long as some police would, in response to speech with which they disagree, issue punitive citations that dodge the speech issue. Trust me on this.
By Julia
April 10, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Monica-Hello. I know what you mean. We were in the store this weekend and some 20 yr old girl was cussing near us after just walking by my 5 yr old son. It’s frustrating when you want to keep that filthy language away from them and their innocence. (There will plenty of time for them to be exposed later in life I know.)
I liked your jokes by the way! :)
Been busy at work but have tried to read as much as I can of what I missed.
I did want to comment to JBM that I’ve been in Phipps (years ago) and have had the same treatment by the sales ladies. I’m white by the way. (Maybe it was because I was in blue jeans or just didn’t look like I could afford to be there.) But it was very aggravating and I never went back. I like to shop without a salesperson over my shoulder. (I’m not saying you never experience any prejudice because of your skin color. I’m just telling about my own experience with Phipps that’s all. Certainly not negating or minimalizing your experiences.)
Freedom of speech is wonderful. However, how would you feel about a group of teenagers standing in the town square shouting obscenities to everyone? Wouldn’t they have the right to their free speech? Or should the cops get involved because they were being offensive? Just wonder where you guys stand.
By GOB
April 10, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
*Good question, do I have the right to make obscene gestures to you & explain in detail where I’d like to use this cigar on you? *
Legally, yes you do. Surely you realize that there are some things that you might find highly offensive that the next random person would not find the least bit offensive. If we begin to tailor our speech laws to the most sensitive, no one will be able to say anything in public.
By Mara
April 10, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
Jack, I hope your realize that in french, chic is a compliment…LOL!!! The Dixie Chicks are tres chic!!
By Monica
April 10, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
Jack - they can also be used as verbs too.
By Dan
April 10, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
Before we set any rules, someone needs to explain to me why poop is ok but sh1t is bad. Both 4 letter slang words for normal bodily waste. The fact is meanings, usage and acceptance of language is a constantly changing thing. Words tend to take on the character of the context in which they are used, so banning them is quite futile. BTW this is exactly the same for the nonsensical banning of speeach deemed Non PC.
By Renee
April 10, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
I think freedom of speech personally, should be as an adult. A child, teenager, or whatever should not have freedom of speech. My teenage daughter is not allowed that. So a group of teenagers, who are under 18, should certainly be removed, while in the town square shouting obscenities.
It’s unfortunate that everyone does not know how to appropriately exercise free speech. In my opinion, certain things should not be said in the presence of children. But all do not feel that way. While it may be your right to express yourself with free speech, it’s not always the correct venue. And the only venue I really consider not correct is when the kiddies are around. But since all do not feel that way, it’s up to us at home, to school our children on appropriate and inappropriate behavior
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
Jack - found a French joke in some home folder this weekend, I plan to dedicate to you this Friday. LOL
On this obscenities in public and employers, for at least two years I shot the breeze with a guy out back, through the chain link fence. then one day I was walking into our main building, and he walked by to pick up his car at the shop down the street. Seems he had alot to say, every other word a ‘swear’ word, about a recent pay check shorting. About then our CEO walked by, but the guy was talking to me and kept talking.
Our CEO later stopped me in the hallway, inquiring about who the guy was(he worked for the next-door heavy construction place). CEO ended the convo “He wasn’t one of our guys, was he?”(In spite of me spelling out who he was and how I knew him, CEO getting ill at that point, and retired shortly later).
CEO I am certain wanted to fire the guy, for using that kind of language on the street. But since he did not work for us, our CEO was outta luck. LOL
By GOB
April 10, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
I think freedom of speech personally, should be as an adult. A child, teenager, or whatever should not have freedom of speech.
As far as the government is concerned, they should still have free speech. As a parent, however, you are free to put whatever restrictions you deem appropriate on your child.
By Renee
April 10, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
hmmmm Dan, interesting question.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
It is not joke day, but this relevant to today.
Young couple had their first child, and since the husband had been in the joint, was not working, so he stayed home and babysat, while the Mom did her fast-food worker job.
Mom came home one day and the Dad said “Junior said 1/2 a word today”.
Mom was all excited as she asked “What did he say, a 1/2 word?”
Dad replied “he said ‘mother’”.
By Renee
April 10, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
I have to disagree GOB. While I am totally against government intervention on so many levels, children I think should not have the same freedom of speech. I think that’s a touchy area, because then comes, how do we limit a child’s speech. I think for me, it’s just personal opinion.
By Julia
April 10, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
Let’s say they were 19 or 20 yr olds on the town square. Should the cops be called?
By Charles
April 10, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
A woman in a workplace can now bring successfully a sexual harassment action against a man because he has his wife’s picture on his desk. If she can be protected, certainly those with tender ears can be protected.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
If we begin to tailor our speech laws to the most sensitive, no one will be able to say anything in public
ain’t that the truth.!
Someone mentioned the PC-speak-police on college campuses, (they did not put it that way). That PC-speech-control is one of the ultimate suppressions of free-thought.(IMO) Go around and round with a sibling over this, she is so PC-correct, I would call it Pathetic if I did not love her so.
By GOB
April 10, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
Renee - If free speech is not available for those under 18, how do you punish them when they break the law? Should a kid get a criminal record because a cop heard him say something bad about the government when he was 17? The only way to enforce it would be to criminalize it, and that seems like a very harsh step to me.
Not to mention that there are teenagers who are very smart and have points to make about the world around them. I was only 17 when i started college; should I not have had free speech at a public university because of that?
By Archie
April 10, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Crudeness should be protected as free speech. It is interesting that somewhere in Minnesota it is illegal for a man to cuss in front of women and children, but as far as I know it is not illegal for women to cuss in front men and children. I kinda agree with Shanti in the sense that if you “say it” be prepared for the consequences.
By Renee
April 10, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
Julia - unless they are threatening someone, no, they shouldn’t.
By Julia
April 10, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
We went to Myrtle Beach last year and set up camp on the beach and built sandcastles. (Me, son, my mom & dad.) Anyway, we’re building castles and I’m taking pictures when a group of 21 yr olds come and set up their beer cooler right in front of us. Their language was repulsive. Cuss words flowing and talking about the “chicks from last night”. I was one P.O.’d Mommy believe me! The beach was not crowded and was quite open actually. Yet they set up right in front of a small child and started cussing and drinking. (It was not spring break-actually it was September and off-season.)
We obviously had to leave our castle and get away from them. (Went back to the pool.) But some people do not understand the need to be careful around children.
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
“A woman in a workplace can now bring successfully a sexual harassment action against a man because he has his wife’s picture on his desk.”
BULL HONKY
There are procedures to bringing a sexual harassment case to court. There has to be significant abuse, proof, & you have to complain to management more than once. Don’t forget the paper trail you need. Please ! women aren’t winning case after case of sexual harassment for cheap thrills. Stop exaggerating. Most lawyers don’t even take those types of cases, even if you do have obvious sexual harassment issues at work, it’s a difficult case to win.
By Renee
April 10, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
GOB - I don’t have answers for that, so I won’t even pretend. With the examples you have given, no I would not agree in giving a child a criminal record. I don’t think children should be allowed to say a lot of things, but I think it starts at home. My issues are more with children say cursing out a teacher and then hollering “free speech”. Should a child be able to express opinions, absolutely, about the government or whatever else. Should a child be able to curse out adults, call names, IMO, nope. But how enforcable can that be, without infrining on true free speech rights? I doubt it would be.
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
“Crudeness should be protected as free speech.”
Then I should be able to mase you if your perverted AZZZ is verbally harrasing me.
By Mara
April 10, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
GOB, I have to agree with Renee regarding freedom-of-speech for minors. Though I do not believe in governmental censorship, I do think that it’s a parents obligation to teach a child what they consider proper, be it language, religion, or manners. To do that, sometimes a parent must infringe on the childs right to expression.
By GOB
April 10, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Renee - I do agree that it is important to teach kids to be respectful. Dont schools have rules about swearing, etc? If so, those would be able to be enforced through suspension, dentention, etc. I think we are in basic agreement, though. Kids need to be taught to be respectful, but that is starts at home.
By Renee
April 10, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Julia - Personally, I think children should always be taken into consideration, when around. And even if you may say something in front of your children, it may not be appropriate to say around my children. People do not all think like that, and there is nothing that can be done. There have been many situations where my daughter has seen or heard something that I don’t think she should have, but I guess I’ve learned I can’t protect her from the world. Her hearing it didn’t make any big difference in her life or make her act differently and was pretty much non traumatic. Usually the adults make a bigger deal about it than the kids do. And, unfortunately, the children will hear all the words one day, whether at school, at a friends house or what have you. You teach them what is inappropriate and appropriate to act and speak and move on.
By Renee
April 10, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
Ummm…who got Whiley started LOL…
By RF
April 10, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Our freedom of speech is limited. We only have a freedom so long as it doesn’t interfere with another’s freedom. We have to remember that what is acceptable in one situation may not be in another, and we have to learn to accept that. I can’t yell an obscenity at the rude, disrespectful child taking all my time and attention in class, but if I choose to yell one at the windshield in traffic, who is it hurting? We have the right so long as it doesn’t hurt another. No freedom in the constitution is absolute, nor should it be.
Here’s an interesting point. The word B1tch used to be a perfectly acceptable term for a female dog. People used to know that if I moved my a$$, I was taking my donkey up the road. Over time word meanings shift. It’s all about context and what society in general considers. I don’t think I’d get away with saying the “B” word for long, even if I was referring to my wonderful doggie. It’s just not acceptable these days.
Children and free speech? Heck no! I don’t think we can allow kids to walk around using obscenities freely. Trust me, high schoolers use the “F” word enough. I can’t imagine giving them permission to use it!!
By Mara
April 10, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Whiley, macing someone for verbal harrassment? When did we get to the point that assaulting someone for what they say is acceptable, for any reason?
Using your rationale, a wife-beater could have the plausible excuse of “The woman wouldn’t shut up. She just kept nagging and harrassing me until I smacked her.”
By Monica
April 10, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
A few months ago we (hubby, in-laws, and 2 boys) were at a restaurant after church. A group of college kids came in, sat near us, and began talking. One of the guys was particularly loud and said a few things that I didn’t want my kids to hear. However, when he realized that our children were within earshot, he quickly apologized to us and changed his conversation. As we were leaving, I stopped at his table and told him how much I appreciated his actions. If only people would act civilly in this manner, crudeness vs free speech would be a non-issue.
Teenagers (or adults for that matter) are shouting obscenities in the public square. Are they not making a public nuisance? Food for thought.
Chilao, going back to your story, let’s say that guy with which you were conversing was a member of your company, and the CEO fired him. Does the CEO have the right to fire someone whose language doesn’t represent the company the way he wants?
By Mara
April 10, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
RF - I’m guessing you don’t watch the dog shows on t.v. - that word is still used to refer to female dogs and evidently, in that context, it’s acceptable to the FCC. :^)
By lozen
April 10, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Charles, “A woman in a workplace can now bring successfully a sexual harassment action against a man because he has his wife’s picture on his desk. If she can be protected, certainly those with tender ears can be protected.” Please give us an example to prove this statement cuz, you know, I don’t believe it.
By Renee
April 10, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Mara - good 11:40 comment.
By lozen
April 10, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
And same for you Gil, “Wonder what Diane thinks of the speech codes on most college campuses enforced by liberals against speech THEY don’t like to hear.”
Please offer up some proof for this statement becuz… I don’t believe it!
By Archie
April 10, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
Since you(Whiley) used my sentence, my question is what is the purpose of your response???
“Should a child be able to express opinions, absolutely, about the government or whatever else. Should a child be able to curse out adults, call names, IMO, nope.”
I agree with that Renee and I say that a person must be prepared to face the consequences of their speech. Because you can do something does not mean you should. Crude language is used in many popular songs these days and people buy those songs but in the situation that Renee describes in her posts those songs should not be played everywhere. We need to define what protection is when it comes to free speech. Do I need to be able to cuss out my boss when I disagree??? Maybe freedom of speech does not mean absolute freedom to say any old thing that comes to mind.
By GOB
April 10, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
Mara - I totally agree that a parent has the right to not only infringe on their kid’s rights, but to completly take them away. I just dont think the government should be involved, and the only way to ensure that kids are limited in what they can say would be to pass legislation against it.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
Does the CEO have the right to fire someone whose language doesn’t represent the company the way he wants
probably. CEO would argue it would reflect on the company. don’t really know the legal aspects but know we getting less and less employee friendly, legally.
if you can get fired for having the wrong political party bumper sticker surely you can be fired for using the wrong language in public.
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
Mara, if some perv is trying to touch me or rub up against me, or getting too close talking trash to me, yes I have to right to protect myself. I take a perv’s verbal comments as a threat. Yes I think it’s absolutly fine to mace somebody that just ran his hand up my skirt. If I accidentally step on his face in the process, well, that was just an accident. The fact that I was wearing my golf shoes at the time was just too bad.
By Respect
April 10, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
The world is full of people that get so caught up in THEIR rights to do something (in this case in point, speech) that respect for others becomes forgotten.
Sure, a person has the right, I suppose, to use crude, vulgar and offensive speech in public, whether it be a ball game or while riding Marta. But I also feel people have equal right to not have to put up with this offensive behavior.
Further, it should not be left to those being offended to have to step up and say something to a person who is using offensive language. There is a reason such language is termed ‘offensive’. People in general need to step up and have respect for others, whether it be their language or otherwise.
Too many are concerned with ME and could care less about others.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
Mara - that is only AKC dog-show stuff. LOL Is that a restricted FCC word? seems I hear it alot on TV, but then I would not exactly NOTICE, considering it just Standard American English.
Back to the CEO, of course companies easily get around the ‘free speech’(on private time, but in public) by suddenly being disatisified with your work, giving you impossible tasks, writing you up for being 5 minutes late, etc, etc, etc.
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
Using your rationale, a wife-beater could have the plausible excuse of “The woman wouldn’t shut up. She just kept nagging and harrassing me until I smacked her.”
OH PLEASE a “nagging” wife is not the same as a stranger yelling out to you what he wants to “do” do you. Or a stranger following you trying to get close enough to touch you while he’s telling you what you need to do to his d!@#.
By Renee
April 10, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
*By Whiley
April 10, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
“Crudeness should be protected as free speech.”
Then I should be able to mase you if your perverted AZZZ is verbally harrasing me*
Whiley this is your 11:24 comment. Mara responded to this at 11:40. Your 11:53 post does not respond to Mara’s response to your post. You state it should be alright for you to mase someone for *verbal harrassment. So in other words, a guy walks by and says “DAAAAMMMNNN you got a nice azzzz” and your response is to take him down??? Not saying to him “I would appreciate it if you didn’t speak to me in that manner” or anything similar, just mase and stomp on his face.
Wow!
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
“Since you(Whiley) used my sentence, my question is what is the purpose of your response??? “
to what or which thing? lol
By Jack
April 10, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
Did Bill have sex with Monica?
Close, but no cigar.
By GOB
April 10, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Do I need to be able to cuss out my boss when I disagree???
Archie - I would argue that yes, you do need to be able to cuss your boss out if you disagree without worrying about being arrested. At the same time, he should have the right to fire your for cussing him out.
By candide
April 10, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Several men wait outside a hooker’s room for sex. The first one in is an Israeli. He cannot find a condom so he uses a postage stamp. The second client is an Arab. When he withdraws he finds an Israeli postage stamp appended to his member. “Those damn Jews,” he say, “wherever they go they advertise.”
By concerned citizen
April 10, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Crude and profane are adjectives that can be and often are applied very differently depending on who you ask. For example and school teacher is bound to find certain words offensive, but the same words do not offend a soldier in combat. The problem here is that people who are offended always try to get the government to legislate things that they see in a public place. Well guess what? The public place is just that, public. Your right not to be offended ends where my free speech begins. If you don’t like it, stay home or at work or church. But I’ll decorate my home or my car with anything I see fit. Your kid is an honor student at some middle school? Well the president is an incompetent piece of sh*t. Both are facts. How can a fact be offensive?
By Justin
April 10, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Parent Trap? Litigation Explodes Over Paternity Fraud By Tresa Baldas The National Law Journal 04-10-2006
Paternity fraud is rampant in the United States, triggering legislation and legal challenges in more than a dozen states, according to family law attorneys and fathers’ rights activists.
At issue: Men claim women are getting away with trickery — DNA evidence may show a man is not the father, but the courts are still forcing him to pay child support anyway.
“This is the new underdog,” said Michigan family law attorney Michele Kelly, who represents mostly men tangled in paternity disputes. “I was a staunch feminist. I marched with Gloria Steinem. But the new victims in America are working men. All they are is a mule train.”
Most recently, Kelly secured a victory for a Michigan man who had paid an estimated $80,000 in child support over 15 years to his ex-wife, despite DNA evidence that proved he wasn’t the father of their first son. On March 23, after a bitter court battle, the case settled with the ex-wife agreeing to have all child support canceled. Richardson v. Luria, No. 91-7019-DM (Bay Co., Mich., Cir. Ct.).
The woman’s lawyer, Robert Dunn, a solo practitioner based in Bay City, Mich., was unavailable for comment.
Meanwhile, Kelly, of Kelly & Kelly in Northville, Mich., said this case is just the tip of the iceberg.
“One case is just more outrageous than the next,” she said.
According to a recent study in New Hampshire, as many as 30 percent of those paying child support are not the biological fathers of the children being supported. California is also expected to release results from a similar study later this year.
“Paternity fraud is a growing concern for men and children everywhere,” the New Hampshire report concluded. “It can spawn considerable grief for the men who may or may not be emotionally attached to a child they later discover was fathered by another; and possibly unsettling for children who may discover the false nature of their paternity.”
Attorneys and fathers’ rights activists claim that a big problem facing men today is that a large majority of states — 38 in total — still have laws on the books that require a man to pay child support, even with DNA evidence showing that he is not the father.
Most states rely on a 500-year-old English common law doctrine, which holds that a married man is always legally presumed to be the father of a child born of the marriage.
STATES RESPOND
Meanwhile, many states are responding to the alleged widespread problem of paternity fraud with new laws.
Florida is about to pass a new law that would end child support if a man proves he’s not the father.
In Colorado, a new state law took effect this year that permits men, for the first time, to challenge the paternity of alleged offspring — at least during the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child-support action.
And Michigan is considering a bill that would require the courts to withdraw child support if a man proves he is not the father.
A dozen other states have also made similar changes to paternity laws, most of them in the last five years, that allow for men to disestablish paternity. These states include Ohio, Georgia, Maryland and Alabama.
FITTING A ‘1950s LIFESTYLE’
“Clearly today, more than ever before, paternity is raised more frequently,” said family law expert John P. Paone Jr. of Paone & Zaleski in Woodbridge, N.J., who believes old paternity laws don’t work in today’s world.
“The reality is that now there are women, as well as men, who are engaging in extramarital relations. Welcome to Desperate Housewives. Here we are,” he said.
Paone, former chairman of the Family Law Section for the New Jersey State Bar Association, believes that new legislation is needed to reflect the change in societal mores.
“This presumption that a child born during the marriage is the biological child of the mother and father may no longer be appropriate,” Paone said. “These things all worked very well in a 1950s lifestyle, but today that may be the exception to the rule,” Paone said.
But Paula Roberts, an attorney with the Center for Law and Social Policy in Washington, doesn’t view paternity fraud as a growing problem.
Instead, she argues that actual fraud occurs very rarely, and that most men who challenge paternity do so only after a relationship sours.
Roberts also cautions states against passing overly broad laws that allow men to disestablish paternity.
“What worries me about these laws is they behave as if all the fact patterns are the same, and that it’s always some poor defrauded guy as opposed to what you see when you read the case law,” Roberts said. “If you read the case law, what you discover is that there is a small number of cases in which the guy has actually been defrauded.”
Roberts said that in recent years, she has helped draft model laws, adopted in several states, that allow men and women to get genetic testing within the first two years of a child’s life. If the test shows the father is not the biological parent, then he has the right to disestablish paternity.
Such laws have been adopted in Delaware, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming, and Roberts believes that the two-year age limit is better than the “anyone can sue anytime approach,” which can hurt children.
STATES ARE BEHIND
Linda S. Ferrer, a family law practitioner in California who has handled dozens of paternity fraud lawsuits in recent years, agreed.
“The states are just behind the times,” said Ferrer, who called paternity fraud “a tremendous problem.
“It really seems that there are so many deadbeat dads out there and they should be going after the real father instead of hanging the hat on any guy that the mom points the finger to,” Ferrer said.
Ferrer, a solo in Santa Ana, Calif., won a landmark 2004 court ruling in which she helped a construction worker get a child support order thrown out after proving he was not the father. A lower court had refused the man’s request, saying too much time had elapsed, but he won on appeal.
“[W]hen a mistake occurs in a child support action, the county must correct it, not exploit it,” California’s 2d District Court of Appeal said in its ruling. County of Los Angeles v. Navarro, 120 Cal. App. 4th 246.
Since the Navarro ruling, Ferrer has helped set aside 20 default paternity judgments against men who proved they were not the biological fathers.
Statewide, she said, roughly 700 similar default judgments have been set aside since the ruling.
But some legal experts argue that the paternity-fraud movement is creating a backlash.
Michigan State University Law Professor Melanie Jacobs cautions states about passing new paternity-fraud laws, arguing children could get hurt in the long run.
“I think the problem with those laws is that, No. 1, they need to consider a child’s best interest. I’m not trying to minimize the trauma to the nonbiological father, his feeling of betrayal,” Jacobs said.
“But I can only imagine how traumatic it is for the child who learns that someone is not their father, and suddenly that father goes to court and says not only do I not want to pay for this child’s [upbringing], I want to legally be declared the nonfather,” Jacobs added.
STRICT LIMITATION NEEDED?
Jacobs strongly urges states that are considering laws that would permit paternity disestablishment to adopt a very strict statute of limitations to prevent harm to a child who has become emotionally attached to a parent.
Attorney Jennifer Brandt, a partner in the family law department at Cozen O’Connor in Philadelphia, agrees.
“In a course of fairness, men should not be held accountable for payments of child support, but you don’t want to leave children fatherless, either,” said Brandt, who believes women have long had the upper hand in paternity disputes.
“But I think they’re losing ground,” said Brandt, adding that a growing number of biological fathers are also waging their own war, fighting for a greater role in their children’s lives.
“It’s all over the place,” Brandt said of the so-called men’s movement.
A NEW WRINKLE
Another new wrinkle in paternity disputes is men seeking reimbursement for child support payments.
That’s at the heart of a recent case in New Jersey, where a man recently won the right to sue the biological father for nearly $110,000, the cost of raising the child. RAC v. PJS, 380 N.J. Super. 94 (N.J. App. Div. Aug. 31, 2005).
The case involved a man who found out 30 years after his youngest child’s birth that he was not the father.
An appeals court ruled in September that the man could sue for reimbursement because he had been duped. But Scott Bocker, attorney for the biological father, said the mother should be held accountable because she duped the biological father, too.
“His position has been it should be the mother, who lied to everybody, who pays,” said Bocker of the Law Offices of Herman Osofsky in Clifton, N.J.
He added that what is unusual about the case is that the plaintiff filed suit using the state’s Parentage Act, which historically was designed to let children and mothers go after deadbeat dads for nonpayment.
The case has been appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
“This is the first time the law has been used in this way by a third party,” Bocker said.
By Mara
April 10, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Whiley, “if some perv is trying to touch me or rub up against me…somebody that just ran his hand up my skirt.” Certainly you have a right to protect yourself from assault. You do not have a right to mace someone who merely talks trash in your direction.
GOB - I disagree that the only way to discipline a minor in regard to free speech is with legislation. Just as with most things, parents indicate to their children what is considered acceptable in their family. Time-outs, restrictions, stern talkings-to, corporal punishment, etc are all time tested techniques for parents to impress on a child that a certain behaviour is unacceptable. No legislation needed.
By GOB
April 10, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Yes I think it’s absolutly fine to mace somebody that just ran his hand up my skirt.
yelling out to you what he wants to “do” do you. Or a stranger following you trying to get close enough to touch you while he’s telling you what you need to do to his d!@#.
This is a question for the women on here. Are the types of things Whiley says (see above) as common as she makes them sound? As a man, I dont experiance this, so I am curious as to what some other women’s experiances are with this type of behavior.
By Jack
April 10, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
Geez Justin, give it a break. Isn’t there a “disgruntled ex” blog out there?
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
“So in other words, a guy walks by and says “DAAAAMMMNNN you got a nice azzzz” and your response is to take him down???”
Would I want to? YES. It would also depend on how close he was to me. IF he was within arm length I would use my mace. I’m not waiting around for some stranger to touch me or whatever. Commenting on my azz outloud tells me this person has a behavior problem.
By Casey Bowman
April 10, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
I just don’t get it. Why is “a*” profane while “butt” or “rear-end” are not? In my humble opinion, it comes down to what gives a word meaning. Well, what gives a word meaning is it’s definition. If you don’t know a word’s definition then you probably won’t be offended by it. If you tell someone who doesn’t know English to “f#@k off” they aren’t going to demand an apology because they don’t even know what you said. But then, if a word’s definition is what gives it meaning, how can two words with the same definition be treated so differently. Telling a man to “Go have sexual relations with another man” might offend some people but not others. Using another common phrase though, involving the f-word, might offend everyone. Why? In reality what people are really getting upset about are the ideas behind the words. But if that’s the case, then why take it out on the words? They’re nothing more than letters put together in a certain pattern. Random letter sequences cannot be offensive. It is the definitions which make a word or phrase offensive. So again, why “butt” instead of “a*”? I really just don’t get the difference.
By GOB
April 10, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Mara - I agree with what you are saying. I meant that the only way for the government to restrict free speech is through legislation. Parents can, and should, do whatever they feel is appropriate.
By Tim
April 10, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
I know I’m gonna get in BIIIIG trouble for bringing this up… but… I wonder if Shaunti would have a problem with the Pro-life people who stand on street corners with huge posters of an aborted fetus… I find that crude but I still see them from time to time standing on street cornes around Atlanta
By GOB
April 10, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
Justin - How about a link, rather than 10 pages??
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
Sigh, what’s wrong now Justin?, trying to get out of your child support by claiming you’re not the father of your kids now?
“You do not have a right to mace someone who merely talks trash in your direction.”
Yes I do. If they are within a close distance hail yes I do.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
but then I would not exactly NOTICE, considering it just *Standard American English
meaning I would not be worrying about the eminent demise of Western Civilization if I heard any of these words on TV.
sidebar: is that where they got the idea for that (i think) Pepsi ad where all the female office workers go over to the window to oogle the sweaty contruction workers? Bet those women had some ‘verbal assault’ thoughts in their minds. Okay, add ‘physical assaults’ thoughts as well. LOL
By Respect
April 10, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this
Concerned Citizen:
You exemplify the sort of ME attitude I was referring to.
Your post talks about what YOUR rights are and what YOU can and will do.
