Woman to Woman

By Political Foreskin

December 11, 2006 07:45 AM | Link to this

Let me say this about that. You see, it’s because of this, that we are facing that. Simply take this out, and that will solve itself. For it is in solving that, that we find this. And this and that is what we are ultimately impending our fortunes on, indeed, it is that which this is that, that we must never impair.

So what if the muslims out rabbit us? SO what? I mean what are you saying, that you dont accept the tide of destiny? If a billion muslims want to make a billion more, then let them. It’s talk like this that led to the holocaust. Do me a favor: Just sit there, and dont say nothing, and dont think nothing, and everything will be fine.

You women are trouble makers. Wish you’d stew and not spew. I think you two have just recruited another misogynist. I hate all women because of you two. Gee, is this where I say, “the only thing worse would be if you wore burkas?”

morons.

By candide

December 11, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this

Depends on who is and who is not having children.

By lovelyliz

December 11, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

Fertility and birth rate are two totally different things. I have seen no evidence that Americans of normal child bearing age are less fertile than were our parents and grandparents.

We are simply controlling when we have our children and how many we have. We are also having children later at a point when fertility naturally starts to decline, but compare the number of children a family in their 20’s versus one in their 30’s or 40’s and you will find that the numbers are very similar.

By Monica

December 11, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Have a great day all. I can’t wait to see where this question takes us this week…

By Chuckles

December 11, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

I found Diane’s point lame trying to pull a racist card. She should have just argued the civic services of most nations are unfit for any population increase. Demands of growing populations are not just food supply—it is also dealing with remainder—the excrement processing, tailings, landfills and prisons. She should have argued: are numbers what is important or quality of life: are there medical services for the family, are there jobs, is the government stable, does the land have resources to support an increased population? She copped out with her tiring admonishing of Pat Buchanan. Like we did not know he was racist?

In the history of Shaunti’s logic this quote has to be the single most stupid thing she has ever written: …to keep that economic engine running, we need to keep producing babies along with minivans, granola bars, mortgage loans and whichever Superhero Returns movie is next on the list.

How weird is this? Has it ever occurred to Shaunti that not all men and women WANT to be part of the breeding cycle? Are those people pariahs of society now? Higher education causes many women to delay having children. So based on that conclusion we should keep our women out of school so they can breed to keep up with supply and demand. Our daughters must reproduce otherwise there might be problems with minivans going unsold. Shaunti what would you do? Have the state declare that all 18 year old girls must have 2.5 children, well, Georgia might pass legislation. I am sure if they require the couple to speak English during sex there will be a legislator who can pass it for you.

Thats it. Women are a commodity! Ladies, spread your legs for Social Security.

By Renee

December 11, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Someone needs to talk to both Diane & Shaunti. These topics are getting more and more ridiculous (if that is at all possible).

By Archie

December 11, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

I agree with Diane on this topic. My answer to the question is neither positive nor negative. It is what it is. Diane nails this topic in the first paragraph but of course some will deny that truth.

By Chilao

December 11, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

Any particular reason that the people most inclined to whine about the declining (WASP-CHristian) birth rate in the USA ARE WASP-Christians? Just a thought.

Being a laymen, and not a scientist, I believe EVERYTHING has a saturation point, and that includes PEOPLE, FOOD-Supply, and the planet’s carrying capacity for the combination of the two.

Heaven forbid we actually reach a Citizen of Planet Earth mindset. Gasp (or have I been watching too much science fiction?..LOL)

By The72John

December 11, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Let’s not kid ourselves - Shaunti’s position is directly tied into her fundamentalist “be fruitful and multiply” mindset. Mankind is supposed to make babies, babies, and more babies. Forget overpopulation or scarcity of resources - population growth is everything.

Of course, to a small nomadic tribal culture undergoing great hardships, having lots of children makes lots of sense. It makes less sense in today’s world. But you know, God’s word is God’s word, right? Snort.

By The72John

December 11, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Hey Chilao - WASP-Christian is redundant, man! White Anglo Saxon Protestant. Lol :-)

By Chilao

December 11, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

LOL @ 72John - yes, I knew someone would be pointing that out.