Unfortunately, the world is full of people with the TO-HELL-WITH-OTHERS-I-HAVE-THE-RIGHT-TO-DO-WHATEVER-I-PLEASE attitude you have.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
Anybody notice the organizers for this new round of immigration-reform protests have smartly told the crowds that waving non-American flags around wasn’t going over very well with many people? rhetorical. LOL
but they were told to leave the other flags at home this time.
By Patrick
April 10, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
I saw a truck with a sticker of a squirrel on the back window. The squirrel had large set of… organs between its legs. It said GOT __ across the top. Should this be illegal or is this an example of this moron’s free speech?
By RF
April 10, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
Tim- she’d say that was just fine because it supports the conservative agenda. Even though it offends, it’s socially acceptable to the majority politically, so it’s allowed.
By Jack
April 10, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
I saw one on a pick-up that said, “Save a horse, ride a cowboy” That one was as good as “Save a tree, eat a beaver”
Splain those to the kids.
By The72John
April 10, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
Hi all - missed y’all last week. Work is hectic right now. Home sick today, so figured I’d hop on.
On topic - There’s a difference between what is considered socially acceptable and what is considered legally actionable. Public speech, particularly political speech (which is what the bumper sticker in question most certainly was) should ALWAYS be protected, regardless of whether some people find it “offensive” or not. It is not the responsibility of adults to whitewash society so that children might not be offended.
Off topic - Whiley, only you could take a topic about free speech and turn it into yet another rant about verbal harrassment from all those bad men out there. Get over yourself, honey. Just because someone says “OOO, shake it baby” doesn’t mean they deserve some psychotic, irrational woman pulling out a can of mace and attacking them. You really need to learn to diferentiate between someone being verbally crude and someone attacking you physically. You’ll be a lot happier.
Justin - dude…get therapy.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
saw one on a pick-up that said, “Save a horse, ride a cowboy” That one was as good as “Save a tree, eat a beaver”
Now that just connotes way too much Crudeness, call your legislators right now. Put an end to this ‘pollute the kiddies’ minds’ bumber stickers right now.
But it did remind me of the little boy that got kicked out of Cub Scouts for eating a brownie.
By Jack
April 10, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
“Justin - dude…get therapy”
Amen.
By Mark Richard
April 10, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
The issue of Free Speech has become, like everything else, subject to interpretation as to whether it’s politically correct.
It’s okay to say something crude or offensive if the offended party is white, male, Christian, or conservative. It’s perfectly okay for a black mayor to complain that his city is “too vanilla” or not “chocolate” enough, but if the reverse were to happen the white mayor would be immediately vilified.
We are blessed with the right of Free Speech, but not so with the right “not to be offended”. In order to support Free Speech, you have to support the rights of those who disagree with you as well as those who don’t.
By the same token, as previously posted, the right of Free Speech also includes the right to be publicly stupid.
Sometimes it’s better to be thought a silent fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
By Mara
April 10, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
GOB, hate to break it to you but “yes”, it is pretty common for men to holler these kind of comments at women. In my experience, it usually occurs when there is a group of men and is usually aimed a women alone or in groups smaller than 3. Don’t know why, just my experience.
on topic - the problem with regulating “crude” is that, as others have said, “crude” is a judgement call. What’s crude to me may be just another adjective to another. Once we allow a small group of people to decide for us what is acceptable speech and what isn’t, it is inevitable that their ideology will eventually dictate what is allowed. Could laws against “miserable failure” be far behind “F—- Bush”?
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this
John, I’m not talking about the “oh hey baby” ranting of dirty construction workers. And you have no right to tell me to shut up & just take it especially since it doesn’t happen to you.
Tim that’s really sad you see anti choice protesters. It’s really sad they have nothing better to do with their time. Too bad we can’t “egg” them.
Other than the pervs & fetus lovers, I suppose all this Hispanic pro-illegal marches are the main crude things out there right now. I’m so angry, who the hail do you think is paying for these marches? Taco Bell????? NO WE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS ! I’m thankful I don’t live anywhere near that “parade” route. Who DO YOU THINK is paying for the police presence?? WHO DO YOU THINK is going to have to pick up & pay for all the trash left behind after their march? WE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS. Again. And WHERE do you think all these people are using the bathroom?????? There’s going to be a lot of dead flower beds along that march route.
By Jack
April 10, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
“Once we allow a small group of people to decide for us what is acceptable speech and what isn’t, it is inevitable that their ideology will eventually dictate what is allowed.”
This is already a reality. Look at the courts in California, God forbid we say God.
By Mara
April 10, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Chilao - heard about the flag thing, too. What gets me is the analogy they make with those of Irish heritage putting out their flag on St. Paddys day.
Funny, I never heard of the Irish putting out their flag to indicate solidarity with Irish criminals agitating for special rights.
By Justin
April 10, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
Whiley, We agree on something! I am also angry about the illegal immigrant marches. And, what makes me even angrier are some of the so-called Black leaders are supporting them. The illegals don’t care about Blacks. They don’t care about anything but getting their own way. And, they will take over at the rate they have children…
Waving the Mexican flag is really pi**ing me off!
By Renee
April 10, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Someone has a behavior problem for commenting that you have a nice a**. Are you serious??? Maybe they could use tact, or be more respectful, but such is life. I find it unbelievable and laughable that if you are within arms length of a man and they make an “insensitive or even rude comment” that your response is to mase him.
Gob, to answer your question, yes men can make a lot of crude comments. Usually, me either a. ignoring them or b. telling them to please refrain from speaking to me in that matter has been a succesfull measure in getting the situation resolved. I guess I could try the mace thing but I think I would look completely crazy.
Now, I’ve never been walking anywhere and have a man try to slide his hand up my dress or something similar.
Justin, sweetie, you know what I’m going to say.
By Peter Hoover
April 10, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
Free speech is just that, and there are limits to free speech. One can not yell “FIRE” in an enclosed theatre. However, I draw the line when we are trying to pass laws that protect peoples hurt feelings. I do not care if I offend people that do not agree with. They don’t agree with me. Why should they feel warm fuzzies when they diagree with me? I am not politically correct, and refuse to go down that road. When people demand political correctness, they are demanding that you wwaive your right to free speech. What nonsense! I mean what I say, and say what I mean, without mincing words. To those who get offended, I say: Lighten up, and toughen up!!!
By GOB
April 10, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Mara - I wasnt suggesting that those sorts of things didnt happen frequently, I was just curious about whether Whiley was as completly crazy as she sounds. I guess she does have some sort of foundation for her complaints. As a guy who does not do that sort of thing, I just havent personally seen it. That was the root of the question.
By Mara
April 10, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Now Jack, you know that there’s no quibble about a private individual, on their own time, praying, harrassing (oops, I mean witnessing…) or otherwise commenting on God. The only time the courts get involved, as you should know, is when “God” can be construed as being promoted, favored, or supported by the government. To pretend that there’s a “war on Christians” is disingenuous at best and an outright fabrication at the worst.
By Justin
April 10, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
Now, Renee Sweetheart, what are you going to say?
Personally, I think men who make negative comments to women are goons. True gentlemen give sincere compliments simply to bring a smile to a woman.
As I have stated before, if you were with me you wouldn’t have that problem… I know you have a partner but if things change…
By james
April 10, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
whiley, is just talking to women off limits? i imagine the next time i speak to one and she decides to answer with attitude and with her a* on her shoulder i guess i’ll assume she has a behaviour problem and sock her in the eye before she goes looney.
some of your posts are so off the wall it’s laughable.
By Renee
April 10, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
What I was going to say Justin, was please, please, no more cut and pastes. Let’s stay on topic (or close to it). It will probably do you good to get your mind off of your problems, if only temporary. I’m sure in the weeks to come, a topic will come up that will touch on your situation, and then you can let loose. Until then, lighten up :-P
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
Mara - I had not heard that about the Irish-flag comparison. The thought had crossed my mind last week, with a ‘wonder if the Irish were flying their flag 150 years ago’ but then realized the Irish came over legally, so there would be no need to.
But no comparison between the two, flag-wise. Go to LA, you will see the Mexican flag everywhere, in the same way as the Irish flag in Boston. In that context, whooopee.
the film, Gangs of New York, opened my eyes to some history I researched later on-line. I am 1/4 Irish but not something we grew up with, we were AMERICAN after all. but Federal gunships firing upon Irish protestors, from the East River, was new knowledge to me. Plus the hostility towards Blacks, that also happened during the Civil War.
By Just Being Me
April 10, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
Hi all… just in and back out for a minute today!
To answer your question, Gob, this isn’t something I experience frequently, if at all. When I lived in NY, there were areas in the Bronx and in Queens where guys (usually either Latino or West Indian - and I mean no offense to either group) would yell out some comments like “Hey sexy lady,” or “Can I take you home?” The worst comments may have been along the lines of “You sure would taste good to me tonight,” or something like that. There are also areas (like Co-Op City) where a guy will gesture a bj with his hand, sort of like asking permission. I’ve had that to happen to me when I was still in high school.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a guy to actually touch me, uninvited, and if one ever did, he would be doing well to only get maced.
Here in Atlanta, the worst I’ve had to deal with is guys thinking it’s okay to call me a pet name or “psssst.” Either of those will have me pi$$ed before he’s finished saying it.
Actually, Renee might remember a few weeks ago, I was on my way to church and had her on my phone when some old guy said “How you doin, baby?” to me…. I kindly told him (as I always do when someone calls me out of my name) not to ever call me that again, and that I am not his baby. We actually went back and forth about it before I finished pumping my gas and got back in the car…
To me, it’s not that serious a problem. TO ME.
By Tim
April 10, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
I know I’m gonna get in BIIIIG trouble for bringing this up… but… I wonder if Shaunti would have a problem with the Pro-life people who stand on street corners with huge posters of an aborted fetus… I find that crude but I still see them from time to time standing on street cornes around Atlanta
By The72John
April 10, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
You’re right, Whiley. I have no right, but the courts and the legal system certainly do. If you physically assault someone because they’ve made suggestive comments to you, guess who will probably wind up in jail? It’s not the person talking, it’s the crazed person with the mace.
Waving the Mexican flag is really piing me off!
I realize this is off-topic, but…why? This country is full of ethinc groups that continue to identify with their ancestor’s countries of origin even when generations separate the current group from their “homeland”. Heck, we even have festivals when we all join in, regardless of our roots. St. Paddy’s day, anyone?
What really pi$$es me off is the people who are allowing themselves to be dragged into yet another right-wing pre-election frenzy of hatred and fear. Yes, there are a lot of illegal immigrants in this country. Yes, they “broke the law” to come here. Yes, we need to do something to register all those who currently exist below the radar and start collecting their income tax dollars.
Encouraging anti-immigrant hatred and jingoism is going to do NOTHING productive, however. If anything, it will continue to escalate until something very, very ugly and very, very UN-American happens.
By Justin
April 10, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
Renee, for you, I will…
By candide
April 10, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
What, no Irish had flags and advocated the rights of criminals? What about the IRA which every Irish politician in New York and Massachusetts supported? I’ll name one: Pete King, Congressman from Long Island, long a spokesman for the IRA.
By Julia
April 10, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
How about the stickers on cars/trucks of the women with big boobs? You know the ones with the silhouette. I’ve seen some pretty rude ones of the girl bent over or on all fours. (I know this has to drive Whiley nuts to get behind one of these vehicles!)
Saw a bumper sticker the other day. It said:
*I’m so GOOD that I call my OWN NAME out during SEX!”
Can you believe someone put that on their car???
By Justin
April 10, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
Off topic…but Whiley and others, may be interested in this article about illegal immigration.
www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/stateof/hutchinson407
By GOB
April 10, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
What? Blacks treated poorly during the civil war?? Surely you jest?
JK
By The72John
April 10, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
The thought had crossed my mind last week, with a ‘wonder if the Irish were flying their flag 150 years ago’ but then realized the Irish came over legally, so there would be no need to
Did you stop to think that A) There were no immigration laws as such on the books during the waves of Irish migration? and that B) there were also no wage or worker protection laws on the books at that time either?
The Irish immigrants were treated in much the same manner as hispanics are being treated now - working in sweatshops for pittances an hour, being forced to live in small appartments in large numbers, abused because they weren’t “American”, mistreated by law enforcement, etc.
The US doesn’t exactly have the best track record when it comes to welcoming newcomers. Did you know that after the first Chinese wave (the group that built the trans-continental railroad network) the US government passed anti-miscegination laws that made it illegal for a Chinese person to marry an American citizen, and furthermore made it illegal for men already in this country to bring their families over to join them? The law was designed to prevent the immigrants from having children, and it worked. The first wave died out within a generation.
By The72John
April 10, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
*I’m so GOOD that I call my OWN NAME out during SEX!”
It’s tacky, but…I just can’t help it. I LoL’d.
By Jack
April 10, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
“Personally, I think men who make negative comments to women are goons. True gentlemen give sincere compliments simply to bring a smile to a woman.”
Agree wholeheartedly!
By Renee
April 10, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
Thanks Justin!! Much appreciated!!
Lol Julia, I actually like that one. Wouldn’t put it on my car though (at least at this point in life). Sometimes bumper stickers etc.. are just for fun, or for the shock value. I have window clings that I put in my car occasionally that I’m sure one might find objectionable, I find them cute and funny. Objectionable is so subjective that there is absolutely no way to please everybody so sometimes you should just please yourself.
By Justin
April 10, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Well, if the illegal immigrants want amnesty, then I think Black American should receive reparations! I thought it wasn’t feasible before, but if Congress can give millions amnesty, they can give Blacks reparations in some form for contributing to the building of this nation through slavery.
And, some of the illegals will call us n**. Look at Vincente Fox’s attitude towards Blacks in America. I should have free speech to say what I think of some of them. They are all hard-working. I see them living twelve deep in an apartment, drinking beer on the weekend and oogling women.
By Jack
April 10, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Everyone knows you should use a generic scream to avoid trouble. Wouldn’t want to spoil the moment.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
GOB - LOL, glad I saw the “JK”. But prior to that movie, I did not know about the draft then and the Irish attacking blacks over it(what i was referring to). Fortunately it was Scorsese, and not Stone, who knows what we would have gotten then in a movie?
72John - so what sense does it make to have huge protest rallies all about wanting to become American citizens and flying some other country’s flag while you are doing it? Lot of difference between that and some Irish or Mexicans flying their home country flag off their porch, to me anyway.
By Justin
April 10, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me, You are right about Latino men and their comments about women. They are used a machismo culture and feel women are truly their property. At least most American men, even with our faults, respect women as equals.
By Mara
April 10, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
GOB - I’ve got to agree with most of the other ladies here. I’ve gotten the verbal and the hand gestures, but not the physical harrassment. And it does seem to occur most often with construction workers and the foreign-born, though. So while Whiley does have a legitimate gripe, were she to mace someone who was merely “cat-calling” (now isn’t that a nice euphamism for it…LoL) I would have little sympathy for her. Of course, if she were to have a legitimate belief of imminent danger…mace away. Or here in Georgia, I think you could shoot ‘em now, if you’re afeared for your safety. ;^)
By Just Being Me
April 10, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
Tim, you were sorely missed.
John, RF, don’t ever stay away that long again! :-)
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
There were no immigration laws
there weren’t? what was Ellis Island all about? If they did like your health, you were quarantined and sent back, if you were a young female without a sponsor, you were sent back. sounds like some kind of laws to me.
By candide
April 10, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
We are now being blackmailed by the millions of Hispanic demonstrators, just like Europeans are being blackmailed by Muslim rioters. It is already too late to avoid the European dilemma: our Hispanics are their Muslims. Can we deport them? Can we incarcerate them in concentration camps? You tell me.
By Julia
April 10, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Jack-if you were going to choose a sticker for your car what would it say??? (Just curious.)
By Justin
April 10, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
I meant to say “They (illegal immigrants) aren’t all hard-working. What is the problem about filling out paperwork and going through the legal process? I have friends from the Caribbean, Europe, India and other Asian countries, who have been waiting for years for citizenship. How can amnesty be fair to them?
By Renee
April 10, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
Heyyyyyy Tim…I missed your post…
And wb to John & RF.
I think unfortunately Whiley would feel imminent danger from someone “cat-calling”. If you get maced for hollering “you got a nice azzz” what happens if you wink… Hot grease??
There’s a reason JBM gets all that attention!!
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
“whiley, is just talking to women off limits? “
James, don’t be an idiot. How would you like it if some strange guy twice your size says to you his D!@#@! needs to be up your AZ#@Q#$ & he starts to follow you? I’m not going to go into the literally millions of different stupid examples women have had to witness. It’s not funny. We have a right to walk in public without being terrorized.
Jack is CORRECT. Nice guys don’t do this garbage.
lol Julia don’t you love it when trash show the world they are trash? At least we can spot them easier.
By Jack
April 10, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
Tim. Good to hear from you. Sorry you’re sore.
Mara. What hand gestures are you talking about?
By Justin
April 10, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
Candide, we are being blackmailed. I say let them protest, let them boycott work. We shouldn’t bow down to them. We can’t deport them, but by going after those who employ them, that is the way to encourgage them (if they want) towards the legal means of getting work visas and working toward citizenship.
I want to know who is in the country. Americans have to identify ourselves. Identity fraud is rampant. National security is a number one concern.
By Mara
April 10, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Candide - Irish-Americans displaying the flag of Ireland in support of Irish rebels in Ireland is in what way like illegal aliens waving the Mexican flag while demanding concessions from the American government? Wasn’t the IRA an Irish group, based in Ireland, and demanding freedom for North Ireland? If Mexicans in Mexico were demanding rights from their government, I’d hang out the Mexican flag, too. But they aren’t, are they?
By Jack
April 10, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Have to think on that one Julia.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
And apparently the organizers of the protests today also concluded flying another country’s flag not a good idea, the point about my original post.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
Julia - “Programmers do it to exact specs” LOL
that could be an engineering one as well.
By candide
April 10, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
Mara: the IRA were murderisng terrorists, and they were supported by every Irish-American politicians virtually without exception.
By The72John
April 10, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Chilao, those are guidelines about who is fit to enter - it’s not the same as “Fill out this form and get on our waiting list and in a few years we might call you if the quota isn’t met.” Not the same thing at all.
We’re being blackmailed? How asinine. Our immigration enforcement has been little more than a “Stay out, we mean it! (Wink, wink)”. We allow people in, let them do crap work for crap pay, and then when it’s time to win an election again, we point fingers and claim they’re ruining our country. Are you SURPRISED they are upset?
If there weren’t millions of jobs waiting for them, being offered by unscrupulous men and women unconcerned with labor laws and wage minimums, do you think they would still come in? No. Yet, you still think it’s OK to demonize them because they resent being attacked while they’re picking up our garbage and cleaning our toilets?
And PLEASE Justin, learn to keep things in perspective. Reparations have NOTHING to do with immigrant rights. One involves living, breathing people, and the other involves men and women who have long returned to dust.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
One man’s Freedom Fighter is another man’s Terrorist.
cannot remember who said that, Menachem Begin perhaps, around 1948, when he was considered a terrorist, from the British perspective. Maybe someone else.
I arrived in York Station, Belfast, via train from Dublin, 2 days after the IRA had blown out the front of it/York. Talk about feeling like you were in a war-zone.
By Just Being Me
April 10, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Awwww, thanks Renee! ~giggling~ I am a hottie, though, ain’t I? LOL!!! j/k… well, half kidding! LOL
By Brian Curtis
April 10, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
Shaunti seems to be hair-splitting when she says “Free speech means the government won’t STOP you from saying something… but it may PUNISH you for it.” How is that “free,” exactly? Her example of a police officer (inadvertently) illustrates that very point: police are an arm of government, and government is not allowed to punish people for free speech. That’s why the ticket was overruled in court.
Moreover, I see considerable irony in the fact that the folks who decry “political correctness” and loudly declare that there’s no right NOT to be offended… still want to outlaw flag burning, a form of speech that offends them.
On Hollywood:
To assume that movie receipts are down because of Hollywood’s “values” is ridiculous. Ever heard of a little phenomenon called DVDs? Last year’s movies made big bucks-—the action and kids’ movies, that is. Just like every year.
And insulting the actors who take public stances on political and social issues is even more backward. These people make their living by popularity; it takes MORE courage, not less, for them to risk their careers by saying something unpopular. Ordinary shmoes like you and I risk nothing by stating our views; entertainers risk everything.
On colleges:
Here, I wind up ostensibly on the conservative side (gasp!), only because I think “speech codes” are inappropriate everywhere, but ESPECIALLY on college campuses. They’re as ridiculous as setting up “free speech zones” at political events and conventions, to ensure that the nasty unpopular views are kept safely out of sight and earshot.
When it comes to assault, threats, and the like—-these acts are already illegal. There’s no need to establish “speech codes” to ensure that even unpleasant WORDS are stifled. Laws should regulate actions, not opinions.
Colleges is a place where ALL ideas and opinions should be expressed freely. Even those you find offensive? Yes; ESPECIALLY those. If you go there expecting to never run across something you (or your parents) find offensive, you don’t belong at a college. You belong in a convent.
Whiley: I think Mara has pinned down an inconsistency in your argument. If you truly think that physical assault is an appropriate response to being verbally offended, then any violence-—by a man OR a woman—can be justified by claiming that the other person was “talking trash.” From there, it’s a very short trip to “I felt threatened by what he/she said, so I was right to defend myself with mace, cleats, and a taser.”
Surely that’s not what you intended? And I notice you immediately switched the initial “offense” to physical assault such as groping, fondling, etc., when the original discussion was about SPEECH.
You’re reserving the right to escalate any situation from words to physical violence based purely on your personal feelings; I hope you don’t expect to find a lot of support for that, especially if you limit this new right to women only.
Jack: The California situation has nothing to do with telling private citizens they “can’t say God.” It has to do with what GOVERNMENT can do, and government is made up of public officials.
Those officials, in the performance of their official duties (including teachers, cops, judges, etc.), have restrictions on their behavior. They can’t invoke Allah to open a court session, for example; they can’t refuse to serve blacks; and they can’t loudly insist during class that “Italians are too dumb to learn.”
All these restrictions on what THEY can do, are intended to protect OUR rights as private citizens.
Free speech overall:
Being offended is a good thing; it means your mind has been jolted out of its normal course and has to re-evaluate something it doesn’t ordinarily encounter. Rudeness is unfortunate, but it can be addressed with other statutes when it veers into genuinely rights-violating territoy (as noted in “Colleges” above), including disturbing the peace (though not peaceable assembly—-no one said a policeman’s job was easy!).
Courtesy is something to uphold through unofficial social channels… not through governmental action.
And defending freedom of speech means defending opinions you personally find vile, stupid, or hateful. “If you’re not defending the rights of someone you loathe, you’re not defending freedom.”
By Working Anglo-American
April 10, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
Regarding the immigrant march today. There are thousands of illegal immigrants marching and organizing all over the country today. Some of their rhetoric is that the country needs them, the economy cannot do without them. —What??
Well, those who have chosen to march today are contributing nothing to the economy, showing how much they are really needed.
By Archie
April 10, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
I think this a good topic but Whiley sounds absolutely crazy. I mean Whiley sounds like she has major mental issues because men definitely get cat-calls and suggestive comments. I know from experience women will call you “baby”,”honey”, and they touch your chest. This may not happen to me daily but it does happen. I am sure there are men that can speak to harassing comments from women but I am not ashamed to say I take supposedly harassing comments as a compliment. I think someone already posted that crude speech depends on who’s listening. The topic is about speech not physical touching. Some women like the “hey baby”, “hey shortie”, or someone telling them they have a nice a.. Each person has to speak and think for themselves. We need to stop frontin’ as if the only crude comments come from men.
By The72John
April 10, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
*Regarding the immigrant march today. There are thousands of illegal immigrants marching and organizing all over the country today. Some of their rhetoric is that the country needs them, the economy cannot do without them. —What??
Well, those who have chosen to march today are contributing nothing to the economy, showing how much they are really needed.*
There is an organization each year that tracks the impact of March Madness on the economy. They, and other similar gropus, estimate that US business suffer as much as a 4 billion dollar loss in productivity due to the tournament.
When movies like Star Wars - Episode I (The Craptastic Menace) premiered, similar impacts were measured because of the one-day absenteeism generated by their openings - they even coined a phrase for it: Wookie Hookey.
Do you honestly think that there isn’t an economic impact from these people protesting? All you’ve shown is that you are spending way too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh and not nearly enough time reading about economics.
By The72John
April 10, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
Here, I wind up ostensibly on the conservative side (gasp!), only because I think “speech codes” are inappropriate everywhere, but ESPECIALLY on college campuses. They’re as ridiculous as setting up “free speech zones” at political events and conventions, to ensure that the nasty unpopular views are kept safely out of sight and earshot.
My father is a liberal college professor, and has been for 30 years. His ONE rule in his classes is that EVERY opinion is to be respected and voiced. No one is told they can’t believe X and must believe Y.
The “liberal conspiracy” on college campuses is myth. Yes, more professors tend to sympathise with the liberal position than the other way around, but I had plenty of conservative professors through undergrad and graduate school. Almost ALL of them had one thing in common - whatever their own political views, they respected the views of their students.
A teacher that mocks a student because he or she disagrees with what the teacher believes is not worthy to be a teacher. It doesn’t matter what side of the philosophical divide they fall on.
And seriously, no one EVER says “OMG! There are SOOOO many conservatives in the Military! There’s a conspiracy!”
The military is one of the primary educational and training alternatives to college for many young Americans - why is there no “Balance” outcry about its officials and teachers?
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
“Whiley: I think Mara has pinned down an inconsistency in your argument. If you truly think that physical assault is an appropriate response to being verbally offended, then any violence-—by a man OR a woman—can be justified by claiming that the other person was “talking trash.” From there, it’s a very short trip to “I felt threatened by what he/she said, so I was right to defend myself with mace, cleats, and a taser.” “
I wonder what a judge would think: “Your honor, this man approached me holding his crotch while telling me he wanted to lick my P@##@#$”. I felt threatened so I maced him & stompted on his face.
And you think a judge would be appalled at MY BEHAVIOR?? LOL You think i’m going overboard???? LOL ! !
Street harrassment is still normal behavior for a lot of men because people like you don’t want to do anything about it or just ignore it.
If any of you don’t want me to bring up these types of things, then go post on The Man Show website. This is Woman to Woman. If you don’t like what some of us have to say, go visit a site where that sort of behavior is encouraged.
Now about these hispanic protesters, does anybody live where these people are invading right now? Have the shootings started yet?
By Justin
April 10, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
The72John, Get it right…I am not against immigrant rights. I am against those who are here illegally demanding we adapt to what they want. Let them fill out the necessary paperwork and get in the queue with others. It is a slap in the face to the immigrants who follow the legal process. If we give illegals amnesty, we should fast track those who are in the queue legally.
When the hispanic gangs rampant in California and other areas such as Gwinnett take over your neighborhood, don’t cry to us.