By Chilao

December 11, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

I almost corrected when keying, as it sounded redundant but decided on Naw…LOL

By Brian Curtis

December 11, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

Shaunti’s optimism seems a bit out of touch with reality. If our societal model is “constant growth,” then what happens when we inevitably run up against the constraint of limited resources? She blithely dismisses this with a wave of the hand and a paean to Necessity and Invention, etc.

Really? Then how come we still haven’t weaned ourselves off of oil, at least 30 years after we knew we’d be running out? I’m all for research and technological progress, but overbreeding on the happy assumption that some sort of solution will emerge seems naive. (Hey, at least she’s not taking the Ann Coulter path of declaring “it’s our Earth, we can shred it if we want to.”)

Resources ARE limited. Period. Estimates have been made and revised as new data is collected and adjustments occur, but the underlying principle is still there. Keep adding more and more people, faster and faster, and our dwindling supply of natural resources will eventually spark a war—oops, already did that. There will be widespread disease and famine—oops, already got that.

But hey—at least here in the U.S. Wal-Mart offers low, low prices! So that must mean everything’s okay! Let’s crank out a few million more American consumers to suck up everything in sight. NOT a good plan, folks.

The latest spin from the Bill Bennetts and Pat Buchanans of the world, of course, is to couch their (thinly veiled) racism in terms of National Security, i.e., “We must outbreed the Evil Muslims. Breed for America!” Which, of course, is the same old bigoted and fearful atttitude dressed up with new terrorism-themed cliches.

There’s no crisis here, folks; people are having fewer kids by choice. And I’d like to know exactly

A) How this supposed to be a major crisis, and

B) Even if it WERE a problem, what they suggest doing about it.

Seriously—do you “conservatives” want government programs to encourage more reproduction among Right-Thinking Folk? How about more tax breaks and incentives? Do you REALLY think people are skipping having kids just because they’re not getting a big enough rebate from the feds?

Or is it possible… just possible… that not everybody WANTS to be a parent? And that this is not a catastrophe in need of a solution?

By Mara

December 11, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

Interesting stat, the better educated a woman is, the fewer children she chooses to have.

http://library.adoption.com/birth-rates/mothers-educational-level-influences-birth-rate/article/6690/1.html

So I gotta say that yeah, the declining birthrate is a good thing because it show that our female populace is, for the most part, pretty well educated.

And race has nothing to do with it. “Women with 1 or more years of college have sharply lower lifetime fertility than less educated women, regardless of race…” Education, not just ethnicity shapes ones child-bearing choices. Another interesting stat is that the more “Americanized” a Latino family gets, the fewer children the ladies choose to have. (I only used the Latino stat because it was the ethnic group that Diane cited, NOT because I hate hispanics, ok?)

By JohnF

December 11, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

I think that it is generally true that the more educated you are, the more you are apt to make wise lifestyle choices.

And, in general, the educated usually have a higher income.

Those falling into this “affluten to semi-affluent” category tend to have fewer children and the reason is “opportunity cost”…that is, each child exacts a financial cost that could be put to some other use…saving for retirement perhaps. The poor, who most of us believe are the most ill suited to have children continue to do so because they have no opportunity cost…when you have nothing, you have nothing to lose.

Humans are not less fertile today, but birthrates may be decreasing because people are making wise lifestyle choices…and putting off childbearing until it suits their lifestyle, in their late 20s and early 30s…not the late teens and early 20s..

This is a good thing, it’s good for humans and it’s good for the rest of the inhabitants of this planet that are being pushed out because of the huge footprint of us humans.

The muslims and the mexicans will not outbreed us…they will however take advantage of the many occupations that will be available…thus these populations will increase their education and their wealth and then they will join the rest of the world making healthy lifestyle choices.

By Archie

December 11, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

I think that it is generally true that the more educated you are, the more you are apt to make wise lifestyle choices.

That’s not a true statement because so many college-educated folk still smoke reefer, snort cocaine, drink excessively, overspend, and have too many sex partners. The educated don’t always have a lot of common sense but they have great book knowledge.

And, in general, the educated usually have a higher income.

That is a true statement because only between 10 and 20 percent of the entire population has a degree thus the better paying jobs go to those with degrees. My point is we have to watch our generalizations. Generalizations are great for comedic effect but they are kind of shaky for everything else. People are marrying later or not marrying at all and that has an effect on whether or not people have children.