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
Archie, you really don’t have a clue do you? All I’m saying is it’s incredible this is a normal occurrence for over 1/2 the world’s population. We have a right to be in public & not be made afraid. We also have the right to fight back.
You seem to be really threatened by that, why?
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
I guess Working Anglo-American is one of those American workaholics too busy to take time to smell the roses or even use their vacation time.
I have heard of people like that, think there was a topic here similiar quite awhile ago. LOL
72John - so we are really discussing the complexity of immigration law then. to the current Congress, they are only backing down(if they do) because if they pass what they first proposed, will reveal to the world who they really are(like we need even more proof..), and that looses elections.
By Just Being Me
April 10, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
Whiley, I’m seriously beginning to think you have issues. Seriously.
By The72John
April 10, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
*The72John, Get it right…I am not against immigrant rights. I am against those who are here illegally demanding we adapt to what they want. Let them fill out the necessary paperwork and get in the queue with others. It is a slap in the face to the immigrants who follow the legal process. If we give illegals amnesty, we should fast track those who are in the queue legally.
When the hispanic gangs rampant in California and other areas such as Gwinnett take over your neighborhood, don’t cry to us*
Justin, maybe you should familiarize yourself with the broad spectrum of economic effects related to illegal immigration in this country. You’ll find that MOST of them are hard workers who get paid sub-standard wages so that YOU can go to Wal-Mart and buy cheap goods.
Do ya think that legal immigrants work for below minimum wage? Nope. Do you know what the economic impact of deporting 12 million people who currently are helping to maintain lower prices across a broad spectrum of manufacturing, agricultural and service industries would be?
I betcha you don’t! Why, I bet you’re just all riled up about those darned illegals, and actually think that the expense and economic impact of criminalizing them would actually be BENEFICIAL for this country.
You, sir, are the perfect little republican voter. They introduce the news hot-topic “jump” issue, and you say “YES SIR, HOW HIGH!”
If it isn’t gay marriage, or killing Christmas, it’s immigrants.
By Julia
April 10, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
BUMPER STICKERS:
I’m not playing with myself I’m adjusting my jewelry.
My dog is smarter than your honor student.
Hug a logger, you’ll never go back to trees.
I brake for no apparent reason.
Laugh at your problems, everyone else does.
If you can read this, I’ve lost my trailer.
Forget about world peace. Visualize using your turn signal.
No radio - already stolen.
Student Driver Get the hell out of my way!
We have enough youth. How about a Fountain of Smart?
Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.
Born free. Taxed to death.
The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
I get enough exercise just pushing my luck.
(FOR THE BLOG) All generalizations are false.
(FOR WHILEY) Women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition.
Real women don’t have hot flashes, they have power surges.
I don’t suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it.
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
I souport publik edekashun.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Impotence: Nature’s way of saying “No Hard Feelings”.
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes.
Princess, having had sufficient experience with princes, seeks frog.
Coffee, chocolate, men … Some things are just better rich.
I’m out of estrogen - and I have a gun.
REALITY BITES, and I have the teeth marks to prove it!
By The72John
April 10, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
We have a right to be in public & not be made afraid. We also have the right to fight back. You seem to be really threatened by that, why?
I seem to be posting a lot to make up for being absent last week…
Whiley, are you Helen of Troy? Are you Aphrodite being born from the frothy waves? Are you the most beautiful woman of your generation?
I ask this because I know a fair number of ravishingly beautiful women, and have spent more than my fair share of time in public with them, and I have NEVER, EVER, heard ONE man say the things you seem to believe are commonplace, and CERTAINLY never seen someone grab his crotch and rub it on one of them, OR try to grab them.
Furthermore, I have never heard them MENTION that this is a problem when they are out in public alone. I can only ASSUME that you are a ravishing beauty of the sort that emerges only once every century. I can only guess that you have such an alluring, seductive quality about you that men fall over their feet trying to chase you down and make lewd and suggestive comments to you. You MUST be some kind of luminous, shining flower of a woman to attract all of this masculine attention!
Or maybe you’re just crazy.
By Julia
April 10, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
New State Slogans
Alabama: Yes, We Have Electricity
Alaska: 11,623 Eskimos Can’t Be Wrong!
Arizona: But It’s A Dry Heat
Arkansas: Literacy Ain’t Everything
California: By 30, Our Women Have More Plastic Than Your Honda
Colorado: If You Don’t Ski, Don’t Bother
Connecticut: Like Massachusetts, Only The Kennedy’s Don’t Own It Yet
Delaware: We Really Do Like The Chemicals In Our Water
Florida: Ask Us About Our Grandkids
Georgia: We Put The “Fun” In Fundamentalist Extremism
Hawaii: Haka Tiki Mou Sha’ami Leeki Toru (Death To Mainland Scum, But Leave Your Money)
Idaho: More Than Just Potatoes … Well Okay, We’re Not, But The Potatoes Sure Are Real Good
Illinois: Please Don’t Pronounce the “S”
Indiana: 2 Billion Years Tidal Wave Free
Iowa: We Do Amazing Things With Corn
Kansas: First Of The Rectangle States
Kentucky: Five Million People; Fifteen Last Names
Louisiana: We’re Not ALL Drunk Cajun Wackos, But That’s Our Tourism Campaign
Maine: We’re Really Cold, But We Have Cheap Lobster
Maryland: If You Can Dream It, We Can Tax It
Massachusetts: Our Taxes Are Lower Than Sweden’s (For Most Tax Brackets)
Michigan: First Line Of Defense From The Canadians
Minnesota: 10,000 Lakes … And 10,000,000,000,000 Mosquitoes
Mississippi: Come And Feel Better About Your Own State
Missouri: Your Federal Flood Relief Tax Dollars At Work
Montana: Land Of The Big Sky, The Unabomber, Right-Wing Crazies, And Very Little Else
Nebraska: Ask About Our State Motto Contest
Nevada: Ladies of the Night and Poker!
New Hampshire: Go Away And Leave Us Alone
New Jersey: You Want A ##$%##! Motto? I Got Yer ##$%##! Motto Right Here!
New Mexico: Lizards Make Excellent Pets
New York: You Have The Right To Remain Silent, You Have The Right To An Attorney
North Carolina: Tobacco Is A Vegetable
North Dakota: We Really Are One Of The 50 States!
Ohio: At Least We’re Not Michigan
Oklahoma: Like The Play, Only No Singing
Oregon: Spotted Owl … It’s What’s For Dinner
Pennsylvania: Cook With Coal
Rhode Island: We’re Not REALLY An Island
South Carolina: Remember The Civil War? We Didn’t Actually Surrender
South Dakota: Closer Than North Dakota
Tennessee: The Educashun State
Texas: Si, Hablo Ingles (Yes, I Speak English)
Utah: Our Jesus Is Better Than Your Jesus
Vermont: Yep
Virginia: Who Says Government Stiffs And Slackjaw Yokels Don’t Mix?
Washington: Help! We’re Overrun By Nerds And Slackers!
Washington, D.C.: Wanna Be Mayor?
West Virginia: One Big Happy Family … Really!
Wisconsin: Come Cut The Cheese
Wyoming: Where Men Are Men … and the sheep are scared!!!
By Just Being Me
April 10, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Whiley, personally I can only speak for myself, but I’ve never been “afraid” when a guy approaches me offensively like his mama ain’t gave him no home trainin! (Excuse the ebonics, my natural language comes out when I get pi$$ed! LOL)
Not only have I never been afraid, I usually have the nerve to tell him off in the kindest way possible… you know, the way that makes him walk off thinking, “did she just tell me off?”
LOL! Oh, I’m in such a wonderful mood today!
By Renee
April 10, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
*I wonder what a judge would think: “Your honor, this man approached me holding his crotch while telling me he wanted to lick my P@##@#$”. I felt threatened so I maced him & stompted on his face.
And you think a judge would be appalled at MY BEHAVIOR?? LOL You think i’m going overboard???? LOL ! !*
Okay, this is NOT the first scenario you presented, but okay lets touch on it. If he hasn’t touched you, no you cannot mace him and stomp on his face. You can run away, you can call the police. You can ask him to stop. Then if he puts his hands on you, situations change. Again, Whiley, I don’t know where you hang out, but these situations seem to find you again and again. I have never had a man grab his crotch while making that comment to me a and approach me (that’s a lot going on). While this could happen, this is not the norm for most men to act, nor for women to experience. But in this situation, I think the judge would definitely, and should, issue some sort of punishment for the erratic behavior.
I don’t know a woman who hasn’t experienced a lewd comment or gesture at some point in life. If we maced and stomped every man who did this, or who we thought did this, how many macing and stompings would occur. Yes, some men are lewd, while some are quite gentleman like.
Why do you always end up in left field, wayyyyy out in left field??? Off the field????
By Zack
April 10, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Netbanker—You need to read and study the Bible on your own, not accept what your sociology professor told you. (Would you like to hear a secret? Universities are full of propaganda.)
Also, when you say “please” the way you did, it comes across as sissylike, prima donna-like, and just annoying. I wish you’d communicate in a more mature way.
Crude speech should not be protected. It’s getting where commercials are full of garbage and are in desperate need of censorship. I saw so many offensive commercials over Thanksgiving that I almost got rid of my TV. The best way to handle these people is to speak up. Getting rid of your TV isn’t the best way because no one else knows you did it or why. Standing up for what’s right is always the best way.
I’m definitely not a big fan of Disney or Comcast. Both promote all types of “entertainment” that are detrimental to children. I’ve realized that oftentimes children’s reading material is geared toward corrupting a child’s mind. “Harry Potter” is one example. Judy Blume wrote several things also that were unfit for anyone to read. We need parents to start speaking up and out against the typical school curriculum.
By the way, if you want more info on Disney and how “innocent” a company it is, please read this link: www.afa.net/disney/ and then feel free to boycott the sorry company until a wrecking ball is brought in to tear the sorry place down.
By Justin
April 10, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
The72John, I celebrate Hanukkah and Christmas. I come from a multi-cultural background. As for gay marriage, I am for it and not against it. However, amnesty for illegal immigrants, I am against. I don’t have a problem with them applying for work visas and to become citizens. However, I don’t think they should be given amnesty and put on the fast track. I have far too many friends who have worked and waited to become citizens. As I stated before, it is a slap in the their face.
By Monica
April 10, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
Julia, LOVED the bumper stickers!! I’ll add two more:
My child is a student at a school.
My karma just ran over your dogma.
By Renee
April 10, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
John - OMG, OMG…ROFLMAO…can’t stop laughing…your 2:56…I’ve spit water everywhere, people in the office are looking at me like I’ve lost my mind….
By Just Being Me
April 10, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
John, your 2:56 is by far, THE most hilarious post I have ever read in all my blogging life! Words just can’t express how funny that was!!!!!!!!!!! I am ROFLMBO!!!!!!!!!!
By The72John
April 10, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
Hey Julia,
Here’s one that almost made me wreck my car:
“No, I haven’t been to church lately. I’ve been to busy being a lesbian and practicing witchcraft.”
By Mara
April 10, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
chilao - good post @ 2:19.
GOOD GODS!! I find myself agreeing with Justin!! The end, truly, must be near LOL!!
By Brian Curtis
April 10, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
Whiley: I’m fine with you bringing up your views… I’m just noting that you can’t seem to defend some of them with any sort of logic or consistency.
Would your behavior be considered overboard and appalling in the situation you describe? You betcha… by a judge and jury, at least. Maybe not by your standards, but if you’re only concerned with your own standards, why bother posting on a forum?
Harassment is commonplace not because “people like me don’t do anything about it”—-it’s because most of us (male AND female) recognize that it’s nowhere near as serious an offense as you’d like it to be. To you, it’s unspeakably evil and a crime to be stamped out; to the rest of us, it’s simple rudeness. Annoying, yes, but hardly the greatest crisis in human history.
Call that denial if you will (and I know you will)—-but it may just be that YOUR sense of proportion is the one that’s out of whack. You’re the one who’s so terrified and outraged by offensive words that you want to resort to violence in response. You may be right, but I hope you’re prepared to occupy that position all by yourself. I have no intention of joining you.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
Whiley, I don’t know where you hang out, but these situations seem to find you again and again.
Renee - I was wondering that as well, where is it that someone hangs out where this stuff happens all the time?
or is it: let’s see, there was that time last year, and then in 2001, remember that guy in ‘97, then…
I have never met a woman of the many I have known or directly dated that seemed to encounter what Whiley encounters regularly.
By Zack
April 10, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Julia—Your comments weren’t funny, as weren’t the others who put their favorite bumper sticker sayings up.
As for the “fun” in fundamental extremism, I’ve got news for you: You can never become too extreme when it comes to absolute truth. In other words, when you discover the truth, you can’t go wrong in seeking it as much as possible and/or promoting it as much as possible.
Your type of extremism is what’s scary. I’m sure you have no problem with Islam, the violent and hatred-filled religion that it is. I’m sure you’re fine with the feminist movement, which is like Islam. I’m sure you’re fine with literature that brainwashes its readers.
It sounds like you’re a product of the sociology classroom also. You don’t have to remain brainwashed like you are. You can choose to seek the truth, not live in denial.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
My favorite kiddie bumper sticker is “My kid just beat up your honor roll student”
By The72John
April 10, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
Also, when you say “please” the way you did, it comes across as sissylike, prima donna-like, and just annoying. I wish you’d communicate in a more mature way
OK - hands up. Who else finds this absolutely hilarious!
OMG, oh noes! The American Family Association doesn’t like Disney because it doesn’t conform to its hate-filled agenda. Call the Governor! Alert the media! Someone get the National Guard on the line!
I think the reason that Zack rants against abortion so much is because he is such a poster-child for having one.
By Monica
April 10, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
72John, thanks for your 2:56. I was beginning to feel bad about myself and think I’m really ugly or something, because I have not had that type of experience happen to me more than a couple of times, and never at that level of intensity.
By Archie
April 10, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
“Archie, you really don’t have a clue do you? All I’m saying is it’s incredible this is a normal occurrence for over 1/2 the world’s population.”
Whiley,I have more than a clue that you’re nutty. What you’ve been saying is not relevant to the topic question. It’s not even close. If you had a clue you would notice the response of the women on this blog. I know more than a few have told you that you’re crazy. Notice the post by 72John earlier. Did you read the post by Brian Curtis? Read the posts by Mara and Renee and maybe you can get a clue as to what a woman is or better yet what a person is.
By RF
April 10, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
JBM- missed ya too, but I was having WAY too good a time working in my flower beds last week!! :-)
Julia- LOVE the bumper stickers. Here’s one I snickered at the other day: My child beat up your honor student* Personally, I find bumper stickers entertaining. My brother got pulled over once for having a sticker that said sh1t happens. He just cut off the sh and left it.
By The72John
April 10, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
Your type of extremism is what’s scary. I’m sure you have no problem with Islam, the violent and hatred-filled religion that it is. I’m sure you’re fine with the feminist movement, which is like Islam. I’m sure you’re fine with literature that brainwashes its readers
OMG - Zack is two-for-two on ironic self-referencing today. Mr. “I know absolute truth and I’ll do anything to make you know it, too” just accused someone else of scary extremism!
I really, really, really hope you ARE in prison, Zack, ‘cause you and Osama - y’all have a LOT in common.
By Brian Curtis
April 10, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
First good thing I’ve heard about Disney in years.
Zack: Actually, Julia’s bumper stickers were VERY funny. She seems to have a grasp on both truth AND humor—unlike you.
“Universities are indoctrination centers” indeed… the fundamentalist mind is always terrified by the prospect of people learning to think for themselves.
I wonder: has fundamentalism been diagnosed as a full-fledged disability yet? and if so, will Zack and Chuck apply for benefits?
By RF
April 10, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Also, when you say “please” the way you did, it comes across as sissylike, prima donna-like, and just annoying. I wish you’d communicate in a more mature way.
Mature??? Zack, mature?? What would you know about that??
You don’t have to remain brainwashed like you are. You can choose to seek the truth, not live in denial.
Zack knows alllll about denial, doesn’t he??
Is it just me, or does it sound like Zack needs his Prozac dose doubled?
By Renee
April 10, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
Did Zack call Julia an extremist??? Too funny.
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
“I’m sure you’re fine with the feminist movement, which is like Islam.”
OMG that’s the most hilarious thing I’ve ever heard ! ! ! lolol !
” think the reason that Zack rants against abortion so much is because he is such a poster-child for having one.”
No wait, THAT IS ! ! LOL good one.
Chilao I’m mentioning those that occurred over my life time so far. Most all women just deal with it by ignoring it. Which doesn’t help the situation but I completely understand. Of course now that i’m older it’s not so often now. Usually starts when the weather gets warm lol. When I was younger that was a much different thing. It was daily. It wasn’t a compliment, it made me feel unsafe. It happened to all of us.
The most surprising thing is the hostility when you bring it up or complain about it. Like we should be thankful anybody is even looking.
By candide
April 10, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
Yes, Christianity is an extreme form of paranoid schizophrenia. I hope Zack and his friend seek help. One day all believers will be helped by being incarcerated in institutions.
By Zack
April 10, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
John—Poster child? That’s typical of you: You make statements on blogs that you’ve never made to anyone in person or ever will make. (Do you do anything with your life aside from blogging all day?)
There was absolutely nothing funny about your post earlier. It was crude, immature, and simply not funny. The fact that others on here did like it doesn’t surprise me because they share your “white trash” personality. Your type and my type don’t have anything in common, thankfully.
As for Disney, let me guess: You see nothing wrong with it because “animation could never be dangerous”, right? Don’t you think it’s time for you to grow up?
I’m gone, folks. Have a good day. Clausentowashington@yahoo.com, if you want to write me and refute me that badly. I’ve been refuted before, but never by those with the worldviews of this blog (in general). I’ve been refuted by people in the past who knew more about the Bible than I did, for example. Abortion-rights advocates, gay-rights advocates, censorship-protesters, treehuggers, etc. may make a lot of noise, but noise does not equate to substance. These people refute no one.
By Mara
April 10, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Mickey Mouse and Harry Potter corrupt children?! WAHHHHAHAHAHAHHAH!!! Look out, here comes Winnie the Pooh! Oh, no! PETER PAN!!! EEEK! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Zack, go burn some more classic literature. And if you don’t like what’s on TV…don’t watch it. Or buy a TiVo and skip the commercials. Jeez. People like you, Zack, are the same ones who rail against the evil Hollywood moguls on one hand and then rush home to watch Desperate Housewives and One Tree Hill. It’s been well documented that the sexually-repressed, holier-than-thou Red States consume more salacious television that Blue Staters. And anyway, just because something offends you why shouldn’t I get to watch it if I like? Why don’t you just click off your T.V.? Because not enough people would know how very offended you were? I’m offended by televangelists. Does that mean we can ditch all the Christian broadcasting stations?
By Archie
April 10, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
I just read your 2:56 pm 72John and it was funny. We have a really good discussion about crude speech then we hear from extremists that are so off topic that you ask “what the heck is he/she talking about?” I have only read where one person said crude speech should not be protected. Wow! Well, they are entitled to their opinion.
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
Zack, nobody wants to talk to you.
By Nikita
April 10, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
Responding to the actual question…yes, crudeness should be protected as a form of speech. and no, it should not. there are many contexts in which it is not appropriate and some in which it is. And in the improper context it’s fully acceptable that you be punished. I really like Shaunti and Diane’s arguments this week — much better argued than usual, and with less invective/anecdotal justification/etc.
On the usual side subjects — it’s been said that feminism is the radical notion that women are people. I would argue that those who disagree are the extremists. And there are a lot of them.
By The72John
April 10, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
Your type and my type don’t have anything in common, thankfully
Thankfully, you are correct. I am educated, intelligent, cultured, and sane. You are none of the above.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
oh, welcome back, 72John, RF.
Whiley’s postings have reminded me of a woman I met years ago, dad in the Foreign Service, she grew up in the Middle East, was fluent in Arabic, and knew karate. small Scandinavian-blonde look(she was American).
She was walking down the street in Cairo, someone passing(a young college-age kid) said something extremely vulgar in Arabic. She slammed him to the wall, grabbed his testicular fortitudes, gave him a “don’t you ever” in Arabic, eyeballed him, let him go. He probably gave it second thought the next time around. LOL
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Wasn’t it not long ago “S@#$# happens” was banned? What’s wrong with “SW#@#$ happens?
By Julia
April 10, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Zack-are you talking to ME? Seriously, you don’t know anything about me.
You think I’m extreme and yet you’re the one talking about blowing up Disneyland!?!?
You’re very confused. (That’s all I have to say to you.)
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
Mara’s comment about duality reminded me of a book I am reading right now. Fire crews patrolling Cumberland Island, GA, one a male Southern Baptist who has nasty things to say about the female nude sunbathers.
Main character not sure what he got the most kick out of, putting them down or leering to make sure he knew sin when he saw it. She was going “probably 50/50”.
Whiley - thanks, you were making it sound like it happens many times a day. I was going to suggest altering your travel path.
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Julia, just ignore him. He’s insane & currently an inmate in the Fulton County jail serving time for sex offenses.
By RF
April 10, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
“Universities are indoctrination centers” indeed… the fundamentalist mind is always terrified by the prospect of people learning to think for themselves.
HAHAHAHA!! Good one!
Julia- Zack’s what give christianity a bad name. Scary thing is, there are a lot of people out there who think like he does.
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
“Whiley - thanks, you were making it sound like it happens many times a day. I was going to suggest altering your travel path.”
LOL ! OK i READ my posts again. You’d think I walked around busy nightclubs wearing clear clothes lol ! Sorry I was getting excited, & not in the good way.
OK OTHER THAN street pervs not having the right to be pervs, what other things are obsene? The HOOTERS & strip club billboards.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
You’d think I walked around busy nightclubs wearing clear clothes
not far off, I was wondering if you did charity work with street-walkers. LOL (and could maybe understand the guys being confused. (and, ya know, were around the environment alot)
By Renee
April 10, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
You would think one would automatically change their travel path, with no prompting from others, if that was actually happening.
ROFLMAO…sorry I have this image of gyrating men and when a woman walks by they pull their privates out and begin chasing the woman while masturbating and cat calling. One man catches up and rubs his private on her outer thigh. Some of the older men who can’t participate just comence to chanting incessantly (with hands on crotch of course). Tooooooo funny. (I know, I have an active imagination).
By The72John
April 10, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
ROFLMAO…sorry I have this image of gyrating men and when a woman walks by they pull their privates out and begin chasing the woman while masturbating and cat calling. One man catches up and rubs his private on her outer thigh. Some of the older men who can’t participate just comence to chanting incessantly (with hands on crotch of course). Tooooooo funny. (I know, I have an active imagination)
Sounds like a scene from Suddenly Last Summer. Without the cannibalism.
By Mara
April 10, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
There’s an article in todays LA Times about a group at GA Tech suing because the college leadership won’t support their anti-gay discrimination. Their argument is that since their version of christianity says that homosexuality is bad (mmmmm-kay…) then they have a right to be intolerant. They further insist that any type of gay advocacy is fair game for harrassment and derogatory, discriminatory, and/or offensive rebuttal. It’s their opinion that the college should support them and their message of hatred just like they do the other more diverse and inclusive groups. Despite the similarities, they say that they are nothing like the racists, who only hate people for being something they can’t help but be…
Make of it what you will. I’m outta here for today :^)
By Julia
April 10, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
I wonder if Zack ever laughs or even has a sense of humor. Good grief.
By Susie
April 10, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Sure, I believe in free speech. However, anyone choosing to exercise free speech should know that there CAN be consequences for doing so.
I posted someplace else about the Dixie Chicks…Natalie can absolutely say anything she’d like to about the president, the country, the people who used to be her fans, and I support her right to do that…but she does NOT have the right to NOT have ramifications as a result of what she says. It goes both ways. If country fans won’t buy their music, and if radio stations won’t play it, then they have that right too. Boycotting is a form of free speech too, and I support anyone who feels they have a reason to do that.
Therefore, sure, you can say anything you want to, and you may not go to prison for it like you would in China, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be any price at all to pay for it.
By Tim
April 10, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
favorite bumper sticker (I have mention on this blog before)
I don’t have a problem with God… it’s some of His followers I’m not fond of
oh and this one… my v****/p*** belongs to Jesus
By Susie
April 10, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
Notmyproblem, people might have gotten over the the Dixie Twits Debacle might by now, if they didn’t just keep on and on with their drivel. The latest thing that happened was that Natalie trashed the very fans that put her fat butt at the top of the world, (in fact that was the name of their LAST tour), so which of them are going to go out and buy their newest one?
By lozen
April 10, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
GOB, in answer to your question: Yes, these things do happen all the time. It doesn’t happen to me anymore (the one thing I love about being older), but it used to. It happened to my friends. Several times I was really frightened by strange men who would “offer” me rides when I was waiting for a bus. One man started cursing and screaming that I thought I was too good to accept a ride from him. This was on Ponce de Leon across from what used to be Plaza Drugs. Fortunately the bus came just as he was about to get out of his car. The other frightening thing was that other men standing there with me would not do a thing except back up away from me. It happens to all young, attractive women. My friend was walking home from the grocery store when three young guys in a car passed her and yelled out that she was a whore and other similar words. She came home crying saying, “What did I do to deserve that?” She didn’t do anything! She was not dressed provocatively. Another friend, who had long blond hair, started wearing her hair up under a scarf or hat whenever she had to walk anywhere even in 90 degree weather here in the summer. Men on construction sites yell and whistle at women who walk by. That behavior would be considered crazy if anyone did it to anyone else but nobody thinks a thing about women being harrassed for walking down the street all the time.
By Julia
April 10, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
lozen-yes, I have long blonde hair and think about putting it up in certain situations to avoid being put at risk. (It’s a rare thing-but in some situations like going downtown by myself I consider it.)
When you look a certain way you get comments from men (especially if they are in a group). I’ve been on both sides. I’ve been overweight and had the men make horrible comments about my weight. And I’ve been thin and had the sexual comments made. I started to think what a person looks like is all men care about.
By Archie
April 10, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
The Hooters and Strip club billboards aren’t obscene to me. I realize that some people don’t like them and that is their right but some people do like them. When I use the term people I am including women and for those that are information-challenged, let it be known that women do patronize strip clubs and Hooters. Women visit these places regularly. I know there are women on this blog that have visited strip clubs because it has been discussed in the past. There are so many good ways to discuss this topic such as: Should the word a-s-s be allowed on radio and tv without being bleeped out? Should rap artists be boycotted because they use the word B..tch in their songs?
By The72John
April 10, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
Notmyproblem, people might have gotten over the the Dixie Twits Debacle might by now, if they didn’t just keep on and on with their drivel. The latest thing that happened was that Natalie trashed the very fans that put her fat butt at the top of the world, (in fact that was the name of their LAST tour), so which of them are going to go out and buy their newest one?
Um…maybe the substantial majority of the US population that now agrees with their “drivel”, hmm? You HAVE seen the latest popularity and job approval ratings for your beloved Shrub, haven’t you? You HAVE seen the national polls that show that Democrats are leading in just about every category in polls asking who should win in mid-term elections. Right?
By RF
April 10, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
Julia- apparently, in Zack’s church, they skip the chapters of the Bible that say anything about anyone feeling happiness. I’ve got a neighbor who had a religious conversion a couple of years ago and he sounds a lot like Zack now. He doesn’t even speak to most of the neighbors any more. We just wave and watch him look away as if we were lepers! I about fell out of my chair when he called you an extremist. I keep scrolling back and re-reading just to make sure I read it right!!
Gotta run folks. Have a good one until we meet to trash talk some more!
By Julia
April 10, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
WHiley-Yeah, the 100 foot Hooters girls are a bit much. So was the 96 Rock billboard of a set of hooters a few years ago. (And I don’t mean owls!)LOL
Years ago me and my friends came up with the idea of a restaurant for women called Peckers. We’d have a big woodpecker as our symbol. (Since Hooters has their owl.) Women could be waited on by hot looking guys and have the soaps on all the big screen tv’s. (Don’t blast me-I said it was years ago!LOL)
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
Julia - ever consider Woodies on that name? you could even still have the woodpecker symbol.
By Julia
April 10, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Thank you RF!!! I had to re-read it a few times myself. ;)
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
although i must admit that would be a tall order for most waiters working a 5 hour shift.
By Julia
April 10, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
Can you imagine Peckers across the street from Hooters? ROFLMAO!
By The72John
April 10, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Years ago me and my friends came up with the idea of a restaurant for women called Peckers. We’d have a big woodpecker as our symbol. (Since Hooters has their owl.) Women could be waited on by hot looking guys and have the soaps on all the big screen tv’s. (Don’t blast me-I said it was years ago!LOL)
I am SO going to support the opening of this restaurant. As the only gay guy in my group of friends, I am tired of being dragged to Hooters for dinner so my buddies can ogle waitressess. I want somewhere to drag THEM instead!
Where can I sign up for a franchise?
By The72John
April 10, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Oh, but the soaps thing…could there be maybe ONE tv tuned to ESPN?
By Julia
April 10, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
Chilao-TOO FUNNY! We never thought of that one! LOL!!! ;)
By Whiley
April 10, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
There’s a Peckers???? WHERE WHERE I’M ON MY WAY !
Acually, wouldn’t the perfect PECKERS place be staffed with ONLY handsome GAY MEN? That way we could all laugh & flirt & everybody would be safe.
By Chilao
April 10, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
heaven forbid there should be a tornado;
Female newscaster, facing the camera: “As you can see, the Peckers went right into the Hooters, they became one.” as she starts to blush, realizing what she has just said on-air to MILLIONS.
By Julia
April 10, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
72-Yes, we can have tv’s tuned to other channels. (And I said it was for the women but I forgot about the gay men as well. Sorry. I guess you guys probably like the idea of the restaurant too.)
I’m thinking that if we’d started this business years ago I’d be sitting on a beach somewhere right now instead of at work…not to mention my bank account would be full.
Hindsight really IS 20/20!LOL
By Renee
April 10, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
Archie - I have to agree with you. I don’t find the billboards degrading either, and it’s not just because of my “love for women”. None of the women on the Hooters billboards appeal to me personally, but I think it’s just advertisement and expression. Now if the women had their pictures taken and didn’t know what the purpose was maybe I would feel differently. And yes, a lot of times there are just as many women as men in a strip club. And they aren’t all lesbians either.
I found that up North the radio is a lot different. They say a* and b** and nobody is complaining. It doesn’t bother me. Plus we pick up a lot of Canadian stations and they don’t censor anything. If you don’t like it, turn the channel.
By Julia
April 10, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
Whiley, as long as you’re with us and have that mace we’ll all be safe! LOL ;)
By Just Being Me
April 10, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
Okay, so you’re saying that if the servers are handsome and NOT gay, you won’t be safe?
I refer you to John’s 2:56.
By Julia
April 10, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
So, 72 & Whiley will help me “interview” the potential waitstaff. Now there’s a tough job!!!
By lozen
April 10, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
Hey Tim! Where have you been? I missed ya.
By Julia
April 10, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
With all this talk about peckers and hooters and woodies Jack should be here to say,“Is it getting hot in here?”
By The72John
April 10, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this
I have Sirius radio…all the swearing you can handle there :-).
All joking aside - Whiley, I worry about you…you seem to live in this bubble of fear and anxiety, assuming that everyone is a threat to you and that you aren’t safe unless you’re surrounded by women and gay men. You should REALLY get professional help. I think you’re probably a pretty good person, and living your life paralyzed by terror of what might happen to you isn’t healthy.
By Julia
April 10, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this
Don’t worry, we can hire some good-looking security guards to keep everyone safe. ;)
By The72John
April 10, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
lol @ Julia…
Peckers and hooters and woodies, oh my! Peckers and hooters and woodies, oh my!
By Julia
April 10, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
Yeah, this conversation took a strange turn. From Zack sending a wrecking ball to Disneyland to Hooters & Peckers.
What will tomorrow hold in store….these are the days of our lives….
By lozen
April 10, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
I’m sure Zack would close the universities and punish professors. That sounds just like the early days of the Nazis! Zealots always hate education, books, people who think and discuss ideas.
By Tim
April 11, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this
lozen… good mornin ma… work has been CRAZY… this has been the first chance I have had in a loooong while to check out the blog… nice to see some things never change
By lozen
April 11, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
Hey Tim! You are right about that; some things never change. Zack’s always good for a laugh! I’ve been attending blog anonymous for some time now and hope someday to overcome this addiction - but then, I wouldn’t get to say hi to you my son ;->
By Chilao
April 11, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
Lozen - Just Say No or to bring it more current, Practice Abstinence.
since both are supposed to be so easy and all. LMAO
bloggers anonymous, knew there would be a day that arrived.
Just realized I am off Friday, Good Friday and all, which means I will have to post some jokes Thursday.
By GOB
April 11, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
Is it possible that Zack is totally fake? It seems like the bulk of what he says is so insanely over the top, that it would be hard for anyone to be that crazy. For all of the crazy stuff that Chuck says, he at least can be civil, and has made a reasonable argument a time or two. Zack hasn’t, and I wonder if it isn’t just someone saying the most outrageous things he can think of. Or maybe he really is that nuts, who know…
By Chilao
April 11, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
GOB - there are many people like Zack in the world, I even work with some right now. for all I know, one of my coworkers could be Zack. LOL
People who expect respect for their right to have their religious views, but at the same time have nothing but contempt for those who think/believe differently that they do. and obviously have such simple minds, they cannot grasp even the very simple concept that that is SUPPOSED to be two-way, not one-sided respect.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
He really is that nuts.
By Tim
April 11, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
lozen… you’ll have to give me the number to bloggers anonymous… one day… not ready just yet to say I have a problem :)
By lozen
April 11, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
Yep, growing up here in the south, I’ve known people like Zack all my life. Aren’t I lucky?
By Just Being Me
April 11, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
Gob, “chuck” is anything but civil. He may not be as over the top as Zack is, and he may have made a good argument or two, but he is anything but civil - well, unless you agree with what he says.
By GOB
April 11, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
JBM - I wasnt implying that Chuck is civil as a rule, but there are times (sometimes he throws in a joke or two on Friday without stiring anything else up) when he is at respectful. Zack hasnt shown anything even coming close to that.
By Nikita
April 11, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
To whoever made the comment on the Dixie Chicks:
Wow, you’ve got a LOT of anger. And let’s put this in perspective — the Dixie Chicks made ONE comment during a show, on par with, say “Cleveland, are you ready to rock?” which was negative to the president, but not particularly offensive. It was right-wing radio who picked up the comment and made it into a major conflagration, who initiated bans on their music, and who have stoked the eternal flames of this non-controversy.
Sales, for the record, haven’t been bad. Especially with substantial radio play and other such promotional activities denied from them.
Also, what you call “pushing it in everyone’s faces” is what most people call having the guts to keep working. It’s also what some of the victims of the McCarthy blacklist did.
By Just Being Me
April 11, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
I can agree with that, Gob.
By Jack
April 11, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
If ““Cleveland, are you ready to rock?” is on par with what they said, I want some of that stuff. Must be good.
By GOB
April 11, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
Jack - The “Ready to rock” might be a little bit of a stretch, but it wouldnt be any different than someone who lives in Dekalb saying that they are ashamed that Cynthia Mckinney is from their home county on stage. If a musician said this, should they be banned from stations in GA? It really was blown way out of proportion.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
It was right-wing radio who picked up the comment and made it into a major conflagration, who initiated bans on their music, and who have stoked the eternal flames of this non-controversy
People forget what being Free actually means. Why is the first reaction of anyone on the right when someone says something critical of an administration “Get Out?”
America is BUILT on dissent, and those same people saying “Move to France” were frothing at the mouth for eight years of Clinton being in office.
Apparently, “America - Love it or Leave it” applies ONLY when you’re criticizing a Republican president.
By Renee
April 11, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
IMO, I don’t think it matters what the Dixie Chicks said. They said it, they haven’t suffered terribly from it. I mean you can’t say anything about the president without somebody whining about it. He’s a man for goodness sake, far from a perfect man. They didn’t make a death threat on his life, they disagree with his agenda and his methods for carrying it out. And they spoke on it in another country ~gasp~ How dare they.
By RF
April 11, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
The flap with the Dixie Chicks was fueled because they are a country group, and country generally attracts a more patriotic, conservative audience, generally. It was also the timing of the comment during a particularly positive spell for Bushy-wushy. And let’s face it, celebs get WAY too much attention for what they say, do, wear, eat, etc.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
country generally attracts a more patriotic, conservative audience,
I take exception to that remark! You are playing into the right wingers hands by saying “more patriotic, conservative” in the same sentence.
I consider myself no less patriotic than any mindless yahoo flag-waver. There is nothing MORE patriotic than standing up and speaking out when one see’s one’s country going in the wrong direction.
Face it - the average man’s “patriotism” is as uncritical and knee-jerk as a high school students enthusiasm for his football team. It requires no thought, no consideration, no true understanding of what America stands for.
There are people in this country who would support anything that this country does, just because we do it. We could invade anyone, bomb anyone, send in troops to slaughter whomever we please, and those people would still stand waving their flags and cheering. That’s not patriotism - it’s blind nationalism.
By Mara
April 11, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
RF - I’ll agree with you that country music audiences are more conservative but to say that they’re more patriotic is completely and absolutely false. They are more nationalistic than most other groups, but that doesn’t make them more “patriotic”.
By Just Being Me
April 11, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
I’m curious as to everyone’s reactions to seeing the protests against the immigration bill. How did you feel about it? Any comments?
By RF
April 11, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
John- I shoulda worded that a little different. I like country, a lot, but I’m not a flag-waving fool either. So we call them nationalists- I gotta remember that one. That’s exactly what they do.
By RF
April 11, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Mara- I know. Bad word choice. But they think they’re more patriotic because they wouldn’t dare criticize the Bush-god.
By Chilao
April 11, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
it’s blind nationalism
or (and I learned this phrase post 9/11)
unbridled jingoism
so now when I put the American flag out on my porch, along with the Jolly Roger, I tell people I am engaging in unbridled jingoism and raise my arm/fist. and if they know me well, they laugh, hard(the first time). LOL
Okay, I don’t put the Jolly Roger out, neighbors might get the wrong idea. But on that thought, people in marinas who fly Jolly Rogers, are not supposed to go BUY one at a flag store/marine-supply store, they are supposed to STEAL it off another boat. People who live on boats in the marinas have an on-going flag-stealing-competition(sometimes), and the flags get higher and higher up the mast, just to get people from stealing it. I got hoisted up once to 35 feet up the mask, just to attach the Jolly Roger, so no one could steal it.
a little marina-living trivia, and no, I have never LIVED on a boat.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
I’m curious as to everyone’s reactions to seeing the protests against the immigration bill. How did you feel about it? Any comments?
I think that if I had spent four or five years cleaning toilets, plucking chickens, and picking fruit for next to nothing and all of a sudden people started calling me a criminal and claiming I was ruining their way of life, I’d be pretty p**, too.
By lozen
April 11, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
Listen to “Dear Mr. President”
Pink and the Indigo Girls:
http://www.bolt.com/PinksPage/audio/566192?cn=SET9680P!nk%20-%20I'm%20Not%20DeadPinksPageaudiolargePAGE1
By Chilao
April 11, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
for those who do not know, the Jolly Roger is the Pirate Flag, or that symbol you see of the skull-and-crossbones to indicate poison on poisonous substances.
and is not even a bumper sticker anymore, on my newer car. LOL
By The72John
April 11, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
Okay, I don’t put the Jolly Roger out, neighbors might get the wrong idea. But on that thought, people in marinas who fly Jolly Rogers, are not supposed to go BUY one at a flag store/marine-supply store, they are supposed to STEAL it off another boat. People who live on boats in the marinas have an on-going flag-stealing-competition(sometimes), and the flags get higher and higher up the mast, just to get people from stealing it. I got hoisted up once to 35 feet up the mask, just to attach the Jolly Roger, so no one could steal it.
Boat people are wierd.
By marti
April 11, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
What is the connection between country music and nationalism anyway? I know someone who listens to country all the time who argues that they did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! He also believes all muslims are out to get us and has four W stickers on his car. What is that?
By Chilao
April 11, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Interesting comment on the immigrants, I wonder if/once they are fully legalized, they will no longer require substandard employment(no longer find it acceptable), will shun the jobs they are doing for better paying/benefit jobs, and there will be a whole new round of immigrants, new illegals if you will, to take over those jobs.
currently, right now, in the San Joaquin Valley, agriculturalists are having a hard time finding farm hands, period. WHY? The guys who used to be doing it are getting better pay in the construction industries.
Lozen - I love PINK(see her on TV the other night?) but having speaker problems here at work right now.
By Mara
April 11, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
I’m curious as to everyone’s reactions to seeing the protests against the immigration bill. How did you feel about it? Any comments?
I’m outraged. What’s next, burglers agitating for the right to burgle? Trespassers protesting private property laws that keep them out of my house and off my land?
I notice that never, in any interview or article, are these people asked to justify their blatent law-breaking. Never are they asked why they think they deserve rights not given to others. Why they believe that just because they go to work everyday, they have some kind of right to stay here. I’d like to know. Really. What gall they have to march out on the street, knowing full well that they have absolutely no right to be here! It outrages me and frankly, p** me off.
Si, se puede - spit on your borders, your laws, your labor rights.
Si, se puede - cheat to get in front of those suckers who respect America, its laws, and its rights.
By lozen
April 11, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
I saw her being interviewed by Matt Lauer (?) the morning show guy. I love the Indigo Girls but am just beginning to appreciate Pink as a person.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
I get so sick of self-righteous “They’re criminals!” BS. Sorry, Mara, but that’s what it is. This country has used those people with no remorse. We have WELCOMED illegal workers to work for pennies because it keeps our prices lower.
By Monica
April 11, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
When I have to pay monthly for health insurance and meet my deductibles, and illegal immigrants can get free health care, I get slightly annoyed. However, if American corporations would stop giving jobs to illegals for sub-standard wages…
By Chilao
April 11, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
Lozen - that was what I saw, with Matt Lauer, may have been daytime, weekend kinda rolls together there. LOL
seems Sunday night before West Wing they(NBC) had something that(Pink) might have fit into as well.
By Tim
April 11, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
lozen… thank you so much for sharing that… I’m sure you can figure out which line affected me the most!!! I sent that to everyone I could think of… I will definitely be tryin to put that on my ipod
By GOB
April 11, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
The attitude of most of the people who are outraged by the illegals seems to be very elitist. Yes, technically they are breaking the law by simply being here. Unless there are some Native Americans on the blog, we all came from somewhere. Some of us had the fortune of having family come over before there were any immigration laws (although, I am sure the Native Americans wish there had been). Europeans saw North America, decided that they liked it, so they took it from the people that were already here.
Once they were settled and had a democratically based government set up, they started to see that other people might do exactly what they did, and vote them out of power. How do you prevent that? You pass immigration laws to keep those who are different out. This idea hasn’t changed much in the last 200 years. The only thing that really changes is the group that we are trying to keep out. Used to Irish, now it is Hispanics. There really isn’t any difference.
Many of us were fortunate enough to be born here and have the privileges this country provides handed to us on a silver platter. Those who were not want the same things we do. To live a happy life, spend time with family and friends, etc. Who are we to deny them those things that we were born into? The past, present and future immigration laws are based on nothing more than a desire to retain power. Republicans now think that the Hispanic base will vote with them, so they are loosening immigration laws. This is not a coincidence. To throw blind support behind a law to ensure that one group stays in power is very shortsighted, in my opinion.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
Hit post too soon…
Anyway - and now that it is politically expedient to drum up anti-immigrant support, we’re turning on these people who have done our sh1t work like mobs of angry dogs.
Do we have an immigrant problem in this country? Yes, but it’s the corporations and businesses who actively take advantage of these people that are the criminals. It isn’t the desperate people who are trying to help their families survive.
Frankly, I don’t think that any one of us, when faced with similar circumstances, wouldn’t do the same thing. Can you honestly say that if positions were reversed, YOU wouldn’t be sneaking over the border to feed your children? I doubt it.
By lozen
April 11, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
I love the mexican people I’ve known. They are full of life, hard working, sweet people. If I were in their place and saw the life my children might have in this country compared to what they would have there, I would be a “criminal” too! All they’re doing is trying to create a better life for themselves and their children. This is another divisive issue for the U.S. and those who benefit from their presence or see that there might be a benefit are for them as well as a lot of church and human rights groups who have been working with immigrants. Those who see a negative (republican party, people who see them as competition for jobs in chicken plants) are against them. It is frightening that we have so many issued dividing us in this country.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
HMMMM. Judgement on civility coming from someone who calls people idiots and satan and demon and on and on.
I got home this past weekend from NY and read most of the posts from last week. I found it very interesting that some here believe that you cannot understand racism unless you are Black, sexism unless you are a woman, or homophobia unless you are gay. My question would be, “Why the heck are we spending all of this money in the educational system, to teach students to understand these things, if it is impossible?”
Here is my take on that. None of you can understand history because you are not historians. You can’t understand abortion because you aren’t babies. You can’t understand …you get the point. It is a silly statement.
All of us have had times when we have been discriminated againt for some reason or other. Nobody has a monopoly on persecution. I think sometimes, people choose to be defined by their victimization. Other people rise above it. I can tell you from personal experience that it was no more fun growing up POOR and WHITE in my home town than it was growing up POOR and BLACK. During the first year of forced desegregation I spent my 8th grade year in a majority Black school and was constantly threatened, bullied and discriminated against. There were a number of times when I literally had to fight my way to class. It was one of the most lonely times of my life, but I survived it, and even thrived in high school. I wouldn’t trade that year for anything because I grew so much personally from the adversity I went through. It is probably why I have such a clear view of right and wrong and a heightened since of justice. It’s why I recognize it so quickly when any of my students are being bullied and I won’t tolerate that in my school.
It’s also probably why I have such a lack of patience for people who whine about being “victims”. Charles Swindoll made an amazing observation when he said, “The longer I live the more convinced I become that life is 10 percent what happens to us and 90 percent how we respond to it. We cannot change our past. We can not change the fact that people act in a certain way. We can not change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude.”
By GOB
April 11, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
When I have to pay monthly for health insurance and meet my deductibles, and illegal immigrants can get free health care, I get slightly annoyed.
Monica - The difference is you are able to get preventative care. If your kid has a cold, you can go your family doctor and get medicine. Illegals dont have this option. Generally, they dont go for medical care until they have no other options. That is not the kind of trade-off you would want to make. Even paying deductables, you are in a much better position than any illegal.
By Mara
April 11, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
GOB, John, what is “elitist” about wanting basic fairness and respect for the law? Why is it “elitist” to require that all people who want to reap the blessings of liberty stand in line and wait their turn? What is so “elitist” about requiring prospective citizens to obey the law, whether that law is a “technicality” or a basic human right?
By chuck
April 11, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
I hate to tell you this Gob, but there is no such thing as a”native American” in the sense that you used it. The people who were here when Europeans arrived, came here just like the rest of our ancestors did. They traveled here from Asia. There are no people who are native to this continent. In that respect, they have no greater claim on the land than any other group.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this
Judgement on civility coming from someone who calls people idiots and satan and demon and on and on
No more implausible than someone who spends his life self-righteously condemning other people to hell having the gall to accuse others of incivility.
I wouldn’t trade that year for anything because I grew so much personally from the adversity I went through. It is probably why I have such a clear view of right and wrong and a heightened since of justice. It’s why I recognize it so quickly when any of my students are being bullied and I won’t tolerate that in my school.
You have a heightened sense of justice? LOL. What…frontier justice? Hangman’s justice? You are about as narrow and black-and-white a person as it is possible to be. You don’t know the first thing about justice, nazi.
Now I understand why Chuck is such a malicious bully himself. Ironic that someone as meanspirited as he is claims that he won’t “tolerate that in my school”.
Except the sissy ones, right Chuck? They deserve it, right?
We were happier with you gone, trash.
By lozen
April 11, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Why is it so hard for some people to see their privileges? Like Chuck: “I can tell you from personal experience that it was no more fun growing up POOR and WHITE in my home town than it was growing up POOR and BLACK.” Poor and white can be bad alright, but poor and black - a totally different thing Chuck. But you will never admit that. You refuse to see that even poor and white you had privileges that someone poor and black did not have.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
I hate to tell you this Gob, but there is no such thing as a”native American” in the sense that you used it. The people who were here when Europeans arrived, came here just like the rest of our ancestors did. They traveled here from Asia. There are no people who are native to this continent. In that respect, they have no greater claim on the land than any other group.
Talk about sophistry…from that standpoint there are no Native Europeans or Native Asians. Everyone originated from one point, and it wasn’t any mythological Garden of Eden either, Schmuck.
By GOB
April 11, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
Chuck - I understand and agree with you in that the original people in North America came from somewhere else. My point is that they didnt take the land from people who were already here. They were the very first people here, and that does give them a claim of ownership. The Europeans, on the other hand, found this new world, and decided that it should be theirs, so they took it from the people that already had it.
If I find a rock on the ground and pick it up, it is now my rock. If someone walks up and sees my rock and takes it from me without my permission, they are in wrong.
By RF
April 11, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
Monica- that ‘free health care’ consists of sitting in an emergency room for hours and hours waiting for them to decide to call you in because they know you can’t pay. I’m not saying all the illegals should be here, but let’s face it. We go to the store and buy produce they’ve picked for little money and wear clothes they’ve sewn together for little money while we can expect at least a minimum wage and fair working conditions.
Chilao- once again, good comment in the 11:48. My thoughts exactly. There will always be some sneaking in who will be willing to work for what they can get.
By Monica
April 11, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
Okay GOB, I can agree with your statemtent. But what about those who aren’t “elitist” and don’t have health insurance? What about middle class Americans whose companies don’t list them as full time workers and therefore don’t have benefits? What about single moms who work two or three part time jobs to feed and clothe their children, and make just enough money NOT to qualify for Medicaid? Is it fair to them that someone who is an illegal immigrant gets benefits, and they don’t? Just food for thought.
By lozen
April 11, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
Who did the native americans steal the land from Chuck? Anybody ever read “Red Meat” cartoons? I love the ones with the minister. Minister is looking up at sky praying, “Oh lord…help me to understand the sublime mysteries of your creation.” Voice comes down from above: “Okay..maybe I’ll let you in on a couple of things. First of all, gravity was accidental. You guys were originally going to be able to float around propelled by these nifty little fluttering foot wings I had designed. Neat huh? Still, you wouldn’t have been able to fly around very fast because that would have defeated your purpose as nutritious , low-cost and great tasting dinosaur food.” Minister: “..thanks I’ll just keep that to myself. The offering plate’s already been coming in a little light this month.”
By Mara
April 11, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
John, who forced them to have babies they couldn’t feed? Who elected the officials that use graft and blackmail to enrich themselves? Who doesn’t insist that those in power enforce the laws?
Oh, I remember. It’s just too hard for them to band together and make demands on their own government when our country is so much richer. Isn’t that what you said a couple weeks ago? That requiring their government to provide for their basic needs was too much to expect?
By GOB
April 11, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Why is it “elitist” to require that all people who want to reap the blessings of liberty stand in line and wait their turn?
Mara - The thing about it is this: The people who are deciding how long that line is and how many hoops you have to jump through to get to the end of the line have never been in it.
Doesn’t the Constitution say something about certain rights being self-evident? And ALL men being equal? It doesn’t say that certain rights are self-evident, but only after you have your paperwork filled out correctly, or that all men are equal, but only if stand in that line over there for 10 years. If you believe in the principles that this country was founded on, how do you reconcile forcing people to spend years living in poverty (real poverty, not what we have in America) while some bureaucrat files paperwork? The American Revolution and the Civil War were fought because there were people in this country (and many weren’t “citizens”) that were having their unalienable rights being violated.
Why do the immigrants of today deserve less?
By lozen
April 11, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
Monica, the americans you are talking about and the mexican immigrants should get together and start a revolution. Maybe that’s why we’re being encouraged to hate them?
By GOB
April 11, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
Monica - In the situation you described, the illegal doesnt have any benefit that the citizen doesnt? At that point, the only recourse for either is to go the emergency room and wait. The citizen is also likely to get care before the illegal too.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
And Gob, it’s not about being in a better position. If that is the standard, then why don’t we just bring every citizen of every third world country here so they can get these things? The problem with that is we CANNOT maintain the ABILITY to help the rest of the world if we BECOME a third world country ourselves.
My students would call your position untenable. You don’t want to enforce the existing immigration laws of the United States because these people “just want a better life for their families”, yet you fail to understand that we cannot provide a better life for ANYONE, if we don’t control immigration. That is why we HAVE immigration quotas. We are not ANTI-IMMIGRATION. We are ANTI-ILLEGAL-IMMIGRATION. Our ability to help solve the problems of the world will soon be directly proportional to our ability to maintain our national culture, the integrity of our borders, and our infrastructure.
We are very near the tipping point on immigration. With gas prices going out of site, whole segments of the economy are going to tank if we aren’t very careful. While there is plenty of work for illegals in a booming economy, what’s going to happen in a downturn? We are in for really serious problems if we don’t take steps now.
Throw in the criminal element that comes in along with the hard workers, and then throw in the possibility of terrorists coming in and it is a recipe for disaster.
By Chilao
April 11, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
Everybody is Ethiopian(or is it Kenyan?) LMAO
sorry, Mesopotamian. LOL
and at a loss for words over poor and white vs poor and black, total loss of words there. especially thinking back about 25-35 years.
By Jack
April 11, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
I have great insurance and the only “preventive” medicine I do is the dentist. I only go to the doctor when there is no other option. If the “undocumented migrants” were to pay income tax, I might feel different about them sponging off of us. Hell, legal immagrants don’t pay income tax for SEVEN YEARS. Hello Uncle Sam, may I have seven years tax free?