By NetBanker

December 11, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

WASP-Christian is redundant, man! White Anglo Saxon Protestant Why is it that we refer to WASPs, but never WASCs (White Ango-Saxon Catholics)? WASP could refer to White Ango-Saxon Pagan, too come to think of it. And what about the WASDs (White Ango-Saxon Druids)?

The thought occurred to me that our Census data is really going to start to get funky as the races mix more and more in this country and we’ll need more categories than simply bi-racial. For example I work with a bi-racial woman who is married to a bi-racial man. Their child is asian/black/hispanic/white.

I do think that natural resources are going to be the biggest issue over economics. As the ice caps and glaciers melt we’ll have less land to accomodate people AND farming as everyone migrates to higher ground…which also isn’t well suited to the raising of crops…hence the reason we don’t see quite so many farms on mountains.

I’d like to nominate LovelyLiz for the Tiara today for pointing out that fertility and birth rate are mutually exclusive concepts. Go Liz!!

By JohnF

December 11, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

That’s not a true statement because so many college-educated folk still smoke reefer, snort cocaine, drink excessively, overspend, and have too many sex partners. The educated don’t always have a lot of common sense but they have great book knowledge

Now who is making generalizations…

Archie you missed the point…there may be some population of college educated people that do these things (not to include youthful indescretion), but it isn’t significant..

sorry..it isn’t.

I also didn’t mean to imply that anyone that didn’t go to college is too stupid to make healthy decisions.

The point was that as education goes up, so does income and with that comes more careful consideration of one’s lifestyle choices, i.e., having children. Your point about marriage is just one facet of those types of decisions.

F******* decreases when affluence increases…

By JohnF

December 11, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

For some reason the blog doesn’t like my use of the biological word for increased reproduction…the missing part is ” ecundity”…not a swear word

By The72John

December 11, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

Oh, Mara - we know you hate hispanics. Don’t gussy it up for us ;-)

By SusieHomeMaker

December 11, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

this is a REALLY weird subject! next week Shaunti will be crying about unwed mothers, welfare reform, and state handouts! this week she’s telling us we need to have more babies!!!

By The72John

December 11, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Archie you missed the point…there may be some population of college educated people that do these things (not to include youthful indescretion), but it isn’t significant..

Sorry, Archie - he’s right. College kids do those things because…well…because they’re kids. For most of them, they’re in an environment that is no longer supervised by parents for the first time, and they do what any young person who A) believes he or she is immortal, B) has discretionary spending money that is not being closely watched by mom and dad, and C) is suddenly living around and with a whole bunch of other young people over the age of 21.

The choices that are made once you get over that are the relevant ones. You can’t say that educated people don’t make better choices as a group because college kids party. The bulk of educated people in this country are no longer in the college partying age. You’re using the behaviors of a small subset of the whole to disqualify an argument about the whole, and that’s just not good reasoning.

By Chilao

December 11, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

(dang 72John beat me to it)

Now Mara slamming Latinos is she? We have it on good authority(snort) my name is Latino, so watch it, okay?

LMAO

By The72John

December 11, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

*this is a REALLY weird subject! next week Shaunti will be crying about unwed mothers, welfare reform, and state handouts! this week she’s telling us we need to have more babies!!! *

Welcome to the distorted reality in which the Religious Right fumbles. We should be shooting out babies with the regularity of BB’s from Ralphie’s Red Rider BB Gun, because GOD wants it. However, as soon as the Baby-BB splats into the target, it deserves all of the lack of opportunity that it has because it’s the youngest of eight kids in a family with parents barely earning more than minimum wage.

It’s like the concept of babies and children is this wonderful, sacred thing to be cherished and encouraged, but the reality of raising all those children with a chance to succeed in life is some horrible burden imposed on society by poor people and immigrants.

By The72John

December 11, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

Now Mara slamming Latinos is she? We have it on good authority(snort) my name is Latino, so watch it, okay?

Wait…I thought we had it on good authority that your name was a combination of two chinese words?

By Monica

December 11, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

In the words of John F. F ecundity decreases when affluence increases…

That’s because everyone is working longer hours for their affluence and they’re too tired for f ecuntidy. :)

By Chilao

December 11, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

Wait…I thought we had it on good authority that your name was a combination of two chinese words?