By The72John
April 11, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
Oh, I remember. It’s just too hard for them to band together and make demands on their own government when our country is so much richer. Isn’t that what you said a couple weeks ago? That requiring their government to provide for their basic needs was too much to expect?
This is exactly why you are being elitist. It’s like the apocryphal “let them eat cake” comment. You obviously are unable to empathize with them, and it’s easier by far to condemn them.
I mean, it’s so EASY for the poverty-stricken and down-trodden to make their mean old government give them their due! I’m sure those wealthy men and women entrenched in their positions of power will see the error of their ways and create an equitable system, especially with the US putting pressure on them to…oh wait. Bush and Fox are buddy-buddy…I forgot. The US ISN’T putting pressure on Mexico to change.
By Nikita
April 11, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
Well, marti, the short answer is that country music fosters nationalism, religiosity and other such fun stuff. They put jingoistic artists in rotation and they spend their station promo time on commentary that tends to lean right. For example, anyone hear the obnoxious 106.7 “Heck, Happy Christmas” station promo that they played for three months — referencing and taking sides in the nonexistent war on christmas?
As for the illegals business, I’ll keep this very short. 1. They are here illegally, but have no way to come here legally. 2. They are here, and have been more or less eternally, because they serve the interests of very powerful people. And 3. Therefore I support changing our laws to allow a limited number of working-class immigrants to come here legally and/or legalize a limited number of immigrants who can demonstrate a law-abiding, legally-copacetic US existence. I also support harsh punitive measures for those who evade normal employment laws and hire illegals. Also, a good database for identifying which people are here illegally is key.
By marti
April 11, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
Mara, I guess the same “they” that force people in this country to have babies they can’t feed! The same “they” who elected our officials that use graft and blackmail to enrich themselves. And the same “they” who don’t insist that those in power enforce the laws here in this country?
By GOB
April 11, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
Mara - There are a couple of reasons why many of these illegals dont stay at home and start a revolution, or at least force their government to provide their basic needs.
The first is that most of the countries that these people are coming from dont have even a basic education system. It is going to be hard to find people who understand their government enough to support a revolution if when they dont have the ability to read a newspaper and find out what is even going on.
The second, and I think more compelling, is that they are more concerned with providing for their own family than they are in uprooting a government and implenting societal change in their country. Remember, during the American Revolution, a large number of the colonists were against the war, and many supported the British. An even larger number simply didnt want to be involved because they were more concerned about their own individual life.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Gob, PLEASE tell me you don’t really believe this?!?!
Doesn’t the Constitution say something about certain rights being self-evident? And ALL men being equal? It doesn’t say that certain rights are self-evident, but only after you have your paperwork filled out correctly, or that all men are equal, but only if stand in that line over there for 10 years. If you believe in the principles that this country was founded on, how do you reconcile forcing people to spend years living in poverty (real poverty, not what we have in America) while some bureaucrat files paperwork? The American Revolution and the Civil War were fought because there were people in this country (and many weren’t “citizens”) that were having their unalienable rights being violated.
The founders believed that all men were CREATED equal. That certainly does not mean that the RESULTS of their lives will be equal. Some people were born in different circumstances in different countries in different families and so on. The only people who even make an attempt to justify guaranteeing equal results are COMMUNISTS…and we see how well that system worked.
How can you possibly believe that we can gaurantee equal opportunity to every person in the world? e have enough problem trying to provide it for OUR people. I sure hope there aren’t many Americans who think the way you do. If there are our country is doomed.
By RF
April 11, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Well, the fact it they’re here. The fact is their home countries could care less and won’t change in the forseeable future unless we force them. That won’t happen because too much of our own economy depends on them working for next to nothing. Too many industries use their cheap labor, without benefits, to grow financially. Now that they’re demanding at least some recognition, we’re sounding like a bunch of McCarthy era fools. Look back to the sixties folks. This is exactly what African-Americans had to go through to get any real recognition. God knows we’ve messed that up, so how about we learn a little something and find a way to deal with them a little more fairly. We should have learned something from the way we’ve treated one population we still look down on and profile for their skin color, but we won’t. We’ll just sit and complain and call it unfair and un-American. They’re not being given anything, and social services (welfare, medicaid, etc.) aren’t available unless they have legal status. And they can’t get that without jumping through all the ridiculous hoops.
By Nikita
April 11, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
P.S. Illegal immigrants DO pay taxes if they hold legal employment. They don’t, however, pay it under their own names and it’s impossible to figure out how accurately it’s paid — my guess would be that it’s underpaid.
By GOB
April 11, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
Chuck - I dont think you fully understand what I am saying. Nowhere did I say that the US should activily go out and bring third-world people inside our borders. I am speaking of the people that have already made the effort themselves to get here.
The idea that illegals cant be supported in an economic downturn is absurd. I am pretty sure that we had illegals in this country before the internet boom of the 90s, and I think they seemed to make it through the post-9/11 downturn ok.
I dont think we should pretend illegals arent here and ignore them, but to deport them all, or criminalize them, is a very harsh reponse, not to mention an untenable one.
By Chilao
April 11, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
I mean, it’s so EASY for the poverty-stricken and down-trodden to make their mean old government give them their due!
especially easy when we are supplying military hardware and training to the existing governments. Anybody been following the recent election in Bolivia? LOL
or Chevy Chase’s movie, FLETCH: Kommunistas scene with the Guatamalen generals.
By lozen
April 11, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
chuck, “The only people who even make an attempt to justify guaranteeing equal results are COMMUNISTS…and we see how well that system worked.”
Jesus was a communist!
By GOB
April 11, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
Chuck - Where did I ever mention that I thought the results should be the same for everyone? I simply think that if you truly believe in what the constitution and bill of rights say, then yes, everyone should have the same opportunities.
That doesn’t mean we have to go actively recruiting people to come here, but those that are here already do deserve the same opportunity. For that matter, everyone in the world does deserve to be given those opportunities. Obviously that is not going to happen, but they do deserve them. If you believe that all men are created equal and that there are certain unalienable rights.
By Karlee
April 11, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
It is your right to say what you please. But do you really want to discredit your opinions even further to those who disagree with you by phrasing them crudely and (let’s be honest) immaturely? I have a feeling that conveying your feelings or beliefs with knowledge, clarity, good ideas rather than mere complaints, and a strong sense of vocabulary will make your opinion matter more to someone than a flash of the finger or some vulgar bumper sticker slapped on the back of your station wagon…what do I know, though…
By Jack
April 11, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
GOB. They said it in France. Big difference.
Chuck. Glad you’re back. JBM missed you greatly.
I used to like Matt Lauer until 9/11 when he asked a firefighter what thoughts were going through his head when he realized his brothers were in the towers. What the hell did he think was going through his mind? Matt is nothing more than media vulture scum.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Gob, you also said:
The second, and I think more compelling, is that they are more concerned with providing for their own family than they are in uprooting a government and implenting societal change in their country.
Why do you think that is? It’s in part because it is so easy to “break in” to this country where we have ALREADY DONE THAT.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
I dont think we should pretend illegals arent here and ignore them, but to deport them all, or criminalize them, is a very harsh reponse, not to mention an untenable one.
Not to mention inhumane.
What I find truly disturbing is that the same crowd who are directing their venom at illegal aliens and using excuses like Schmuck’s “we can’t help everyone!” are ALSO cheering on our “spreading democracy” efforts that are costing us billions of dollars a month.
Add in the fact that most of these people are also self-professed “Christians” and you have a group of people who A) DESPISE the poor and needy they are supposed to help, according to their so-called Savior, and B) EMBRACE the war and death condemned by the same figure.
This contradiction never ceases to amaze me. A religion devoted to peace and charity produces followers who are devoted to neither.
By Mara
April 11, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
GOB - if you feel that way, then get the law changed!! That’s how things are supposed to work in America. We make laws. If they don’t work well, or enough people disagree with them, we amend them. There is no right to knowingly flout the law then demand that the law not apply to you! YOU CHANGE THE LAW! You don’t ignore it and then get mad when society decides that enough is enough. YOU CHANGE THE LAW!
As for the Constitution, it also says that the Congress shall make laws. That’s what they did. They made laws to provide for orderly integration of immigrants. As for trying to escape poverty, somehow I don’t think those equally poor and desperate people who DO play by the rules, who DO wait in line for years and years, who DO ask permission to become Americans would agree that being poor gives one a right to shove to the front of the immigration line.
My opinion, in a nutshell, is that the law is the law. If you don’t like it, you lobby to change it. If you break the law before it gets changed, you should expect to pay the penalty. No excuses, no whining. These people who’ve trespassed don’t want to pay the penalty for breaking the law. They do want special consideration because they’re poor.
That said, I’m outta here. I’m just getting angry about this and that’s not conducive to a measured and articulate argument.
By Jack
April 11, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
Karlee. We need you on this blog. Sane folks are always welcome. Please stay. Friday is joke and ice-cream day.
By Jack
April 11, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Forgot to say Hey to John yesterday. Hey John.
By GOB
April 11, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
No, Chuck, it is for the reasons I mentioned in the post you quoted. Do you think the educational system of most of the countries that the illegals are coming from provide an adequate base of knowledge to implement an uprising?
Also, revolutions are rarely succesful without help from some other national power. How do you think we would have fared against the British if not for France? Who do you see jumping up to help the Mexican people get a government in power that is concerned about promoting their true needs?
By Monica
April 11, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
All of this talk about immigrating (or is it emigrating) to this great land of the free and home of the brave reminds me of the song from the 80’s animated classic, An American Tale: “There are no cats in America, and the halls are filled with cheese…”
By Jack
April 11, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
Mara….don’t…..go…..we love you!
By The72John
April 11, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
That said, I’m outta here. I’m just getting angry about this and that’s not conducive to a measured and articulate argument.
Frankly, neither is strict legalism. Your “a crime is a crime” attitude is like - and I can’t believe I’m about to cite Star Trek - the Star Trek episode where Wesley Crusher is sentenced to death because he stepped on some flowers.
Absolutism is NEVER a good thing. No irony intended. Did they break a law? Yes, I suppose they did. Raise your hand if you haven’t? If you haven’t sped…drunk underage…”experimented” with substances in college…
I doubt anyone here hasn’t broken a law at one time or another in his or her life. Should you be treated like a criminal because of it? Or should we take a reasoned approach towards your “crime”?
By Renee
April 11, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
Unfortunately, Mara, I have to agree with your 11:51. The attitude that they are entitled to something is what I find really unnerving. They could not and would not hold protests like these in the countries where they originated from. Immigrants should not be allowed, but we are discussing illegal immigrants. Yes, they came for a better life. But there is an appropriate way to do it. And one main issue that should motivate tightened security and delging into this situation is our own country’s security. We should not, and cannot allow people to come in at will and demand what they want. What other country operates in that fashion. And no, we don’t want to operate like other countries do, but at this rate, I firmly believe we leave ourselves open for attack again. Our borders should be way tighter after 9/11. We seem to have learned nothing from that.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
Gob, they are already HERE because they BROKE IN. That’s like saying The burglar deserves whatever I have in my house because he’s “already there”. It is just plain illogical. You ought to go back and smack your high school U.S. History teacher.
Let me give you a quick lesson. The founders called the United States a “Nation of LAWS”. Do you really think that they would advocate providing ANY KIND of benefits for people here illegally? Are you aware that Blacks born in this country were not entitled to the benefits of those “Inalienable Rights” that you spoke of until the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments? The 14th Amendment was especially important because it granted CITIZENSHIP to all of the Blacks freed at the end of the Civil War. They were not given ANY rights in America until they became CITIZENS.
The same thing is true and should be true in the immigration issue. People who are here illegally should be deported. They should not get special status because they BROKE IN.
By Just Being Me
April 11, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Judgement on civility coming from someone who calls people idiots and satan and demon and on and on.
Actually, satan, I called one person an idiot (I believe it was FM) and I immediately apologized and never did it again, demonstrating acknowledgement of my wrongdoing and true remorse for my actions. Those are signs of a life changed by Christ, I’m sure you wouldn’t recognize it though.
I call you satan because, well, you know why. Do I need to remind you how much like him you really are? Just like satan, you sow seeds of discord. Just like satan, you make it your goal to disrupt peace, steal joy, and be as offensive as you possibly can, under the guise of being an ambassador for Christ. Your actions have proven that you are nothing more than a religious demon, and it my calling you satan is an observation - not a judgment.
It does not escape my notice (or anyone else’s) that you are one of about three people who constantly disturb the peace on this blog. We can all disagree with passion, have an intelligent exchange of ideas, and no one is getting nasty until one of you three come along - and you are the main one “preaching” about Christ. Forget the preaching, try living like Him - in deed, not words.
And, for the record, no one said that you can’t understand racism, homophobia or sexism without being black, gay, or female. What I said was that you don’t know how a person feels about losing a child until you’ve actually lost one - and accordingly, you don’t know how a person feels when being discriminated against because of their race, sexual orientation/preference, or gender until you fit into that category yourself. Recap: I didn’t say you don’t understand, I said that you don’t know what it feels like. Let me guess, now you’re going to tell me how ridiculous that is because you know exactly what it’s like to be black or female, right?
By chuck
April 11, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
I missed her too Jack.
By GOB
April 11, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Mara - I would argue that the marches that we have been seeing are precisly that…an attempt to change the law.
Poor citizens want special treatment too. That is what welfare and section 8 housing are.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Darn those poor people, not wanting to starve! What gall, what nerve! Why don’t they stay down in the dirt where they belong.
What all the self-righteous “They’re criminal” types conveniently forget is that this country opened the back door for the burglars. If there weren’t jobs a-plenty, they wouldn’t be bothering to come over.
US corporations and businesses are taking advantage of people to get cheap labor…they are the ones putting American workers out of work by WILFULLY SEEKING undocumented workers they can pay. THEY are the true criminals here…I don’t understand why it’s so hard to understand that.
Oh wait - yup…it’s the new REAL religion of this country. Worship of Big Business.
By GOB
April 11, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
Chuck - Yeah, the founders called this nation one of laws, but only after they had broken so many of the british laws that a war started.
As for the blacks not having any rights before they became citizens…that is why we fought the civil war. No one is advocating a war, just some more common-sense legislation to come up with a reasonable solution to the problem. If you honestly believe that deporting 11M of the people that do the jobs that allow you to by cheap produce, clothes, and any number of other things, you should probably smack your high school economics teacher.
Also, dont you think we implementing better solutions if we werent pouring billions of dollars into Iraq? Oh wait, like you said earlier, we cant possibly try and provide everyone in the world with the same opportunities that we have…unless they have a lot of oil (not to totally steal your point 72John)
By Just Being Me
April 11, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
Characteristics of (A): Loving Kind Gentle teacher Peaceable Compassionate Giving Not legalistic Caring Encouraging The glue that held his followers together Comforter Peacemaker Merciful Buries all our sins Looks beyond faults to meet needs Mission is to reconcile you to God, with lovingkindness
Characteristics of (B): Stuff-starter Sows seeds of discord Mean Causes confusion Steals joy and disrupts peace Hateful Judgmental Takes joy in offending others Attempts to remind us of our past sins Mission is to separate you from God Merciless
If anyone here had to choose which of the following characteristics most closely resemble the “chuck” persona we see on this blog, I’d bet my bottom dollar they’d choose B (which you know, closely resembles satan, not Christ). Face it, we don’t know who you are off-line, but on this blog, you are evil, hateful, mean, and judgmental. Perhaps in your real life, people can see Christ in you - but no one in here can say that they’ve ever seen Christ in you (I predict some anonymous blogger will now show up to defend you!).
You are nothing like Him. You are an evil, evil man - just like satan, and I call ‘em like I see ‘em.
By RF
April 11, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
Okay, question here. How many supposedly illegal immigrants are here? And how do we know this? I mean, if they’re here illegally, I doubt they’re waving a banner and participating in marches. Not very logical, I think, to sneak into a country so you can draw attention to yourself. Most of the protesters are LEGAL immigrants asking to be treated as something more than border jumpers looking for day-labor on a construction site.
By Jack
April 11, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
We the dollar, for the dollar, by the dollar…..
By The72John
April 11, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
you should probably smack your high school economics teacher
Actually, he IS an economics teacher. How scary is that.
By GOB
April 11, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
Actually, he IS an economics teacher. How scary is that.
Yikes
By Jack
April 11, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
I did miss seeing you reel her in. LOL
By Just Being Me
April 11, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
As for the illegals, I just find it hard to believe that they actually have the nerve to fight for a right to be here illegally! WTH??????
Are they serious?
They are here. In this country. Illegally. And, they have the nerve to protest a law?????? Okay, seriously. That’s like a squatter coming into your home, refusing to leave, and boycotting you for trying to evict them.
I can discuss some sort of deal that doesn’t just leave them out in the cold, hungry, homeless and jobless. I wouldn’t want that for any human being. But, to demand rights is just beyond my understanding. I don’t know what the answer is. I’ve said before that I wouldn’t support just jailing them, or deporting them. But, giving them the keys to the country just ain’t right. It’s like rewarding a person for blatantly disregarding the laws of our land.
Furthermore, THEY CAN’T EVEN FRIGGIN VOTE!!! How can you protest against a bill that in a country where you can’t even vote? By right, you should have no say so. Regardless of what I think about New York’s elected officials, I cannot vote in New York so I can’t do a darned thing about it. I do not have a voice in New York. I can’t understand what on earth makes these folks think they have the right to voice their opinions here? We give you the right to protest, and you have the nerve to protest against US??????
I know that sounds mean and ugly, and I really don’t mean to be. I love everybody - regardless of where they were born or what language they speak. I want to help them. I don’t want any of them to starve, be homeless, or jobless. I want them to prosper, but we have to come up with a way that doesn’t reward them for blatant disregard of our country’s laws.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
You probably should recognize it JBM, you see it in the mirror every morning.
A report from INS states:
The report represents a genuine effort by the INS to examine this complex problem. The new estimates are the best to date and provide valuable new information for policymakers and the public. Among the findings, and their implications:
Amnesties clearly do not solve the problem of illegal immigration. About 2.7 million people received lawful permanent residence (“green cards”) in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a result of the amnesties contained in the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. But these new INS figures show that by the beginning of 1997 those former illegal aliens had been entirely replaced by new illegal aliens, and that the unauthorized population again stood at more than 5 million, just as before the amnesty.
In fact, the new INS estimates show that the 1986 amnesty almost certainly increased illegal immigration, as the relatives of newly legalized illegals came to the United States to join their family members. The flow of illegals grew dramatically during the years of the amnesty to more than 800,000 a year, before dropping back down to around 500,000 a year.
While it might be supposed that the increase in illegal immigration was caused only by the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) provisions of the 1986 amnesty, the INS report indicates that this was not the case. Figures in the report itself show that illegal immigration surged more dramatically from countries other than Mexico. Since the vast majority of those amnestied under SAW were from Mexico, the increase should have been mostly Mexican if the SAW provision had been responsible for the surge.
Overall, the estimates show that nearly 500,000 illegal aliens settled here each year in the mid-1990s. This total number of new illegal settlers is offset by about 145,000 illegals who returned home on their own each year, 40,000 deportations, 20,000 deaths, and around 150,000 illegals receiving green cards as part of the normal “legal” immigration process.
The report clearly demonstrates that legal and illegal immigration are intimately linked, and not separate phenomena, as is commonly supposed. Between 1987 and 1996, the report states that 1.3 million green cards were given out to illegal aliens as part of the normal “legal” immigration process (189,000 in 1996 alone) — separate from the 2.7 million illegals who received legal status under the 1986 IRCA amnesty.
The 1.3 million green cards given out to illegals between 1987 and 1996 dwarf immigration enforcement efforts. According to the new estimates, only 335,000 illegals were deported or required to leave the country by the INS during the same period.
“The fact that these new INS figures show that the last amnesty actually attracted more illegal immigration should give serious pause to those now advocating another amnesty,” said Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies. “With the government estimating that nearly half a million illegal aliens settle permanently in the United States each year, the new estimates indicate that we have not yet regained control over our nation’s borders.”
These numbers suggest that Congress’s focus on border enforcement as almost the sole means of controlling illegal immigration is inadequate. Illegal immigration can be controlled only with a strategy that combines border enforcement with efforts to turn off the magnets that attract illegal aliens in the first place — jobs and green cards. Thus, the missing elements of our illegal immigration policy are muscular enforcement of the prohibition on hiring illegal workers and deep, permanent cuts in legal immigration.
By Renee
April 11, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
RF - maybe I”m wrong (or actually the media is wrong) because they are definitely reporting a large majority of protesters being “illegal” and not legal. I don’t want to see anyone starving but at the same time, at what cost do we continue this trend.
Maybe a time period could be given (in addition to what they have already taken) to have them gain citizenship. Being that the situation has gotten so out of control, it would be next to impossible to round up 11m people to ship them out to their corresponding countries.
Nevertheless, everybody who comes into the country should adhere to the appropriate policies (laws) to gain temporary residency, citizenship etc..
By Randy K.
April 11, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
Here’s my contribution to free speech. My 15 year old daughter asked me the difference between a conservative and a liberal? I said, I can sum it up in one sentence. A conservative follows GOD(or the creator) and a liberal wants to play or be GOD. Pretty black and white.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
Read this CAREFULLY:
The fact that these new INS figures show that the last amnesty actually attracted more illegal immigration should give serious pause to those now advocating another amnesty.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
BTW JBM. It is time to begin a boycott of that racist Bill Maher. I was watching him interview Cynthia McKinney the other night and 2 times he called her (gasp) GIRL. Everybody knows what a mean-spirited conservative bigot HE IS.
By Just Being Me
April 11, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Oooooh, good one satan!
By Jack
April 11, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
“Don’t forget me, Martha my love.”
By chuck
April 11, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
When certain people get argumentative and say things like, “I don’t give a rat’s behind what you think”, that’s “just being” passionate, but if anybody else does it it is “sowing seeds of discord”. A little hyppocritical don’t you think?
By Just Being Me
April 11, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Regarding your 2:06, it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. I thought the smarter folks on this blog explained that to you clearly the last time this issue was raised… perhaps it was above your level of understanding?
Just for the heck of it, I’ll remind you once more (and it rests in the archives for reference): my INITIAL objection to you calling me “girl” was that you are not a friend of mine. If RF, Blabla, NetB, John, or Chilao were to call me “girl” I wouldn’t have the slightest problem with it. However, in that we are not that familiar, it would be as offensive to me as a stranger on the street calling me “baby.” The issue of your being white and calling me girl was raised later in the discussion, as an afterthought, NOT as the initial complaint.
What difference does it make anyway? It’s not like you intended to honor my request… since then, you’ve taken every opportunity possible to either call me “girl” or make some sarcastic remark about it. It took a non-Christian, someone who doesn’t even sprinkle scriptures throughout every comment they make on this blog, to correct your unChrist-like behavior for you to refrain for just that day.
You are just plain evil.
By RF
April 11, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
Chuck, JBM, Renee, et.al— I’m not saying we give them amnesty or anything else. I’m just asking a simple question. How do we know how many are here illegally?? Are we standing at the border writing little hash marks on paper or something? The best we can give are estimates. I mean, it’s not like there’s some sort of Illegal Aliens Club or anything. Aren’t we being just a bit stereotypical and racially profiling to say that most of those in the protests are illegals?? We’re a*******suming an awful lot. That’s like looking at a group of young black men and getting nervous because ‘they’re all criminals, right?’
By Jack
April 11, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
Cheeta is 74. Happy Birthday! Does anyone who was born after 1960 remember who Cheeta is?
By The72John
April 11, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
The fact that these new INS figures show that the last amnesty actually attracted more illegal immigration should give serious pause to those now advocating another amnesty.
In typical Chuck-fashion, he fails to accurately attribute his quote, and does not mention that this statement does not come from within the report mentioned. It is, rather, a conclusion drawn by the director of the web site featuring the report, a right-wing anti-immigration website.
The cut-and-pasted plagarism (of the sort we expect from Chuck) is NOT the text of the INS report as Chuck tries to suggest.
No one is surprised, of course.
Here’s the website:
http://www.cis.org/aboutcis.html
I particularly love how they use double-speak to mask their anti-immigration stance…they favor low immigration with a warmer welcome for those who do come in.
Snicker.
By lozen
April 11, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
Oh! How clever RandyK! Conservatives follow god… like chuck does? Like Bush does? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
By lozen
April 11, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
Jack Cheeta is the strip club down on Spring Street that all the politicos go to. Just kidding! I know you’re talking about Cheta from Tarzan movies. How about that? I didn’t know chimps lived as long as their cousins we humans.
By lozen
April 11, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
72John, you have to look up Red Meat on the internet. Minister is looking up praying, “O Heavenly Father, in the name of your Son, help us to defeat our enemies both foreign and domestic and lead this great Christian nation to resounding victory.” Voice from above: “Interesting request. But as you know, my boy is a very serious rabbi, peace activist, and a fairly radical, liberal, humanitarian reformer. He really doesn’t swing that way. But - hey…I’m taking up your valuable time. Let me go ahead and transfer you over to the God of War’s request line.” Minister: B=but I thought you were a jealous God who didn’t tolerate other gods before you.” Voice from above: “Ha!Ha! Jealous…? Of that clown? Have you seen that ridiculous custom Humvee he drives around in? What a dumb a**!”
By Renee
April 11, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
Aren’t we being just a bit stereotypical and racially profiling to say that most of those in the protests are illegals??
I have to admit RF that I assumed it because it was reported as such. Not that the media is always correct. I don’t know how an accurate figure can be computed.
By Just Being Me
April 11, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
And, while I’m on the subject - I don’t know what to make of a “christian” who thinks making sarcastic comments and “jokes” about racism is funny.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
dualism One entry found for dualism.
Main Entry: du·al·ism Pronunciation: ‘dü-&-“li-z&m also ‘dyü- Function: noun 1 : a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes 2 : the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature 3 : a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil 4 : Chuck, Randy
By chuck
April 11, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
Gob, one other aspect you haven’t considered. How many Mexicans, Guatemalans, etc. have died in the desert because of the “lure” of amnesty? Think about it. If IRCA had not passed in 1986, hundreds and perhaps thousands of people would still be alive in their native lands instead of dying while trying to come here.
By GOB
April 11, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
Speaking of animals living a long time, I heard a story about a 16 year-old girl who bought a parrot (or some type of giant bird), and didnt find out until about 2 years later that they live about 60 years. That wouldnt be a good surprise. Her current husband and children are not fans of the bird.
By Just Being Me
April 11, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
No. Quoting me as saying, “I don’t give a rat’s behind what you think”, while clearly taking my comment out of context is what I call sowing seeds of discord.
Anyone with a 7th grade brain knows that that’s not what I said last week. You’re just looking for a way to twist words, and ~gasp~ sow seeds of discord.
If you really desire to raise the subject again, I’d be more than happy to discuss it with you. If not, just shut up.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
Gob, one other aspect you haven’t considered. How many Mexicans, Guatemalans, etc. have died in the desert because of the “lure” of amnesty? Think about it. If IRCA had not passed in 1986, hundreds and perhaps thousands of people would still be alive in their native lands instead of dying while trying to come here.
Yet again…Chuck fails to acknowledge that the “lure” is not amnesty, but available jobs provided by the corporations whose boots he licks.
He also continues to fail to admit that he is a misleading plagarist, but no one is really surprised there. I hope he teaches his students how to cite their sources!
By The72John
April 11, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
Gob, one other aspect you haven’t considered. How many Mexicans, Guatemalans, etc. have died in the desert because of the “lure” of amnesty? Think about it. If IRCA had not passed in 1986, hundreds and perhaps thousands of people would still be alive in their native lands instead of dying while trying to come here.
By the way, I think we all know that Chuck doesn’t give a damn whether these people live or die. He doesn’t “roll” that way.
By GOB
April 11, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
If IRCA had not passed in 1986, hundreds and perhaps thousands of people would still be alive in their native lands instead of dying while trying to come here.
Based on the living conditions that are prevalent in most parts of those countries, that is a major assumption to make.
By RF
April 11, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
Renee- my point exactly. The media make it sound horrible, but I suspect the number isn’t at high as we think. They’ve become the new hated minority in this country, and we’re stereotyping them much like we did blacks in the twentieth century. I seriously doubt there are that many finding a way across the borders every day. It’s not like Mexcio City is reporting a major drop in population or anything. The media has found the new group to dump on and focus American hate towards. I can’t honestly say I’ve met an illegal alien yet. I’ve been around groups of them in various jobs and working on my own house, and not a single one didn’t have at least a green card. But you know, they did all look like border jumpers… see what I mean??
By Just Being me
April 11, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
You know what Chuck, I’m going to tell you what I should have told you a long time ago. you are a stupid a* racist dumb mother f*******
By Jack
April 11, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
Lozen. I didn’t think they lived as long as Chilao. LOL (cheap shot I know)
How do you know about the place on Spring. Did you work there at one time? (Wink,wink)
By Archie
April 11, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
“Nevertheless, everybody who comes into the country should adhere to the appropriate policies (laws) to gain temporary residency, citizenship etc.. “
I agree with that statement Renee. Weeks ago I made comments about always making exceptions for certain people and the problems they cause. Also, Chuck since I agreed with just about everything JBM had to say last week, you have put me in her category as well. It takes effort to understand certain opinions and thoughts and if you’re not willing to make that effort then of course you will object a person’s opinion. JBM did a great job last week but since this week the subject is crude speech and now immigration we are discussing those two subjects. The 1:53 post by JBM describes how I feel since I have come read up more on the issue. How do the women feel about the Durham case at this point? I am hesitant and confused about the Durham/Lacrosse case.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
I didn’t try to “hide” where the information came from. The figures quoted are directly from an INS report as I stated. Since I did not claim the information provided to be my own, it is not plagiarism, you moron. If you had half a brain you would understand that. BTW, this is not a class, nor am I a reporterfor a news outlet. Had I said, “In my opinion…” and then quoted those things without citation you may have had a point, even in this non-academic setting, but probably not. This is a BLOG. BTW, while you never seem to have any trouble citing MY sources, you seem to have immeasurable trouble citing your own. Oh wait, that’s right, nobody would ever mistake anything you write as being academic. NEVER MIND.
By lozen
April 11, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Especially for chuck, randyK, zack:
Exodus 23: 8 “Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.
(And I’m sure chuck is doing this since the bible says he should) 10 “For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.
Chuck are you sure you’re a christian?
By Chilao
April 11, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
jumping ahead: Isn’t Maher gay? Don’t keep track of that, but I have always perceived him to be. (ex girlfriend suing him or having videos, something like that, aside) LMAO
while we are at it, is Jon Stewart gay? have no idea, just another perception. LOL
By RF
April 11, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
JBM- breathe dear, breathe….Now, think about what you just did. You let him get to you (and he didn’t have to work very hard to do it today), and you just snapped and fell right into his trap. Now he’ll be able to feel justified attacking you and your faith because you let him break you. You know I LOVE ya, but you gotta be stronger than that!
By Archie
April 11, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
JBM remember you are a minister and this is a blog so don’t get too riled up about Chuck. There used to be a guy on here that I didn’t like but I won’t call his name because this discussion is going good. Ladies, let’s hear from you how do you feel about that rape case in Durham?
By Jack
April 11, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
JBM. Breath. You bit and he reeled you in. Stop biting. He laughs at you. Don’t give him the satisfaction.
By Just Being me
April 11, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
The rest of my post got bleeped out. Your a stupid aS$ klansman hoodrat who s u c k s d i c k when nobody is loking so f******* you and f******* your mama and f******* your wife and your boyfriend!!!!! uou ignorant piece of sh!t - may you and your kids and your boyfriend all die a slow and painful death and burn in the same hell you plan for people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i hope you AND YOUR KIDS die.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
I didn’t try to “hide” where the information came from. The figures quoted are directly from an INS report as I stated. Since I did not claim the information provided to be my own, it is not plagiarism, you moron. If you had half a brain you would understand that. BTW, this is not a class, nor am I a reporterfor a news outlet. Had I said, “In my opinion…” and then quoted those things without citation you may have had a point, even in this non-academic setting, but probably not. This is a BLOG. BTW, while you never seem to have any trouble citing MY sources, you seem to have immeasurable trouble citing your own. Oh wait, that’s right, nobody would ever mistake anything you write as being academic. NEVER MIND.
That’s OK Chuck, no one mistakes your posts as academic either.
And, you pathetic excuse for a teacher, you certainly implied that the text you quoted was directly from the report, which it was not. Frankly, I doubt you have even read the report. I suspect that, as always, you just quickly found a web site that spouted out something that supported your point of view and copied and pasted it.
You let me know when you have an original thought, OK, Chuck? I’ll throw a party.
By Chilao
April 11, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
hahahahahah JACK, hahahahahahah LOL
never saw those Tarzan shows, never had TV until I was an adult. but knew who you meant with Cheta. 74 is older than me, okay? by ALOT, almost 1/2 my life so far.
By RF
April 11, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
lozen- High five to ya for the Exodus quote. I’m waiting impatiently to see if they’ll respond to you…
By chuck
April 11, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
JBM finally shows her true colors. My Black siter-in-law and Hispanic Brother-in-law, and my 8 Hispanic nieces and nephews would laugh their butts off at that.
BTW 72, I have to give you a ZERO. You failed to cite the source for your definition of “dualism”. Oh and if you are going to call me a “plagiarist”, at least learn how to spell it.
By marti
April 11, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
Chuck is a christian? And JBM is a minister? Oh, my gawd this blog is a zoo!
By Chilao
April 11, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
dayum JBM, dayum. Oh, that’s right, keeping it on topic (Thanks, Renee…LOL, bailing me out early yesterday)
By RF
April 11, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
I smell a rat
Someone seems to be using the blog name Just Being me instead of Me. I somehow don’t see the real JBM getting that crude…
By Cheta
April 11, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
uguguguugggaaaugag (jumping up and down, swinging my very long arms around)uguguguugggaaaugag
By chuck
April 11, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
I knew you had it in you JBM. As Mr. Myagi would say:
“Best demon still on inside…time let out.”
Talk about evil.
By GOB
April 11, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
Chuck - In your opinion, as someone with a background in economics, what you do think the real world consequences of deporting 11M illegals would be?
By Just Being Me
April 11, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
Uh, that is SO not me. Thanks for looking out, guys, but that wasn’t me posting. I am human and I do lose my cool, but that’s not what it looks like when I do. As you have seen, the worst I may do is call someone an idiot.
Probably another work of satan.
By Jack
April 11, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
Chilao. Thought I’d give you a laugh!
By Renee
April 11, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
That’s not JBM posting. You can tell by the name change (Capitals etc..) Someone is setting her up.
Anyway, RF, you have a valid point.
Archie - I don’t know how I feel about the Durham situation. I watched Nancy Grace last night talk about it and I can’t say yea or nay at this point. Too many unanswered questions for me. I do kind of lean toward the victim though, because the likelihood of her ripping off her own fingernails etc.. is slim, and all the characteristics fit a rape, except for the DNA which she said from the beginning that they didn’t ejaculate in her. But I still don’t know either way.
By Chilao
April 11, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
I cannot see JBM wishing death on anyone, even if she has before on this blog.(I don’t know if she has or hasn’t)
gonna second RF’s comment
By The72John
April 11, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
A little hyppocritical don’t you think?
and a heightened since of justice
How can you possibly believe that we can gaurantee equal opportunity
I’m sorry, Schmuck…what was that about spelling, again?
By the way, I’m sure it’s escaped no one’s notice that our once perfectly civil discussion has deteriorated yet again because you have appeared on the scene.
Interesting. Curious. Maybe…just maybe…it’s you, Chuck.
Going out on a limb here.
By Renee
April 11, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
I bet Chuck posted that. He’s getting too happy about it.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
Well, I certainly wouldn’t cry if Chuck was violently and painfully removed from the planet, but that wasn’t me either.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
IF someone is posting under JBM’s name, that is dispicable. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I’ve had it happen to me and it is aggravating to say the least. I do plenty enough to get blamed for without having someone add to it.
BTW JBM. Just so you know, I never called you “girl” after that one day when you ticked me off. I only brought it up because I was flipping channels Friday night and saw McKinney and wanted to hear what she had to say about the incident. When Maher called her that twice, it confirmed in my mind at least that I had not done anything to elicit the response of “Don’t you EVER…” that you gave me…especially in the context of that original post.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
I always did have trouble spelling that word.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
Again Chuck has trouble with words having two meanings. Apparently he doesn’t realize that the tone and context in which “girl” is delivered affects how it is received.
Or maybe Chuck is just an a*.
By Jack
April 11, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
You don’t have to ejaculate to leave DNA. Think pre—m.
By RF
April 11, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Actually, chuck, you have called her ‘girl’ since then, but I don’t have time to look up the exact date. AND, you kept doing it the very day you were told not to do so over and over and over, to the point that I suspect most humans would have called you much worse than ‘satan’. That was tame compared to what you would have gotten in the neighborhood I grew up in—you’d have gotten a one way ticket to meet him in person.
By Monica
April 11, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
RF, therein lies my personal battle. The quote from Exodus, and the words of Christ: whatever you have done for the least of these, you have done for me - Matthew 25:40 (paraphrased). I don’t think that we should turn our backs on anyone, but at the same time, there has to be a system in place. Even Nikita said earlier that a limited number should be allowed to be here. Well, who gets to come and who has to go? How do we decide that? At what point is the United States going to be forced to flash a “No Vacancy” sign? We have to figure out a way to deal with the problem.
BTW, I saw a protester on the news who told the reporter that he was an illegal immigrant. That was gutsy!
By Just Being Me
April 11, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
BTW JBM. Just so you know, I never called you “girl” after that one day when you ticked me off.
Uh, you called me “girl” several times since the first time. I can recall at least two occasions - one when Jack reprimanded you, and again when Chilao did. I know there were more than just those two times, I just can’t recall it at the moment. But, since you seem to love digging up old dirt, why don’t you take a look in the archives and find it?
And, again, that was NOT ME posting that filth. Even when I’m at my angriest I don’t speak that way (and Renee can vouch for me since she’s seen me at my very angriest). And, I wouldn’t wish harm on anyone’s children.
By Renee
April 11, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
That’s true Jack, it’s a sticky situation (no pun intended)
By Lyrazel-who-will-be-censored
April 11, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
You folks have been so friggin polite with damn and s** as your guides for crude its so funny because its so puritanical!
What about b***? SO MANY women use the term in everyday speech it is like a term—o I am feeling b*** today! So is it acceptable even if condescending? If acceptable should we ever have to bleep it? Why get bent if you hear kids talking on the phone describing a teacher as a b*** for giving too much homework if you use it daily to describe the boss, or listen to female friends banter about feeling b*** on their period, or in a store admiring a friend saying: You look b*** in that outfit!
Ok, so how many of you have ever sat down to music or a comedian using the word n****? Most blacks are completely offended if anyone of a different race calls them a n****—but they can and do call themselves n****. We laugh at black comedians who use it in their routines. Is this another example of freedom of speech—or not? If it is offensive to the black community as a whole why do so many blacks purchase music with such words and sexist or racial epithets? Why do so many black actors, comedians, musicians and personalities use it if it is so criminally offensive? By the purchase of such offensive content music, videos, comedians, etc. you actually support use of the word n**** and sexist epithets! Thus how can anyone tell a young black, white or latino youth NOT to use the word n**** and why should people be offended if someone of another race calls someone one? If its just jive talk—well what suburban teen with a face full of zits does not want to be seen as hip? Who should be blamed if a white student calls a black student n****? Or is n**** only ok if a certain race uses it with their own kind? Are there rules of profanity usage that make it respectable to some and racist for others? Why should blacks be offended by people using the term n**** when their purchase of CDs, Videos, Concerts, etc. FINANCIALLY SUPPORTS the use of such racial profanity and sexual condesention? When Yoko Ono said aeons ago: Woman is the n**** of the world... is that prejudice or is it a statement of fact?
Ah, freedom of speech is a one lane highway! Its best to drive freedoms highway going backward at a high rate of speed so you know where you been and cant see to be afraid of what will be.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
Nope RF, all of those times were on the SINGLE day that she TOLD me not to. As I explained at the time, the context of the post in which I used the term was in no way disrespectful or meant to be. Her reaction to what I considered to be an innocent post ticked me off and I called her that several times that day to tick her off…not proud of it but it is what it is and I admit to it. Several days after that, someone posting under my name called her girl. That was not me.
On the other hand, she has continued to call me “satan” in spite of the fact that I let her know I didn’t like it. You will notice, I have never demanded that she not call me that, but I have made it clear that I find it offensive. She apparently does not care. While that would give me license to call her whatever I wanted to, I have not done so.
By FatMoose
April 11, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
My one comment for the day:
The person offended (recieving the words) is in direct control to the power words have, not the person saying the words.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
On the other hand, she has continued to call me “satan” in spite of the fact that I let her know I didn’t like it. You will notice, I have never demanded that she not call me that, but I have made it clear that I find it offensive. She apparently does not care. While that would give me license to call her whatever I wanted to, I have not done so.
We’ve made it clear that we find your very existence offensive, and yet you keep coming back with your bigoted little snide comments and narrow-minded b******.
Works both ways, Christer garbage.
By RF
April 11, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Yep, chuck, you have called her that since. I wish I had the time to look, but I do remember it. Whatever— I don’t have time to debate this either, and I can’t imagine why I stepped in it in the first place.
By Jack
April 11, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Stepping in it isn’t that bad unless it gets between your toes.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
The time when Jack “reprimanded” me was the time I was referring to. Someone posted that under my name. It was not me. It was probably the same idiot that posted under your name.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
In any event, I don’t care enough to go back and look it up. After I explained to you why I did it, I never did it again. Believe it or not.
By Lyrazel
April 11, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
NOTHING WILL HAPPEN ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION UNTIL EMPLOYERS ARE FINANCIALLY PENALIZED UNDER THREAT OF INCARCERATION…until that happens its yammering balderdash all for the sake of political campaigns!
Besides with over 8 million here the ones hunted down will undoubtedly be Latino, thus a racially prejudice witch hunt —which it is. You want your Arbys burgers or salads with tomatoes and you want to pay only $1.40 for it—meaning most Americans are UNWILLING to accept minimum wage for all jobs—thus—its ok to have illegals picking crops for .13¢ a bushel. Like who wants to pay $24.00 for 3 pair of underwear made by USA workers allowed to get Workers Comp and overtime compensation? Nah, let some Chinese do it so we only pay $6.00! Dont ask Dont Tell Immigration is ok by the American consumer! Wal-Mart proves it!
Nothing is EVER SAID about ALL of the OTHER ILLEGALS, the folks from the Caribbean nations, Africa, England, Canada, Japan, India, Iraq, Sweden and how many countless others who came on travel visas and over-stayed. Build a wall around Hartsfield-Jackson airport?
This current awareness of illegal immigration is a swelling of racial prejudice justified by nothing offering no solutions! You want to send 8 million home? HA HA HA HA—how? You want to incarcerate 8 million? HA HA HA Like where? If the entire metro area of Atlanta is only 4 million people and traffic is at a stand-still now imagine what it will be with 8 million trying to fly out? We are not prepared for any such mass exodus and the cushy lives we Americans lead will not be so nice! So its all garbage to stop talking about how corporations use illegal labor and depend on the silence of illegal workers to make profit. Capitalism…you gotta love it.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
BTW 72, It would be impossible for me to care less about what you think or say. You are lower than maggot dung as far as I’m concerned. You really are a vile and despicible excuse for a human being, at least in my limited exposure to you. For you to insult me is MORE than a blessing. It insures that I am on exactly the right path.
By Just Being Me
April 11, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
Nope RF, all of those times were on the SINGLE day that she TOLD me not to.
That’s an outright lie, chuck. And it was you.
On the other hand, she has continued to call me “satan” in spite of the fact that I let her know I didn’t like it.
When did you let me know you didn’t like it? And when have your actions proven that I am way wrong, and you are nothing like satan?
If you can answer those two questions, I promise you I will never refer to you as satan again. Despite what you think of me, it is NEVER (never, ever, ever) my intention to offend anyone - especially if they don’t deserve it. In all honesty, I refer to you as satan because I don’t really think of your actions as coming from a human, I consider them to be works of an evil force (i.e. satan), so it makes it hard for me to treat you as I treat other humans. If you have proof that I am not justified in referring to you as satan, then please show me and I will IMMEDIATELY refrain from calling you that. I pledge that to you openly and honestly, with my fellow bloggers as witnesses.
—JBM P.S. I’ll bet anyone here $20 that he can’t prove me wrong.
By Archie
April 11, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Renee I haven’t read enough about the initial statement she made but yes I too lean toward the young lady. I must be truthful in that there is some doubt in my mind. It was 46 guys at that place so maybe she picked the wrong three guys. I would really be disappointed, however, to find out she lied. It is a shame that we can’t have a good discussion without people stealing names. I hope the prosecutor treats everyone on both sides in the Durham case fairly.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
It humors me that you think that I am…what was it…dung?
Given that I have more compassion in my little finger than you do in your entire, bigoted, hate-filled, ignorant, religious fanatic, Taliban-in-America body…
You are the lowest form of dirt - a wilfully ignorant, wilfully stupid piece of fecal waste who uses religion as a crutch to validate everything about him that is bad. Which is pretty much everything.
So you see, pathetic trash, the feeling is mutual. Please kill youself.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
And it’s ENSURE, you moron.
By Kate
April 11, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
Freedom of speech, as guaranteed in the First Amendment, refers this text will be boldedonly to political speech. That is, we are free to criticize the government in any way and at any time, subject to libel and slander laws and the convention about not shouting fire in a crowded theatre. [Get someone to read the First Amendment to you if you were educated in a public school.]
There is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that gives you the inalienable right to run nekked into Mama’s cocktail party shouting “poo poo!”
And if you contend there is such a right, why are you so adamant that nobody be permitted, at any time and in any place, to speak of religion outside the church and/or his own home?
And if you contend that wearing a t-shirt or bumper sticker with an obscene comment on them, why are you against the ‘right’ to expose your genitalia at Nikolai’s Roof?
What some of us who had actual mothers and fathers, as opposed to being reared by wolves, were taught as “common politeness” and “respect for others” apparently has vanished, to be replaced by Toddler Liberation — the freedom to pull down your panties in public, stick everything you can grab into your mouth, and spew obscenity and blasphemy at will.
If you want to live your life in a progressive daycare centre, knock yourself out. However, why not leave the rest of us in peace and quiet?
By Renee
April 11, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Please kill youself
John, I understand your anger but……
Don’t let him get to you…well I guess it’s too late.
By chuck
April 11, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
Actually MORON, it is INSURES.
Dictionary.com Insure:
To make sure, certain, or secure. See Usage Note at assure.
To assure.
en·sure ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-shr) tr.v. en·sured, en·sur·ing, en·sures To make sure or certain; insure: Our precautions ensured our safety. See Usage Note at assure.
By lozen
April 11, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
Does anyone else wish they could understand, even half the time, what FM is trying to say?. I think we’re better off not understanding most of it. After last week and his crude and rude (maybe he inspired this week’s topic) talk about disembodied coochies (to be filled) and disembodied female mouths with no vocal cords(to be used), ugly vaginas and blown out ones (whatever the fu* that is) I think it’s better I don’t understand.
By Renee
April 11, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
There is a big difference between pulling your pants down in public and making a verbal statement (whether obscene or not). You can’t logically compare the two.
By Jack
April 11, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
And you won’t get any pudding!!
By Julia
April 11, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
Careful guys. Someone’s going to post that prozac ad again! ;)
Whoever posted that piece of filth to Chuck should be ashamed. (I didn’t think it was JBM either. Whoever posted that garbage under her name is a real piece of work.)
We’ve got an angry bunch on the blog today. Maybe Net needs to show up and have everyone do their breathing exercises!
By Jack
April 11, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
Lozen. Yes that was bad last week. (even for me)
By RF
April 11, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
If you don’t eat your meat, then you can’t have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat?? Sorry, little Floyd flashback there…great concert, lots of “stuff” passing up and down the aisles…. ahhh, the carefree days of youth!!
By The72John
April 11, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
[Get someone to read the First Amendment to you if you were educated in a public school.]
Hmm…Christian Indoctrination Camp..er..Compound…er…School?
And if you contend there is such a right, why are you so adamant that nobody be permitted, at any time and in any place, to speak of religion outside the church and/or his own home?
Sigh. Another “war on Christianity” nimrod, hmm? Sweetie, we don’t want it in Government. Personally, I don’t want it in my face period, but if you want to skip happily down the street singing bad Christian rock, then by all means, knock yourself out. And I mean that. Literally.
What some of us who had actual mothers and fathers, as opposed to being reared by wolves, were taught as “common politeness” and “respect for others” apparently has vanished, to be replaced by Toddler Liberation — the freedom to pull down your panties in public, stick everything you can grab into your mouth, and spew obscenity and blasphemy at will.
Some of us with actual mothers and fathers understand that obscenity and cough blasphemy are in the eye of the beholder, and that they certainly fall under the protection of the first ammendment. Obscene or crude language in no way constitutes libel or slander, and in the context of the bumper sticker it was assuredly political speech. You…DO know that the protections of the 1st Ammendment have been broadened, right?
By Jack
April 11, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
Hi Julia. Gave that bumper sticker some thought. I think mine would say, “If it feels good, Do it!”
By Chilao
April 11, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
Lozen - I have the same difficulties sometimes with FM, and not why I asked about the hookah.(was trying to do a variation on baklava) LOL
had to read this one twice just now.
but then I have heard ‘complaints’ about my sentence structure as well. My sister told me I write/email like I talk, and apparently that not necessarily a good thing, from her perspective.
By Julia
April 11, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this
“…how can you get any pudding if you don’t eat your meat”…
What song is this from???
By Jack
April 11, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
Gotta go. Everyone have a good one. Don’t do anything I wouldn’t do.
By The72John
April 11, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
Referring to a usage guide, Schmuck. You will find that you are incorrect.
As usual.
By Julia
April 11, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
Whoops! RF beat me to it. ;)
By FatMoose
April 11, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
Does anyone else wish they could understand, even half the time, what FM is trying to say?. I think we’re better off not understanding most of it. After last week and his crude and rude (maybe he inspired this week’s topic) talk about disembodied coochies (to be filled) and disembodied female mouths with no vocal cords(to be used), ugly v**** and blown out ones (whatever the fu that is) I think it’s better I don’t understand.*
Is there are part of what I stated today, or last weeks joke that you would like explained? Or did you post for the argument - bc I do not do that on here anymore. (See - a single comment that is about todays topic, but all that is provided as a response is a tangent to an argument. I guess SSDD IS the rule?)
Jack,
Yes that was bad last week. (even for me) But asking someone to kill themselves or calling someone a molester of their relatives is not that bad (for you).
By RF
April 11, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
singing…”all in all you’re just a—nother brick in the WALL”
MAN, that was some good music, especially if you were, well, never mind!!
By Julia
April 11, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
Hey Jack! Great bumper sticker. It sounds like something you’d have on your car. ;)
By The72John
April 11, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
Here’s a cut-and-paste, just for you Chuck. I realize that a sophisticated and nuanced use of the English language is beyond your pathetically literal grasp, but possibly, one day, you’ll understand that there are shades of meanings to words.
These three English words all mean “to make sure or certain” and are commonly confused, even by native speakers. This lesson will ensure that you understand the difference.
Assure
Assure most commonly means “to remove doubt about, to guarantee, to set one’s mind at rest.” It is a verbal statement of certainty. Assure is the only one of these three verbs that can be used with a person as the direct object.
I assure you that we will be on time.
He assured us that there were no delays.
Assure can also mean ensure (see below).
In British English, assurance is used as a synonym for a particular type of insurance (see below).
Ensure
Ensure means “to make sure or certain” and must be followed by a direct object. Ensure indicates the action of guaranteeing, as opposed to the spoken guarantee indicated by assure.
Winning the lottery ensured our happiness.
His loyalty will ensure your safety.
Insure
Insure refers to the provision of insurance: coverage against a specified loss.
My new car is not yet insured.
Our house was insured when the storm hit.
By Julia
April 11, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
RF-“high as a kite?”
By FatMoose
April 11, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
Chilao,
Could you really not understand my post today?
The person offended (recieving the words) is in direct control to the power words have, not the person saying the words.
By Jack
April 11, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
Yes Moose. I am ashamed of anyone who does that on the blog. It is bad for me. Should be bad for everyone. Now I really have to go…
By Julia
April 11, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this
Just for you RF…(enjoy)
Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me. Is there anyone at home? Come on, now, I hear you’re feeling down. Well I can ease your pain Get you on your feet again. Relax. I’ll need some information first. Just the basic facts. Can you show me where it hurts?
There is no pain you are receding A distant ship, smoke on the horizon. You are only coming through in waves. Your lips move but I can’t hear what you’re saying. When I was a child I had a fever My hands felt just like two balloons. Now I’ve got that feeling once again I can’t explain you would not understand This is not how I am. I have become comfortably numb.
O.K. Just a little pinprick. There’ll be no more aaaaaaaaah! But you may feel a little sick. Can you stand up? I do believe it’s working, good. That’ll keep you going through the show Come on it’s time to go.
There is no pain you are receding A distant ship, smoke on the horizon. You are only coming through in waves. Your lips move but I can’t hear what you’re saying. When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse Out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone I cannot put my finger on it now The child is grown, The dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb.