Just trying to provide more underlying-support for the concept: (always) Question (good) Authority

By Chilao

December 11, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

excellent article over at MSNBC(links to a Newsweek article) over the whole virgin birth/and early Jewish family concepts, as in the movie The Nativity Story, which I liked, btw, in spite of it being very generic and written for about 10-12 year olds. Great period piece.

By NetBanker

December 11, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

putting off childbearing until it suits their lifestyle, in their late 20s and early 30s…not the late teens and early 20s.. I also wonder how much of this is a by-product of longer life spans. I was reading National Geographic over the weekend and the most recent edition had an interesting chart of life comparisons between 1915, 1967, and 2005. I know I’ll get some of this wrong by a little bit but not in enough to throw it off. In 1915 average lifespan was 54.5, 1967 - 70.5, and 2005 - 77.8. Of course it makes sense to marry in your late teens and start popping out babies when one is middle-age at 27.

By Chilao

December 11, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

oh it was the MIDDLE part of the fec-type word, didn’t see how that got blocked but NOW I do..LOL

By Mara

December 11, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

John - :^P - Since someone had already declared that any concern about unrestrained population growth is obviously related to racial bias…just nipping it in the bud. Nip, nip, nip it!!! (did you hear me channeling Barney Fife?!) LOL!

Susie - Shaunti will be crying about unwed mothers, welfare reform, and state handouts! this week she’s telling us we need to have more babies!!!

my conservative brother is just like that! He doesn’t want women to have any choice but pay the wages of their “sins” but bemoans the fact that there’re women having babies they can’t afford to raise! Sometimes I wonder why his head doesn’t just go ahead an explode from the cognitive dissonance!

Chilao - Now Mara slamming Latinos is she? We have it on good authority(snort) my name is Latino, so watch it, okay?

and here I thought your name was…Chilao! (heh, heh, heh)

By Archie

December 11, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

72john I never said anything about kids in my post. Also I did agree with JohnF that college-educated people earn money but I disagree that in general as he used the word “general” that they college-educated people,make better decisions. There are millions of college-educated so how do you know generally what they do. Also I am thinking about 40-year-olds with degrees that snort cocaine,smoke reefer,have a lot of sex partners, and overspend.

I also didn’t mean to imply that anyone that didn’t go to college is too stupid to make healthy decisions.

JohnF, you didn’t imply anything of the sort and you don’t have to be apologetic. Let me point out that I am that college-educated person over 40 and I was not thinking of just teenagers but college-educated adults. BY MENTIONING MARRIAGE I DID NOT SUGGEST IT IS THE ONLY REASON PEOPLE ARE DELAYING HAVING CHILDREN. There are several reasons that people are waiting to have children if at all. Several people have given their reasons, I merely gave one reason. Our last two presidents have smoked reefer, drank alcohol excessively, and had multiple sex partners but they were highly educated and they earned more than the average person. Obviously that example does not cover millions of degreed people but that’s the point how can we generalize? I don’t do drugs and have never been an alcoholic and I have less than the average as far as offspring but I do know an educated person that has children by different women and snorts coke. Generalizations are just that.

By Chilao

December 11, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

LOL @ Mara.

By JohnF

December 11, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

Good point Monica, I think I might need to quit my job :).

By The72John

December 11, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

There are millions of college-educated so how do you know generally what they do.

Statistics?

but I disagree that in general as he used the word “general” that they college-educated people,make better decisions.

You’re still missing the point…because individuals in a group diplay tendencies that don’t allign with the general characteristics of the group doesn’t mean that certain statistically valid predictions can be made about the group based on demographic factors.

We understand that there are 40-year old college educated individuals who exhibit self-destructive behaviors. Once again, you’re confusing individuals with groups.

By Mara

December 11, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

Net - speaking of longer lifespans, did you hear that the worlds oldest woman, 116-yr-old Lizzie Boldon, passed away last night? They say she left 40 grandchildren, 75 great-grandchildren, 150 great-great-grandchildren, 220 great-great-great grandchildren and 75 great-great-great-great grandchildren.

By FatMoose

December 11, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

Take care all. Too much baggage followed me in last week for the second time now.