By Chilao
April 11, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this
This battle has been raging since the start, in fact even before the nation existed. Delegates to the first Continental Congress, in 1774, argued over the propriety of opening the session with a prayer
quote from an article at Christian Science Monitor about a review of a book: American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers and the Making of a Nation
full article bottom under BOOKS
By BaronVonDookie
April 11, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this
LOLOLOLOLOL I simply love this topic. I’ll say it again….People…yall need to Dry the F* up. Your tears of unbearable saddness about “Name calling”, the way a person talks, or acts is pathetic. Mommy, Mommy, the bad man said a dirty word, let’s dig Jonny Cochren up and sue the bad man because my little feelings were hurt “Over someone just talking”. Before you ever tell a person how they should talk, act, or W/E… try walking in that person shoes and discover why that person is that way and you just might find out that some folks have lived hard lives or endured tragedy in thier life. Not all of us have lived the cream filled, rainbow sky, flowers everywhere, and perfect world. It’s High time folks grow up and realize LIFE ISN’T FAIR and Crying about it doesn’t make it better, so don’t Force it, that only will cause a temporary solution while creating something much more worse than you had expected or could deal with. In the last 10 years, people have dropped to new lows on whining, before too long this country is gonna like that movie Demolition Man. Where cussing,things you like,hobbies you do, sex, eating habits, the way people dress, and act are all controlled. I guess I’ll be living in the sewers like the scum I am, for wanting to keep it real while riding the Jock of the Over sensitive. /end rant
By Jack
April 12, 2006 07:04 AM | Link to this
Dookie has a point.
By Gary Harrison
April 12, 2006 07:42 AM | Link to this
Most of this above is a useless dialog. People have to talk nasty because they are nasty on the inside. I am not saying to be overly polite which is an effete way to lie. You CAN frame language in a way that does not injure or offend anyone (only that takes some consideration of others, an ingredient which is sadly missing in our culture). “In the LAST days men shall be lovers of self………”
By chuck
April 12, 2006 07:54 AM | Link to this
Usage Guide john?
You really don’t want to start this with me john. While you may be good at pitching little “hissy fits”, you aren’t good at much else.
The American Heritage® Book of English Usage. A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.
§ 35. assure / ensure / insure Assure, ensure, and insure all mean “to make secure or certain.” Only assure is used with reference to a person in the sense of “to set the mind at rest”: The ambassador assured the Prime Minister of his loyalty. Although ensure and insure are generally interchangeable, only insure is now widely used in American English in the commercial sense of “to guarantee persons or property against risk.” If you want to keep them straight, it may be easier just to give these words separate roles: I assure you that we have insured the grounds to ensure that we will be protected in case of a lawsuit stemming from an accident. 1
By Bruce
April 12, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this
I can assure you that I have had about enough of 72John and Chuck and their battle of the words. I wish someone could ensure they stop it very soon. I would also like to be insured in case they start up again.
Please guys let it go…….Geez
By Bruce
April 12, 2006 08:13 AM | Link to this
If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
By Jack
April 12, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this
Don’t bite John. Please.
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this
And let us remember that although it is now considered acceptable to pronounce the word “often” with the “t,” the “t” was initially silent.
Not that it matters, but I think both John and the other one are right. The definition and usage of the word “insure” has changed to include the same definition as “ensure”… BUT, that’s only happened because, like “often,” so many people have used it incorrectly.
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
Chilao,
I am still interested in your answer. Could you really not understand my post yesterday?
The person offended (receiving the words) is in direct control to the power words have, not the person saying the words.
By Jack
April 12, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this
That is way to close to the door. Please close the door.
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
Great post By BaronVonDookie!
Talk about deserving of a Tiara, this post deserves the whole superhero outfit!
By Chilao
April 12, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
well, I want assurance today will be a peaceful blog day. Okay, I’m a dreamer, I know. LMAO
and I could give a rat’s ugly behind(pg-13) if I used the proper word. also a LMAO
FM - yeah, had to read it twice, got that one well after two reads, general problem is we all probably tend to read in blocks, and if we parse the blocks incorrectly, well poop(pg-13) happens. LOL. And we all know my structure rather atrocious as well.
Jack - don’t know many or even any women who would want to be kissing Cheta there, so on that thought, I must say I am probably alot better looking, being much younger than him and all. LOL
Julia - don’t take this the wrong way, and feel free to post what you wish(of course!), but that Dark Side of the Moon album has been beat to death(think NO Stairway to Heaven in the movie Wayne’s World).. coincidentally I am not a Pink Floyd fan but my number one(probably) song is that “We don’t need no edjumacation” song.
there got alot off of my chest this morning, gonna be a good one.
By Chilao
April 12, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this
FM = patience, grasshopper. (Since we on a Karate Kid/KungFu kick). LOL
By GOB
April 12, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
JBM - Not to nitpick, but the “t” in often was pronounced until the middle ages, but was then dropped because it was easier to say without it. Then, when literacy began to become prevalent in the 19th century, the “t” began to be used again…So technically, it wasnt being pronounced incorrectly with the “t”
I guess that is nitpicking though, so i apologize.
By RF
April 12, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
well, the language arts teacher in me just has to give chuck some credit. He is correct about the usage. American English is evolving and simplifying as it becomes less formal.
I’m just impressed that there are people out there who realize ensure and insure are two different words. LOL
I’m working on context clues this week with the little cherubs, and the hardest part is convincing them they actually need to know new words!!!
By Chilao
April 12, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
No, I did not hit my hookah this morning, in fact it got cleaned out real well, and then used as a flower vase, before I stored it as ‘aht’ on the mantle.
By RF
April 12, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this
JBM- if you want to see a teenage brain explode, put their, there, and they’re on a piece of paper and ask them the difference. Kills me every time I try to teach it! LOL
By Chilao
April 12, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
Great post, Baron.
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
It’s not that the post can’t be understood, it’s just that they’re often worded so oddly that you have to read it two or three times to really make sense of it. I’m sure Chilao understood it… your posts just don’t read clearly. Well, unless everyone is wrong (no sarcasm here).
I realize that my $0.02 was unsolicited, but I just felt like chiming in on this since I’ve mentioned it myself in the past.
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
GOB, that’s the “good” kind of nitpicking (lol), so no need to apologize. Thanks for the correction, I appreciate that. I’ll have to look it up.
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
Dark Side of the Moon
It is on the The Wall.
By Jack
April 12, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
That was from “The Wall” Old wise one.
By Monica
April 12, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
Okay, RF, here’s my annual tragic irony: kids write in my yearbook, “Your a good teacher.” I’m obviously not that good, huh? I tend to use ensure just because I’m stubborn and that’s the way I’ve always used it. I also can’t accept the recently approved practice of splitting infinitives!
By Julia
April 12, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
A long post for Chuck and Zack. (I apologize in advance for the long post. Ignore if you like.)
What is your ultimate goal as a Christian? To lead others to Christ so they can find forgiveness just as you yourself have been forgiven.(?)
Before you guys found Christ what was your life like? And then what was it like AFTER you found Christ and forgiveness? Are you the same person or are you different? Do you live your lives any differently after being saved?
You guys say that your sins are forgiven through Christ. And that is true. For the bible says that there is no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus.
However, it seems all you want to do here is condem everyone for their sins. You say-get rid of your sins and then come to Christ. The truth is that you come to Christ and then get rid of your sins.
You condem them and then tell them to come to Christ. Christ says basically, Come to me-you will not be condemned.
To be freed from their sins like all followers of Christ have been-first you need to meet Christ. So, how do you get people to meet Him? By being their friend or by being their enemy? Which of the two is more likely to listen to you? Which is more likely to give you the time of day?
My point is that you are going to bring more people to Christ by telling them about who He is and what He has done for you. And by telling them how He set you free from sin and how they can be free from condemnation. (Instead, it seems you would rather make them feel condemed.)
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
RF, it’s funny to watch kids’ brains explode over it, but it’s sad when adults don’t even know that there IS a difference.
I was re-reading the post from the coward who posted under my name yesterday, and they used “your” instead of “you’re.” I wasn’t going to bring it up, but since we’re on the subject, that’s a surefire way of knowing it wasn’t me! LOL!!
I can understand adults who can’t quite get a grip on the difference between these words, but it’s frightening when they don’t even know that there is a difference…
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
Chilao, sorry about my 9:28 - I wasn’t trying to speak for you. I actually posted that much earlier but for some reason it didn’t show up until a few minutes ago….
By Monica
April 12, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
Julia,
I’m going to make a new tiara just for you. Amen, sister!
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this
It’s not that the post can’t be understood, it’s just that they’re often worded so oddly that you have to read it two or three times to really make sense of it. I’m sure Chilao understood it… your posts just don’t read clearly.
For example, in yesterdays post what is difficult? Would like to hear what you have to say given a specific example. I mean, it really does not matter how profound a thought might be if no one understands it when posted.
Well, unless everyone is wrong (no sarcasm here). To be fair,many, but not everyone has mentioned difficulty. What gives me pause to the reality of their observation is that I do not hear people that I am not at odds with mentioning it. And the people who do mention it speak up only after someone brings it up as an argument vs in normal conversation.
An example of this would be yesterdays post. Chilao only said something AFTER lozen brought it up as a tangent to argue other material. Yet, as you and Chilao explain, he understood it (after second read). Seems that spelling, grammar and sentence structure is really just a last pitch argument most of the time, and can be hard to take seriously.
I realize that my $0.02 was unsolicited, but I just felt like chiming in on this since I’ve mentioned it myself in the past.
np.
By Renee
April 12, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
Julia - I think that was a good post. I sincerely hope people are not on here for the sole reason of “bringing people to Christ”. Maybe if issues were discussed and people were able to communicate without an agenda, that would alleviate some problems as far as Chuck, Zack and anyone else is concerned.
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
Julia, bless your heart, honey… don’t bother. There’s nothing you can say here that hasn’t already been said. The one you call “chuck” just doesn’t get it. Trust me. Or better yet, check the archives. He’s a different brand of “christian.” His goal is NOT to bring people to Christ. His goal is to offend people, because he believes that the Bible gives him license to be offensive since “the gospel is offensive.”
A scripture just popped in my head - somewhere in Proverbs, it says that it’s harder to win a person who has been offended than it is to win over entire city!
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
I’m sorry, I left out a word…
…it’s harder to win a person who has been offended than it is to win over an entire city!
By Chilao
April 12, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
JBM - cool, did not matter, (don’t take that the wrong way..LOL) but I first read that as “Chilao write so bizarrely as well, he probably only requires 2 reads” (J/K, like I said, in a great mood)
THE WALL? no kidding. sounded(read) like a DarkSide thing. Got The Wall as a birthday present (CD) but only listen to that illogical song (you can’t eat have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat, how can blah blah) one of the greatest song lines. but like the song for the ‘we don’t need no/WALL’ part. like I said, not really a Pink Floyd fan, always thought they were overrated. heresy, I know. LOL
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
So, back to the topic:
Lets take the word Honky. It was attempted to be used as a inflammatory word, but never took hold because it did not bother whites enough.
Using the word “girl” or “n$$$$$r” bw two on the inside is not offensive either. Being a redneck is something that a southerner is proud of if in the same context as the above terms.
The same goes for if I call Jack a “grublokov,” unless it MEANS something to Jack, it will not offend him. This is still non-offensive even if I do know what it means and it has great power/meaning to me bc the power in a word depends on the receiver, not the sender.
Seems we have to be taught how to be offended, not how to offend.
Thoughts?
By Jack
April 12, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
Julia you sweet thing.
By RF
April 12, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
where’s net? He needs to hand over the tiara—Julia needs it today!! You go girl!
JBM- you’re requires knowing what that “comma-looking thang” is, and knowing that it’s a contraction of two words. English will eventually look and sound like pig latin at the rate we’re going!
Monica- yep, I know the feeling!! How was your spring break by the way? I actually managed to spend the week NOT thinking about school!!
By Renee
April 12, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
Seems like Christians have enough time taken up in their lives maintaining their relationship and devotion to Jesus, making sure their own closet is clean, without additionally trying to win people over.
By RF
April 12, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
What gives me pause to the reality of their observation is that I do not hear people that I am not at odds with mentioning it
Moose- I understand what you’re saying, but I have to read you twice sometimes becuase you tend to use a convoluted sentence structure. It’s rather like reading James Joyce’s stream of consciousness at times. Not that you don’t have a good point most times, but sometimes we get a little lost in your wordiness and complex sentence structure.
Here’s a clearer way to write the above posted sentence:
*What makes me wonder about their observation is that I do not hear people that I am not at odds with mentioning it.
See what I changed? Not much- I just took out the ‘fluff’ and made it a bit more direct.
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
Got The Wall as a birthday present (CD) but only listen to that illogical song (you can’t eat have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat, how can blah blah)
If you can get your hands on the actual soundtrack it is worth it, but you have to dub it from the DVD (not sold in stores). Many live songs (Bob Geldof singing), an acoustic version of “Mother,” and great out-takes (“Tigers Broke Free” and the rest of “What shall we do now”).
Yeah, I like PF a little.
By Jack
April 12, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
I only get offended when someone questions my work ethic. I have a last name that the children is school had much fun with. Call me anything and it bounces off.
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this
See what I changed? Not much- I just took out the ‘fluff’ and made it a bit more direct.
I agree. I also think that two reads for a good point makes is more acceptable than a single read on an inane/backwards point. This last sentence is not directed at anyone.
By Chilao
April 12, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
FM - I have seen that movie, not sure I remember it though. LOL
Okay, this whole sentence structure thing, late last week I thought of something they tried to teach me in a BizCommun class: so off the cuff:
Company is about to merge with another company, and people are inquisitive and asking questions:
5th grader - “what gives with this merger?”.
H.S. Senior - “what could be the possible implications for the employees, customers and vendors for this merger?”.
middle middle-aged manager at one of the companies: “could you tell me the eventual economic implications for (see no 2. above) as well as the possible anti-trust situation.
SR CEO - “what gives with this merger?”
point was KISS. I flunked. LOL
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
RF, your 10:08 hit the nail on the head for me.
FM,
For example, in yesterdays post what is difficult? Would like to hear what you have to say given a specific example. I mean, it really does not matter how profound a thought might be if no one understands it when posted.
As RF pointed out, it’s mainly your sentence structure. It’s the way you put the sentence together. Your writing tends to be very indirect, fraught with fluffy phrases that get in the way of clarity. At the risk of being redundant, RF said it best. Here’s another example “would like to hear what you have to say given a specific example,” could have been “I’d like to hear a specific example.” Using more words and phrases doesn’t automatically increase one’s writing level and make one appear more intelligent - sometimes it just makes the writing confusing.
And, I agree with you that the meaning of the most profound statement would be lost if the statement is misunderstood.
To be fair,many, but not everyone has mentioned difficulty…And the people who do mention it speak up only after someone brings it up as an argument vs in normal conversation.
Is it possible that the people who mentioned having a problem understanding your writing weren’t trying to attack you or start an argument with you? Is it possible that they’re being sincere even if they do have malicious intent. I’m inclined to believe that a person is more likely to raise the issue after seeing an example of it, as opposed to raising the issue because they want to pick on you.
An example of this would be yesterdays post. Chilao only said something AFTER lozen brought it up as a tangent to argue other material. Yet, as you and Chilao explain, he understood it (after second read).
But, Chilao isn’t known for picking arguments with you, or anyone else, so you can only deduce that he was being sincere and had good intentions. Furthermore, yesterday wasn’t the first time he asked you about it.
Seems that spelling, grammar and sentence structure is really just a last pitch argument most of the time, and can be hard to take seriously.
I can only speak for myself, FM. I am more than willing to debate any subject with you, or anyone else who is respectful, at an intelligence level equal to or greater than mine, and who I can understand. I’m being as sincere as I’ve ever been: your writing is difficult to understand. I’m not saying that because it’s a “last pitch” effort to get out of a debate or evade an issue. I’m saying it because it’s true. No sarcasm, no malicious intent, not trying to argue… if only the less intelligent remarked about it, you could dismiss it as their not being on your level. But, you’ve heard from intelligent people, and more importantly, from impartial people like RF and Chilao, who have nothing against you (or at least not that I can recall). Are these two wrong too?
Just this one time, give it some consideration. Think about the possibility that we are right.
By Monica
April 12, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
RF, great Spring Break. Some of my colleagues actually took home papers to grade, but not me!! We had a rainy, but relaxing week. Glad yours was good.
Renee, Christians are supposed to do all that, except keep the closets clean. We have to have somewhere to hide our transgressions. ha ha :)
There are many Christians who choose to focus on the laws and legalistic aspects; while I think that the laws are of vital importance, I focus more on having a relationship with Christ, and let that be the guide. Of course I want to win others to Christ, but, like Julia, I know that condemning others is not the way to make friends or to win souls.
By Archie
April 12, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
Frankly, I like some of the posts by FatMoose but there appears to be some b.s. in the way things are written. This an internet blog which means no one knows you and you can only impress people so much. It is better to just write in a way that gets straight to the point. Many people are blogging while at work so they can’t re-read a post even if they want to give you(Moose,etc) the respect your post deserves. This particular blog is visited mainly by people over 30 so their collegiate years are long gone. Just get to the point. I don’t read long,cut and paste posts and the reason some have not commented is because they don’t come to a blog looking for conflict.
By Chilao
April 12, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
and Jack - I think it is supposed to be oh, wise one, and I was way too young to having to be at work, so I missed Woodstock, okay? I may have been baling hay on a farm, but…LOL .. I have worked in some form since about 11/12 but.
sounded like a black kettle, thing. LMAO
By Jack
April 12, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Who knows what a “fluffer” is? Chilao wait on this one. Let’s see if any of the ladies know.
By Chilao
April 12, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
wow, they(posting software) turned my itemizing numbers 1-2-3-4 into bullets. second bullet then.
By Brian Curtis
April 12, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
Kate:
The Constitution makes no such condition that free speech only means “political” speech. The Supreme Court rulings have supported, time and again, that ANY sort of expression is protected by the First Amendment until/unless a competing national interest (such as state secrets, military security, etc.) is involved.
As for “nobody being permitted to speak of religion outside of church or their own home”… where, exactly, would you LIKE to speak of religion? On publicly owned property, on an even basis with all other faiths and viewpoints? In public schools, where your Bible is taught as truth? Or in your work as a public official, demonstrating religious prejudice in your treatment of American citizens (in violation of their Constitutional rights—-the exact same right, in fact)?
Courtesy IS important… but it can’t and shouldn’t be enforced by law. Social constraints, not government action, are the way to support standards of politeness and considerate behavior. And if you want to live in “peace and quiet,” so do I; that’s why I have the right to control what goes on in my home, but not anyone else’s.
Some recommendations for everyone:
By Julia
April 12, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
Thanks to Monica, Renee, JBM, Jack and RF. You guys are the BEST!
(I just wanted to put my 4 cents in for the morning for a couple of folks.)
JBM-great verse by the way. And I completely understand what you were saying. I just felt compelled to say it anyway.
I’m off my soap box and ready for a fun day! :)
By Chilao
April 12, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
JACK - you knew I would know, heh? Good one, ‘cause I do.
By Randy
April 12, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
My softball team that I coach always does a prayer before a game. Last night one of the girls prayed that we would win. I said don’t pray for that, the other team is probably doing the same thing, remember the movie Bruce Almighty where everybody prayed to win the lottery.
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
Chilao, your 10:26 is a good example.
By Bruce
April 12, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Julia, Sometimes we Christains lose focus and start down a path that only causes confusion and anger. I for one thank you for your post and hope I never forget it AGAIN!!!
I do believe however that there are some that do not (or do not want to) realize a Christain can disagree with a situation and still love the person/people in that situation. Which makes communication very difficult. At least it does for me.
By Chilao
April 12, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
Randy - what if your team did not pray for the win, and the other team did, and the other team won?
would your team conclude it was only because they did not pray for the win? talking about specific prayer request related to winning, not a general prayer request no one get hurt, etc.
Comversely, if they prayed for the win, and the other team did not, and the other team lost, would they(your team) conclude they won because they prayed for the win?
A variation on “God must be on our side because we won the battle, but not on our side because we lost the war”
By The72John
April 12, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
My last word on the matter.
Anyone who uses the English language regularly knows that there are many usages that are considered more correct than others, and many words that are very close in their dictionary meaning but different in terms of nuance.
Looking in the dictionary for a definition is a good start, but it certainly doesn’t capture the complete picture.
I suggest anyone who doubts this do a little research on assure/insure/ensure. You’ll find that the consensus is that “insure” should be used to refer to insurance and other financial arrangements.
By Bruce
April 12, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
Jack, I know what it means too.
By Archie
April 12, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
I loved Bruce Almighty. I agree with Brian that immigration topic deserves a week all it’s own but I am not surprised.
“As for “nobody being permitted to speak of religion outside of church or their own home”… where, exactly, would you LIKE to speak of religion? On publicly owned property, on an even basis with all other faiths and viewpoints? In public schools, where your Bible is taught as truth? Or in your work as a public official, demonstrating religious prejudice in your treatment of American citizens (in violation of their Constitutional rights—-the exact same right, in fact)?”
I like this statement because no one is going to stop me from praying but at the same time I did not want to be a part of the at-work Bible study because I know my views are too left-wing for most religious folk.
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
But, you’ve heard from intelligent people, and more importantly, from impartial people like RF and Chilao, who have nothing against you (or at least not that I can recall). Are these two wrong too?
Just this one time, give it some consideration. Think about the possibility that we are right.
I am not arguing whether my writing style is difficult to understand. What I AM saying is that RF, Jack, Chilao, and many others concur with statements like the one lozen made yesterday, but lozen’s point (not chilao’s and those who followed) was disingenuous. Lozen’s point of commenting IS to be argumentative, creating discord for no other reason than to muck up the waters. Those are the comments that are frustrating, bc, as with this one, the tactic works.
Any input on the topic yet?
By RF
April 12, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
FM- back to your 9:58. You’re right on that one. The offense of a word depends on the how it is received and familiarity with the person using it. My brother can call me ‘girly-man’ and I just take it an invitation to a ‘slam-fest’ with each other, at which point I call him a totally playful name in return. If a total stranger calls me that name, I’m ready to fight. It’s all about familiarity with the deliverer as well as how it’s delivered.
By Renee
April 12, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Lozen’s point of commenting IS to be argumentative, creating discord for no other reason than to muck up the waters.
Not to be argumentative, but at times you have issued the same argumentative point of commenting. Whether you mean it to be argumentative or you sometimes just like to “stir the pot”, it is usually viewed as the prior of the two, even if that is not the truth.
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
Okay, so are you agreeing that your writing is difficult to understand?
(And by the way, I don’t know if Chilao et al. really care to get involved with Lozen’s beef with you… it doesn’t seem like they’re concurring with the intention, but with the substance; I tend to think that they (we) are just agreeing with the simple opinion that your writing is difficult to process. Whatever issues she has with you is between the two of you, and is separate and apart from her remarks about your writing).
I guess what I’m saying is that although Lozen et al. may have bad intentions, don’t automatically dismiss the feedback you’re getting about your writing as an insignificant and untrue.
By Jack
April 12, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
Moose. The posts of last week IMO would be fine talking with a bunch of men. Not good for mixed company.
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
RF, I agree.
I’m very desensitized to most namecalling… there are really only two things that get under my skin when it comes to improper or “crude” speech: one is when strangers call me “baby” or some other term of endearment. I’m not necessarily offended by it, it just irritates me - and I never hesitate to let the offender know.
The other thing that I’ve grown sensitive to in my adult years is racially motivated namecalling. I think I may have been blinded to (or shielded from) racism as a youth and teenager. But, when I attended college in the richest town on Long Island, where there were like 3 minority families… I began to experience things I hadn’t experienced growing up. I saw things differently, and accordingly, my views changed.
It still circles back to familiarity, because like someone pointed out earlier, being called “girl” from my girlfriends or sisters (or even male friends) is a term of endearment - it has no negative undertones. But, being called “girl” by a stranger, especially a white stranger, is something all together different. Another example (I’m sorry to raise two taboo subjects, but that’s my life, so that’s all I know) is that in my circle of acquaintances, it is very common to call a gay man a “punk,” and a lesbian a “d**.” Although I personally don’t like it, it doesn’t even raise an eyebrow with my friends. It’s like a loving, friendly term of endearment to them… beats me! :-/
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
If a total stranger calls me that name, I’m ready to fight. It’s all about familiarity with the deliverer as well as how it’s delivered.
I feel that you are still giving too much of power to the person delivering the words.
Girly-man means something to you, hence why it offends you. What the word means to the person saying it to you does not matter except that it compounds what you already feel towards the word.
For example, if some Joe calls you a girly-man randomly at a bar, you would get somewhat angry. But if that same person called you that the next time you were at the bar with the knowledge that you find it offensive, you would get even more angry.
The situation that happened regarding “girl” on here fits this scenario. The first time chuck said it, it bothered someone (renee or JBM), but if someone used it towards her now, it would be a whole bunch worse.
But ultimately, the influence in the word lies with the person offended. This is in no way claiming that people do not have the right to find whatever words they want as offensive.
The endpoint being that if one finds themselves regularly offended, you can wait for the world to change, or you can change your buttons so they cannot be pushed.
We need advocate putting people in charge of their own feelings, not others.
By The72John
April 12, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
So, you’re basically saying that a black person living in the South in the 60’s was responsible for his anger at all the white people calling him boy and n****? You’re absolving everyone but the victim of verbal abuse because they aren’t, in your opinion, emotionally developed enough the shrug off verbal abuse?
By RF
April 12, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
For example, if some Joe calls you a girly-man randomly at a bar, you would get somewhat angry. But if that same person called you that the next time you were at the bar with the knowledge that you find it offensive, you would get even more angry.
Possibly, although personally the second time I went there I’d know to avoid the person. I’d definitely be aware of him though, and if he repeated his name-calling, I’d probably do something.
Although, I still think it depends to some degree on the deliverer. See JBM’s 11:52 post. We can try to ignore the person, but the offense level often depends on the deliverer and his or her intent. If the person calls me the name with the intent of instigating a fight, he’ll probably get more response than if he says it as I pass without intending for me to hear it.
By Archie
April 12, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
In response to your 11:53 post,FatMoose why can’t people have manners and common sense? As a man I have no understanding as to why JBM finds the word “girl” offensive coming from whites but then I did not grow up the way she did. My common sense would tell me to use some other term unless I am looking for a conflict. Terry Bradshaw says he’s hurt to this day by the words Thomas Henderson used to describe Bradshaw’s intelligence 26 years ago. Let’s be intelligent if we are intelligent because people can’t change their buttons. It sounds kind of stupid to suggest that because no one has to use slurs,and demeaning words. The words a person uses are chosen by that person and some people know good and well they’re being offensive thus there’s no need for the person receiving the offensive words to change but the person delivering them. For example the words of Joseph Wilson were used as a reason to punish him via his wife. Wilson told the truth but since it didn’t fit the plan someone said something that they easily could not have said. Most men don’t like being called “girly man” so the only reason to use a term like that most of the time is to insult. There are numerous examples of people who act as if they were not insulted on the outside but plotted against the offending party and followed thru with said plot.
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
Okay, so are you agreeing that your writing is difficult to understand?
Repost: I am not arguing whether my writing style is difficult to understand.
And to be sure the question is answered: Yes, I understand that (especially when I was writing from the cuff) my posts can take a couple reads.
By Jack
April 12, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
When someone calls you a name just say,”Fa Que and the horse you road in on” LOL
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
John, your 12:08 says, quite eloquently, what I was thinking.
FM - For clarity, if someone other than satan called me “girl” now it wouldn’t be worse. Depending on what I thought their intentions were, I would correct them. If I thought they were unwittingly getting too common with me, I would just tell them not to call me that since they don’t know me that well. If I thought they were trying to be rude or offensive, I might say it a little more harshly.
Also, after satan repeatedly called me “girl” I just ignored him, realizing that he was just up to his usual devices.
By Jack
April 12, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
So he can’t call you “girl” but it is acceptable to call him “Satan”?
By Jack
April 12, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
“Take me down to Junior’s farm”
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
RF,
If the person calls me the name with the intent of instigating a fight, he’ll probably get more response than if he says it as I pass without intending for me to hear it.
IMO, that means you give the delivery person total control over your emotional state, and what you are reacting to is really a response to the initial occurrence back in your past.
Archie,
Let’s be intelligent if we are intelligent because people can’t change their buttons.
But I do not agree that IS an intelligent direction. Using ones intelligence a person can change their buttons, hence why (for the big issues) people seek out a therapist.
FatMoose why can’t people have manners and common sense?
I agree you have to pick your battles regarding if you know a certain word will bring about conflict. But, I stand by the reality that your feelings are your responsibility, not mine. If we all had responsibility for each others emotional states, and used what we know might offend others as a limiting factor, conversations would be reduced to pure surface talk.
For example, my name is VERY different and I had heard a few rhymes that bothered me as a child. For years I would get pi$$ed when someone would call me it. One day I had to make the decision that it was not going to offend me anymore. I realized that, seeing as I cannot control how others mispronounce my name or name call, I need to change that button if I do not want to have a string negative feelings the rest of my life.
If someones intention IS to offend, the point above is even more important to adhere to, for they of all people should not have control over my emotional state.
By Chilao
April 12, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
I have both a first name and a surname that makes for good playful ryhmes, each alone with another word or more(meaning both have several words each that rhyme well). cannot give examples with identifying myself and not about to do that.
All are in good fun, kinda like them. However one I absolutely cannot stand. I used to let the person using know I could not stand it. which of course means that I would then hear it all the time. for some reason, they thought it was cute.
what I learned to do was not acknowledge it, and not reveal I Absolutely Effin Hated It. Means the person uses it once, gets no reaction and doubtful I hear it again from that person. Since I did not reveal it really rubbed me wrong.
An example would be the uncle I had, known as Stan the Man.
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
So, you’re basically saying that a black person living in the South in the 60’s was responsible for his anger at all the white people calling him boy and n*?*
No, that was a situation of unequal power and the words were used to emphasize that.
Now, which is the time period we are talking about, the offense of those words are attached to those original occurrences and the brain fires the same chems as though the person was in the SAME hierarchy that existed back then, but that person, in reality, is not.
The white person does not have the upperhand as they did in the 60s, and neither does the comment - unless the receiver provides it.
The offended person contributes to the process here bc they believe/feel the person talking smack is expressing that they have an upperhand. If the offended person “knew in their heart” that this is just a person talking smack, they would laugh at the fool (offender) that he/she is.
By RF
April 12, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
So Moose, how many times would you ignore a person calling you a derogatory name directed at you with intent to offend? What if that person gets in your face and obviously wants a response from you? What I’m getting at here is that every person has limits to what he’ll endure, right? Where is your point that you wouldn’t walk away and keep your power? Some folks can do that longer than others. It’s not about intelligence, it’s about ability to put up with another person’s intrusion.
By The72John
April 12, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
When school kids make fun of your name when you are 10, you get over it.
When you are 30 years old and the teasing about your name has been replaced with slurs directed at you because of something you are, it’s not quite so simple.
For most adults the serious name calling stops when you hit 10th or 11th grade. It’s not a part of your world.
For some of us, the name calling never stops. We read the names in the papers, or hear them from people we work with, or hear them when we are at the movies, or socializing in public with friends.
Get back to me when you’ve endured real namecalling.
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
John, I have to agree with your 1:02… this goes wayyyy beyond the childhood teasing of one’s name or any other teasing that goes along with childhood. I was teased because I was the only black person in my class - several years. The kids never made any malicious racial comments though, I don’t think they even knew to. I was just teased for being brown, having “wild” hair, eating different foods than they did for lunch, or having “big” lips, or a “big” nose, etc. I was teased for having a mole over my lip - the kids used to call me booger lip! LOL! That is NOT real namecalling - and although it may be hurtful to a kid, it’s definitely not the type of thing that would bother me today.
I hate to say it, but it goes back to something I said last week (feel free to misquote me or twist my words, if you must): until you have lost a child, you don’t know the grief of losing a child; until you are homosexual, you don’t know the pain of sexual discrimination; until you are non-white, you don’t know the pain of racial discrimination, etc.
You can talk all you want about what you would do in that situation, and how little it would mean to you, and how it wouldn’t hurt you one bit, or you wouldn’t let the person push your buttons or whatever… but none of that means a hill of beans to me if you don’t have a real life story to back it up.
And, I couldn’t care less about someone making fun of your middle name when you were a kid…
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
RF, if I may add to the last sentence of your 1:02, it’s about the ability and the desire to put up with another person’s intrusion.
I might be able to endure your snide or crude comments; but still desire to punch your lights out, or curse you out, or just let you know that I prefer not to be addressed in xyz manner.
By Renee
April 12, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
JBM, John, excellent comments.
Interesting article on free speech
By Jack
April 12, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
“So he can’t call you “girl” but it is acceptable to call him “Satan”?”
So you ignored this one. OK.
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
Chilao,
what I learned to do was not acknowledge it, and not reveal I Absolutely Effin Hated It. Means the person uses it once, gets no reaction and doubtful I hear it again from that person. Since I did not reveal it really rubbed me wrong.
Exactly my point also.
RF,
What I’m getting at here is that every person has limits to what he’ll endure, right? Where is your point that you wouldn’t walk away and keep your power? Some folks can do that longer than others. It’s not about intelligence, it’s about ability to put up with another person’s intrusion.
I agree we all have our limits, but, for me, that tranlates to we will always have work to do, some more than others. I am in no way saying it is not work, and we ALL have some work to do in our own personal weak areas. The point is that these areas existed BEFORE the word of the day is mentioned.
Some folks can do that longer than others. It’s not about intelligence, it’s about ability to put up with another person’s intrusion.
To put up with someone elses intrusion one must understand where it comes and use that knowledge to diffuse it, which does rely on intelligence and self-awareness.
J27-
Get back to me when you’ve endured real namecalling.
Another assumption? The count is now three posts that are base on what you do not know. And as if you hold a monopoly on being called names…that is just ASD.
Why not join the conversation and not be bitter?
When you are 30 years old and the teasing about your name has been replaced with slurs directed at you because of something you are, it’s not quite so simple.
I do not see anyone stating it is simple, nor am I. But, simple or hard, if the control lies with you, what choice do you have otherwise? Get angry everyday? No thanks.
By RF
April 12, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
JBM- I know what you mean. Sometimes I don’t have the desire to rise above and put up with people.
You and John both made good points. Adults call names with the intent to provoke and hurt, much more so than kids do. And sometimes it’s hard to ignore.
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
Jack - I’m not calling him satan to ruffle his feathers or instigate an argument. I refer to him as satan because satan is an evil force whose mission is to disturb peace and push people further away from God. I believe that “chuck” fulfills that mission on this blog, and therefore, is on satan’s team, not Christ’s. I don’t call him that to annoy him, anger him, or hurt him. I’m simply exposing the devil’s devices so that people who follow Christ, and people who are considering following Christ will know that he is not on the same team.
I can’t really explain it in depth without raising a bunch of eyebrows, but I’m sure “chuck” knows exactly where I’m coming from, even though he doesn’t agree with my classification.
For further explanation, see any one of my previous posts on how I came to realize who he really is.
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
JBM,
I already stated that you have the right to feel however you want. I can honestly say that I to do not care if you decide to get piping mad every time someone says “HooYaa,” by the same reasoning I have been applying: Your state is going to have minimal effect, if any, on mine.
But as you pointed out, and I agree, desire of peace or discord is a large factor in what buttons people change or work to cope with. Until one desires less cacophony in their life, they will not change those buttons that are the most sensitive.
By GOB
April 12, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this
And, I couldn’t care less about someone making fun of your middle name when you were a kid…
JBM - Doesnt this do the exact thing that you have stated you despise white people doing? Isnt this a case of you validating or invalidating someone else’s claim of discrimination?
By Renee
April 12, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Actually, FM has a good argument but it’s not realistic.
I’m sure everybody has experienced name calling. Generally speaking as an adult, names become more malicious and even if they are in jest, you know as an adult what you will or will not tolerate. One persons jest can be another’s disrespect. And when calling someone a racial slur or homosexual slur is generally meant maliciously, when coming from someone who is not part of that group. Therefore, the likelihood to overlook it (which might be the smart way to go, emotion will take over). I will overlook some comments/names, others I won’t. The ones I won’t look over, some would look small to another, but that doesn’t matter. It is how I perceive it to be. I don’t know how you could perceive a stranger calling me n or d* could be perceived wrong on my part.
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
And, I couldn’t care less about someone making fun of your middle name when you were a kid…
JBM - Doesn’t this do the exact thing that you have stated you despise white people doing? Isn’t this a case of you validating or invalidating someone else’s claim of discrimination?
JBM, you might want to clarify these points or leave them alone all-together. It states that one does not know how you feel, but you sure know how they feel and it does not rise to the same degree as your hurt.
I know what you mean, but do not adhere to that notion. I have long ago disbanded the “but it is different” argument from my arsenal. For the only thing that makes it different is that the instance happened to you. Bad feelings, no matter who the person is, have the same chem structure in the brain and effect - what you do with it in your thought process is “what’s different.”
By The72John
April 12, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
It’s ironic that in your speech about name calling you still choose to use a derogatory twist of my handle in a rather feeble attempt to be demeaning. It’s equally amusing that, as always, you consistently set the terms on what you consider to be “joining the conversation”.
I have joined the conversation in a manner that is relevant to me and my take on your statement. If you don’t like or agree with my position, then by all means I welcome your input, however do not presume to dictate what is and is not an acceptable contribution.
Please, tell us what pervasive name-calling you experience in your life? Last time I looked, there weren’t anti-half-turkish slurs in every other rap song or movie, and there weren’t people celebrating at the funerals of half-turkish people because another one had been sent to hell.
By Jack
April 12, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
He said he was a “long hair” dating an African-American in South Georgia and you don’t think he caught flack about that?
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
I hope not, GOB. What I despise is when white people feel the need to let a black person know - unsolicited - whether or not they agree that a particular case is racism, as though we need a stamp of approval before we can proceed venting or complaining. That’s quite different, to me.
Making fun of a middle name is hardly discrimination. Unless the person’s middle name is Tigger and you call them Tigger the N—- or something like that. But, that’s beside my point anyway. My point was that I’m not interested in discussing what might have been hurtful when you were a child, but doesn’t bother you anymore. If you got over it, you can’t use it as an example of how crude and offensive language doesn’t affect you and shouldn’t affect me. I’d much rather discuss what is hurtful today.
Don’t tell me that I need to learn to shut my buttons off so nobody pushes them, and then give me an example of the time you were in 4th grade and a boy made you cry by calling you Agatha the Hag… but, now you’re over it. That’s an irrelevant example, and that was my point. Tell me about the time, recently, that the taxi driver made you pay first.
I didn’t mean to dismiss the 3rd grade namecalling as insignificant, but as irrelevant.
By Jack
April 12, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Moose’s theory sounds valid if you read Lyrazel’s post about the difference in feelings when a Black calls another Black the “N” word vs. a White calling a Black the same. It’s all how YOU take it.
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
I don’t know how you could perceive a stranger calling me n or d could be perceived wrong on my part.*
Just an example of how it can be perceived wrong: The person calling you a name has no more power than you do. The are just another person, not a pivotal point that will determine anything about you - until you give them power.
The person’s intent is easily understood - this we can agree on. Yet, the person calling names is actually lower than you and has no authority to put you in a box. The box must be accepted for any of their comments to have meaning.
I believe dismantling the box is more effective than protecting and furthing it.
By Randy
April 12, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
Much of the conversation today is on Chuck and Zack not representing JESUS in a good manner and with these opinions, I would agree. I have been guilty of this in the past also and we as Christians need to remember the Church song “Jesus is tenderly calling”. Jesus wants people to love him of their own free will, tenderly. Let’s be more like Christ and back off. Don’t try to make anyone do anything, a desire to know Jesus is in their heart if they will listen. Be nice. As my 2 year old granddaughter would say.
By Archie
April 12, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Renee I don’t think FatMoose has a good argument at all. It is totally illogical. I were to run into Ed Hartwell,middle linebacker for the Falcons,he can call me names and he does have physical power over me because he’s bigger,stronger,faster, and younger. For most people Hartwell is intimidating. If a person says something and they are unaware that they are insulting how does that person have power? That person has a problem. When you issue insults it is you that lacks the power because it is something in that other person that makes you take your precious time to insult them. Heck, Jews have words that offend them and they will let you know it. Just ask Michael Jackson. Please make a logical argument.
I would like to ask the women why is it so hard for some of you to apologize? Should that reporter that had an affair with Bill Campbell make a public apology to Mrs. Campbell? I ask that question because a certain person posted about all the crude things women put up with and how bad we men treat women. I just wonder why women don’t have a code of ethics that acknowledges wrongdoing. I do mean SOME women.
By Renee
April 12, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Okay I just fell out of my chair here at work.
FM & I agree on something. Hell must have frozen over LOL.
I know it wasn’t meant to be funny JBM but Tigger the N* LMAO…
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
FM - I’m quite relieved that we were able to have a decent discussion today without getting sarcastic or condescending.
That said, I find it unfortunate that you frequently characterize me as being “heated” or “piping mad.” I don’t really care to have you explain your reasons for drawing these conclusions, nor would I ask you to justify the characterization. I just noticed that whenever I say something that you disagree with, particularly if I’m impassioned or excited, you assume I’m angry or heated. I guess the only thing I can tell you is that you’d have to know me in order to really know whether I’m angry or not. Generally, I don’t get angry on this blog when people disagree with me - I enjoy it, as long as they’re being as respectful to me as I’m being to them. In real life, I’m a pretty patient person who rarely gets riled up over anything.
Renee and I disagree on a lot of different subjects offline… we both get loud, excited, passionate, bug-eyed, etc. But, we don’t get angry about it. We chalk it up to a good, intelligent exchange of ideas.
I guess it goes to the fact that online, you can only rely on a person’s words - you have no facial expressions, no hand gestures or body language, no tone of voice to assist you with understanding the emotion behind a person’s statements.
Thusfar, there have been four times on this blog that I’ve been “piping” mad - like angry enough to spit. And, both of those times have been because of one person’s comments to another person (not even involving me).
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
It’s ironic that in your speech about name calling you still choose to use a derogatory twist of my handle in a rather feeble attempt to be demeaning.
Good example!
For I have not read back yet, but when I read this I was surprised. I had not intended to use a left-handed name in any way.
This proves what I am saying, the power lies with the receiver.
I just scrolled up and I see I swapped the 2 and 7. That is just aweful.
How about YOU explain how that unintentional swap equates a slur? Also, it proves my point that if you want to get offended, you can, and it is your choice.
By RF
April 12, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
Jack- I agree with him to a point, too. I still think the intent behind the name is awfully powerful too. If you’re black and a white person calls you the “n” word, you’re going to have a harder time shaking it off than if another black person calls you that. It isn’t logical, but the intent affects the response to some degree. I’ll admit I don’t always get it, but being white I know there really aren’t any derogatory names someone could call me that would be overly hurtful.
When someone calls you a name just say,”Fa Que and the horse you road in on” LOL
See, that’s a pretty good response, but Moose will say that’s ‘giving the person power’ because it’s a response to them. Sometimes, you just can’t ignore other people.
By Chilao
April 12, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Now I was certainly not trying to imply being called something like Stan the Man was in anyway similiar to more pronounced name-assaults to be considered offensive, commonly known by all, since it could only be considered offensive once I flat out stated I hated being called Stan the man.(for example).
By Renee
April 12, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
Archie, I understand both sides. Personally, if someone calls me something, depending on what it is, then wrath shall follow. Personally, I don’t think anyone should name call ever. Do they have the right to, certainly, but they should look for repercussions afterwards. When you get angry and mad when someone calls you a name or racial epithet then you are certainly giving the one who called you that the power. Realistically speaking, who walks away from a truly demeaning name. I might walk away if you call me a Dumba-s-s, I might explain myself if you call me ignorant, I will go slap off if you call me a dumb n*gger.
I don’t think that Marion Brooks owes Bill Campbell’s wife an apology unless she portrayed herself as her friend or unless she deems one is necessary to for her self-redemption. Bill was adulterous to his wife, Marion had no loyalties towards her. Now, I’m sure she knew of his wife etc… which morally does have her making a bad decision and contributing to the breakdown of a home, which Bill, I might add, was the main contributing factor.
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
JBM, you might want to clarify these points or leave them alone all-together. It states that one does not know how you feel, but you sure know how they feel and it does not rise to the same degree as your hurt.
Okay, now FM, you’re taking it to a whole other level. I thoroughly enjoy debating on this blog. It’s the reason I come here day after day when I should be working! But, it’s no fun if all you do all day long is defend yourself from someone twisting your words.
What GOB said was a fair question. But, what you, FM, said was quite a stretch. I have in no way said that no one knows how I feel, but I know how they feel. WTH??? Where did that even come from? Where did I say that I know how someone feels? Please show me that. And, where did I say that their feelings don’t “rise to the degree” of my hurt?
This is just totally off-base.
I said (and I can’t believe I have to restate it - I’m going to resist the urge to use caps since I’d hate for someone to think I’m getting “heated”):
If you have never lost a child, you do not know the pain of losing a child.
If you are not gay, you do not know the pain of sexual discrimination.
If you are not non-white, you do not know the pain of racial discrimination.
How does that equate, FM, to my saying that your pain is lesser than mine, or that I know how you feel but you don’t know how I feel?
I swear, for the life of me, I don’t understand why some people get so defensive about racial discrimination as though it doesn’t friggin exist…. shoot. It’s like some people think, if we pretend it doesn’t exist or if we invalidate the claims of racism, then we won’t have to hear about it anymore… geez.
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
Archie,
April 12, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Renee I don’t think FatMoose has a good argument at all. It is totally illogical.
If a person says something and they are unaware that they are insulting how does that person have power? They do not and is what I have been saying.
When you issue insults it is you that lacks the power because it is something in that other person that makes you take your precious time to insult them. Once again, the person receiving has the power and is also what I have been saying
I were to run into Ed Hartwell,middle linebacker for the Falcons,he can call me names and he does have physical power over me because he’s bigger,stronger,faster, and younger.
Not talking about physical power here, and never were - these are words. Many of the white people that slander blacks do not necc have physical power over them. It is the assertion that they have a right to say such things based on status which translates into emotional power if the other looses their cool.
Please make a logical argument. But 2/3 of your post proves the logical quality of what I am saying, unless you mis-typed your intro or all the quotes above.
By Julia
April 12, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
Sorry, I’ve been checking in and out today. Payroll day at work. :(
Just wanted to say thanks to Bruce.
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
RF,
It isn’t logical, but the intent affects the response to some degree.
I already stated this. It CAN affect the response and to what degree depends on….you.
but Moose will say that’s ‘giving the person power’ because it’s a response to them.
No. Response and reaction are two TOTALLY different things. If you respond in a manner that does not get you heated or cause you to internalize it sounds healthy to me. But if it begins a argument that wastes your time on some idiot, it does not sound healthy.
JBM, If you have never lost a child, you do not know the pain of losing a child.
If you are not gay, you do not know the pain of sexual discrimination.
If you are not non-white, you do not know the pain of racial discrimination.
Given that it is scientific FACT that all these things create the SAME chemical response in the brain for every human, the feelings ARE the same between all of them. The hurtful scenes that the feelings bring up IS unique, but those are the scenes and not the FEELING.
why some people get so defensive about racial discrimination as though it doesn’t friggin exist
No one has - YOU have interpreted someones words into a mix that YOU do not like. Once again, proof that YOU have control of how YOU feel.
By Jack
April 12, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
“If you are not non-white, you do not know the pain of racial discrimination.”
B.S. When I had to do business with the city of Atlanta, I was ignored while “people of color” who came in after me were served. The Mrs. and I have been in restaurants where we were the only “vanila” and were ignored. We walked out. Do you think you have the market cornered on racial discrimination? I think not.
By RF
April 12, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
Julia— payroll…If yours is like mine, you just watch the pay roll on out of the account and into someone else’s!! LOLOL
By Just Being Me
April 12, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
Given that it is scientific FACT that all these things create the SAME chemical response in the brain for every human, the feelings ARE the same between all of them. The hurtful scenes that the feelings bring up IS unique, but those are the scenes and not the FEELING.
I will openly and honestly admit that I cannot even begin to respond to this. The only thing I got out of this remark is that I now see exactly where you’re coming from on this subject. You have, in my opinion, missed the mark big time. If you think that because the body reacts to pain the same way for each painful situation, this must mean that all pain is the same, you are sorely mistaken. And, for the record, experiencing the death of a child does not “bring up” a “hurtful scene” (whatever the heck that is).
There is no way that you can convince me that the feeling of being called “fatty” as a 10 year old is the same as losing your child. And, I’m certain that no scientist in the world would try to make that ridiculous claim.
No one has - YOU have interpreted someones words into a mix that YOU do not like…
What exactly do you mean by “no one has?” Are you speaking on behalf of everyone on the blog or everyone in the world, or just everyone in my world? How do you know that “no one” gets defensive about racial discrimination? Do you realize what a ridiculous claim that is? How can you so haphazardly use the word “no one” as though there is no one in the world who gets defensive about racial tensions?
By Mara
April 12, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Howdie folks. Late checking in today.
JBM - I’d guess that it’s difficult for people to accept your “if you haven’t…” list because to many people, including myself, the pain of discrimination is pain no matter if the situation involves your orientation, your gender, or ethnicity. I may not be able to say “see here? This is my emotional scar from being called n—-” but I certainly can empathize with your pain and share my unseen scars. It’s not that different from you saying that because you broke your leg skiing and I broke mine hiking, I can’t possibly understand the pain of a broken leg.
Archie - many people have a difficult time admitting error and/or apologizing. One of my co-workers is like that. He’s never made a mistake that wasn’t someone elses fault. I have no idea why many people seem to think that admitting error is a sign of weakness. I’m often wrong, and when I am, I admit it. If I’ve hurt anyone while erring, I apologize. Heck, sometimes I apologize even when I’m not wrong, just to smooth over a situation. (shrug) Some people are like that. Oh, one other thing. Not all men have treated me badly. Most men I’ve been around have been decent, kind, respectable and admirable. So “men” don’t treat women badly, some men treat women badly. Maybe a picky distinction, but one I feel is important to make.
By Archie
April 12, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Jack I am sorry that happened to you and that’s happened to me. Man, so you definitely know how things unspoken can hurt. I walked out too when that happened to me and I didn’t go back into that place for over 10 years and I still feel funny about that place. It is a national chain. Jack that was good of you to share that, period.
By Renee
April 12, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
Racial discrimination can be felt on many levels. But I have felt for the longest that while many blacks are perceived as discriminatory, it’s like the old saying “if you kick a dog long enough, he will bite”. I’m not saying whether it’s right or wrong, but its true. Black people have been discriminated (to put it lightly) upon for the entire time that we were so eloquently invited to take part in the building and improvement of this country. So it is very possible that the behavior that is returned to white society is the type of behavior that is bestowed upon us. Not saying I do that, or that I even agree with it, but it is a very real mentality and much understood in my opinion.
By FatMoose
April 12, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
Distinction: If you are at a car dealership and the salesman tells you he does not sell cars to a “(put slur here).” I agree one should get mad and do womething about it.
In a situation like this there is a difference in equality, and the other person is using it malisously.
Anger = internalized frustration; frustration comes about from blocked goals. The above is a blocked goal - most situations are not.
Now, in a bar: If while sitting at a table some people at the next table call names, they have no power until you give it to them.
Want to retain power? I personally would explain to the bartender/owner I am leaving bc of the (racial,gender…) hostility for somewhere more comfortable. If he sets the situation right, cool, if not he looses business and I am happy drinking somewhere else, and not in the middle of some stupid bar brawl.
By RF
April 12, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
Moose- Isn’t a response a reaction? I’m not sure I follow you there. If I respond, I’m obviously reacting.
Jack- been there too. Went to a restaurant on Cascade Rd. in ATL, and were treated pretty rudely. We stayed, but definitely gave me a little glimpse into what it would be like. I still think it’s different if you have to face the possibility of it every day.
By Julia
April 12, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
RF-Let me just say it’s always the guys here that make the most (over $100,000) that quibble over every penny and are the hardest to get along with.
So, Chilao wants another Floyd song does he? (Just kidding.) I had The Wall on double cassettes (remember those) and it was my favorite to listen to in my car for awhile.
I see it’s been relatively peaceful here today. If only tomorrow was Friday….
By Julia
April 12, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
(I just couldn’t wait.)
RULES FOR LIFE
Never give yourself a haircut after three margaritas.
You need only two tools. WD-40 and duct tape. If it doesn’t move and it should, use WD-40. If it moves and shouldn’t, use the tape…
The five most essential words for a healthy, vital relationship “I apologize” and “You are right.”
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.
When you make a mistake, make amends immediately. It’s easier to eat crow while it’s still warm.
The only really good advice that your mother ever gave you was, “Go! You might meet somebody!”
If he/she says that you are too good for him/her—believe them.
Learn to pick your battles; ask yourself, ‘Will this matter one year from now? How about one month? One week? One day?’
Never pass up an opportunity to pee.
If you woke up breathing, congratulations! You have another chance!
Living well really is the best revenge. Being miserable because of a bad or former relationship just might mean that the other person was right about you.
Work is good, but it’s not that important.
And finally… Be really nice to your friends. You never know when you are going to need them to empty your bedpan.
By Julia
April 12, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
A man enters his favorite ritzy restaurant and while sitting at his regular table, he notices a gorgeous woman sitting all alone at a nearby table.
He calls the waiter over and asks for their most expensive bottle of Merlot to be sent over to her, knowing that, if she accepts it, she is his.
The waiter gets the bottle and quickly brings it over to the woman, saying this is from the gentleman over there. She looks at the wine and sends a note over to the man.
Her note reads: “For me to accept this bottle, you need to have a Mercedes in your garage, a million dollars in the bank, and seven inches in your pants.”
The man, after reading her note, chuckles, and