Good luck and wishes to all liked and disliked, alike;)

By Chilao

December 11, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

FatMoose - I guess you did not throw your g/f in as a sacrifice when you went down to Chichen Itza? There’s like a big pool, plenty of water, nice pic of it IN ACTION in National Geographic aways back(ok, maybe 20 years ago). Thought of that this weekend when seeing Apocalypto, (wait, wasn’t FM supposed to throw her off the cliff when they went, how did she show up here last week?)

By JohnF

December 11, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

Archie,

The blog is about birth rate trends…trends are measured by statistical methods that use generalizations, while accounting for the possibility of exceptions. So my use of the term, “in general”, is perfectly suited in a possible explanation for birth rates. Y

our example of educated people that use drugs is the exception, not the rule, so we wouldn’t say “in general, college educated people are drug users”..unless you have evidence to the contrary. Also, the fact that someone has endulged in illicit substances does not mean that they continue to do so…

And I’m not making wild claims..studies show that in general, those that have a higher education level have less children: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/ResourcesGuides/HumanPopulation/Women/TheStatusof_Women1.htm

In general, educated people make better decisions about their health (diet and exercise) and their finances.

Why? Because their educated..they know where, how, and why to make these decisions. And they have been taught that those decisions are extremely important for a successful life.

Are poor people less educated? Yes. Is it fair?
That’s another discussion.

By JohnF

December 11, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

I mean “because they’re educated” (not their..yes, I get the irony).

By Archie

December 11, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

Johnf saying I think that it is generally true that the more educated you are, the more you are apt to make wise lifestyle choices.

There is a difference with this statement In general, educated people make better decisions about their health (diet and exercise) and their finances.

You are more specific with the second statement than the first statement. Also I never said disputed that college-educated folk have less children. I am an example of that. I can assure you I have nothing against college-educated people since I am a member of that population but that first statement is open for a lot of interpretation. Later..

By NetBanker

December 11, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

Sometimes I wonder why his head doesn’t just go ahead an explode from the cognitive dissonance! Mara…ROLMAO! I now have this picture of pointing those situations out to a fundie and then seeing this odd look come over their face right before their head explodes.

By JohnF

December 11, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

Archie,

Fair enough…I see your point..

By The72John

December 11, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

ROLMAO! I now have this picture of pointing those situations out to a fundie and then seeing this odd look come over their face right before their head explodes.

Oh, if only we could turn this into a reality…much like in the brilliant Buffy episode Hush (robbed of the Emmy…Robbed!) where all of the villains heads DO explode in a burst of goo at the end…

Quick - let’s test it on chuck.

By TramadoL23734

December 11, 2006 06:50 PM | Link to this

I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen. Whatever. Not much on my mind lately. I guess it doesn’t bother me.

By TramadoL32683

December 11, 2006 06:57 PM | Link to this

Not much on my mind lately. My life’s been completely boring these days. I’ve just been hanging out not getting anything done. So it goes.

By chuck

December 12, 2006 08:08 AM | Link to this

Good morning. Mara, I don’t see the cognitive dissonance at all in those separate issues. The first issue:

“He doesn’t want women to have any choice but pay the wages of their “sins””

First, I doubt that he terms it that way, but the real issue is promiscuity by men and women. They make the choice to cat around, then want to blame the innocent baby for THEIR stupidity.

The second issue: …but bemoans the fact that there’re women having babies they can’t afford to raise! has to do with why, with all we know about the process that produces babies, would ANYBODY who knows thay can’t afford to have a child, put themselves into the position of making a baby with someone to whom they have NO COMMITMENT, and who has no intention of sticking around for it.

By TramadoL10672

December 12, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

Not much on my mind these days, but what can I say? It’s not important. I just don’t have much to say lately. I’ve just been letting everything pass me by recently, but eh.

By Brian Curtis

December 12, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

And since you might get hurt driving to work, clearly no one should ever drive.

By 2D

December 12, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

But if I cause an accident while driving to work, potentially injuring another person, I have to take responsibility for it. I can’t just make it go it away as much as I’d like to.

By Chica

December 12, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

—Why would ANYBODY who knows thay can’t afford to have a child, put themselves into the position of making a baby with someone to whom they have NO COMMITMENT, and who has no intention of sticking around for it.—

Chuck are you telling us you’ve never slept with ANYBODY your whole life that you wouldn’t want to marry, much less call again? We’ve all (mostly, tell the truth lol) been there done that. And promiscuity by men and women, it’s just sex, it’s not a bad thing as long as you protect yourself. Driving seems much more dangerous especially if you are on 285. Why question a person’s morals just because they have sex? That never made sense. Cheating or being a nasty perv seems like a moral issue, not the fact that ya have sex. Yes It’s really dumb to have a kid you can’t afford, but a lot of people are dumb.

By kimberly

December 12, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this

Chuckie, that’s right. And “date rape” only happens to sluts who were asking for it anyway. Sluts in short skirts or tight jeans. Sluts who have a couple of drinks and think they have the right to say “NO.” Or women in relationships or marriages who think they have some say in the matter, when we know God made men bigger and stronger so they could take what they want from weak little sluts. Let’s not forget my favorite: “STUPID sluts.” These are the women who believe the man when he says he loves them, when he talks of the future, when he pretends he’ll be around for awhile, when he knows it’s all BS. Boy are they stupid! The Stupid Sluts pay the most for their sins, and for the sins of their men too. As well they should. There’s just no excuse for stupid. Right, Chuck?

By 2D

December 12, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

Chica… Couple of quick points.

First, in defense of Chuck, he never used the driving comparision.

Second, I don’t believe that “mostly” all of us have had the same sexual encounters that you are referring to.

By chuck

December 12, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

Chica, I’ve never “slept” with anyone EXCEPT my wife. I know that makes me a dinosaur, but I don’t care. She is the only woman I want to sleep with. I made a commitment to her and ONLY her 27 years ago and I have never regretted it.

Kimmie, I feel so sorry for you.

By Mara

December 12, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

chuck - You live in a fantasy land of 30- and 40-year-old virgins waiting for Mr. or Miss Right to come along before having sex. You make it as hard as possible for those try to be responsible to obtain the contraception of their choice.

I’m not surprised that you attempt to redefine the problem as one of moral vs. immoral instead of accessible contraception vs. welfare mothers. Nor does it surprise me that you can’t see that your moral crusade directly impacts the number of unplanned pregnancies. After all, it isn’t your fault the sluts have sex…

By kimberly

December 12, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

Chuck, how very Christian of you. Your condescension and condemnation mean so much to a stupid girl like me. No, no, save your prayers. You’ve blessed me more than I deserve for one day.

By Chilao

December 12, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

speaking of sluts, anybody read about apparently some mischievous elf in a TalkingBarbie doll factory slipped some code or chip in there that if the kid pushed the buttons too quickly, Barbie came out and said “You are such a slut or something like that.

anybody hear of the book, a review at/on NPR The Girl in the Tangerine Scarf, about being female and growing up Moslem in America(Indiana)? Looks like a good read. Convo reminded me of it since we are discussing sexuality and primitivisms manifested in religious beliefs.

Anybody see Flight 93, the terrorist/hijacker shaving himself before before the event?

By Mara

December 12, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

2D - one of the big differences between driving and having sex is that drivers are required to know how to drive safely. That’s why we test ‘em before liscensing them and allowing them to drive. They’re required to carry insurance, just in case.

chuck and his ilk, if they looked at driving the way they look at sex, would insist that nobody should drive until they found the perfect car, NOR should we educate anyone about driving safely or allow any kind of safety equipment to be installed on anyone’s vehicle. As for insurance, heck NO! NO insurance for drivers! After all, if you hadn’t been driving, you wouldn’t have had an accident, and you wouldn’t need insurance in the form of a “Plan B”.

chuck and his fellows make it as hard as possible for “drivers” to be responsible because they think that “insurance” is immoral.

By TramadoL37860

December 12, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

Not much on my mind these days, but what can I say? It’s not important. I just don’t have much to say lately. I’ve just been letting everything pass me by recently, but eh.

By chuck

December 12, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

Mara, I don’t believe that I have ever expressed my opinion about contraceptives on this board. If people are going to be promiscuous, they SHOULD use contraceptives. I am not Catholic and don’t believe that contraceptives are necessarily bad. However, it is silly to think that that is the answer to what is decidedly an issue of moral judgement. They are not fool proof and do very little to stop the spread of STD’s. I do oppose the use of killing a baby as a contraceptive. In other words, I would much rather have the 2 sluts use contraceptives than conceive a baby then kill it.

By Chica

December 12, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

There was a show on over the weekend about a young woman in Iran who was jailed several times for having sex out of marriage. But in fact what happened she was being abused by a 52 year old taxi driver who was married. The girl was only 13. She didn’t want to report the abuse because it’s impossible to prove rape in Iran. She wasn’t believed & jailed for having sex out of marriage. Eventually the Morality Police killed her, not the man/men they accused her of having sex with. Sometimes it seems America has their own Morality police, it’s ingrained in our religious teachings & double standards we teach our children. The sex & moral issues only seem to apply to women.

Chuck there’s nothing wrong with just having sex with one person in your lifetime. It’s probably a generation thing.

By Renee

December 12, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

Mara - great comment 9:55…

I’m lurking this week, but I was wondering how the conversation would turn this week and I like how it has.

By Archie

December 12, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

Chuck, even though I don’t agree with all of your points, I do compliment you, because you don’t have to deal with sexual addiction which can be an aggravating condition and Chuck you don’t have to worry about std’s and since you don’t cheat you can go anywhere at anytime without worrying about who’s going to see you. That being said I do kinda of agree with Chica that “it’s just sex” and a lot of folk get by with having multiple partners because they protect themselves. I don’t think there is a right answer for everyone but I definitely don’t think a person should go to jail for having sex unless they are trying to harm someone. Sometimes,we liberals say we’re open-minded, but we’re really not open-minded. Chuck, if you’re really that faithful keep it up and if you’re saying certain things because you’re on the internet, keep that up too, because your marriage is more important that a blog.

By Chica

December 12, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

Please stop using the word slut. To me that’s as bad as using the N word.

By chuck

December 12, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

To use your analogy, Mara, insurance doesn’t prevent accidents it merely disperses the consequences for those accidents among the many people driving who DON’T have accidents. The “accidents” still cause mayhem and destruction, death and disappointment, and possible criminal charges. Maybe you’ve hit on something here, Mara…slut insurance. Maybe all promiscuous Americans should be TAXED or forced to buy insurance before slutting around.

Insurance companies AND State Governments agree that NOBODY should be driving until they pass a test and HAVE insurance (marriage).

By chuck

December 12, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

No Chica, it’s not a generation thing. It’s a right and wrong thing.

By Chilao

December 12, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Chica - my apologies, it is actually NOT a word I use. Meaning you would never hear me use it to describe someone.

although I still think that TalkingBarbie thing was hilarious.

By Chilao

December 12, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Chuck - I really think Mara’s point here is no one should be allowed to drive, PERIOD, since there is apparently an element of RISK involved, causing all those terrible things you mentioned.

By Chilao

December 12, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

on that logic, if there were cars around back then, there could have easily been an 11th Commandment, something along the lines of Thou Shalt not move faster than donkey speed (since to move faster CAN cause death)

By Chilao

December 12, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

did Chuck just advocate legalizing prostitution? hmmmmm. health concerns and tax/fee revenue concerns? I think so. get the state involved. LOL

By kimberly

December 12, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

Smart, virtuous women never follow their feelings. They never answer the call of passion or give in to that crazy little thing called love.

Smart, virtuous women hold it for ransom. They see the men in their lives as a means to an end. “You haff to buy me a hayyyouss, and a carrrrr, and a big ol’ rang, and that better be a dahmund, not a zerconium! And yew better take out the trash, and give me yer creddit cahrds and do whut-ever I say, or yew can sleep on the cayyyouch!” And boy, if their men ever step out of line, they use it as a WEAPON! (If I had a dollar for every man who whined about the ransom they had to pay for the bi-weekly, five-minute visit…)

I wish I would have been a smart, virtuous woman. Then Chuckie would respect me and let me get into heaven with all the other smart, virtuous people. Silly, stupid me, having feelings and sh-t. DOH!

By Chica

December 12, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Chuck, right & wrong depends on who you are talking to. I personally think it’s a huge MISTAKE to marry the only person you’ve have sex with. There’s nothing to compare it to. A life-time of 5 minutes of occasional fun isn’t what I want to sign up for. That’s why I said a generation thing. We don’t know anybody who only had sex with their husband or wife. It was a healthy fun thing to experience other people before marriage. The younger generation doesn’t have as many hangups about everything, although double standards still seem to be around. The only single moms we know are because of divorce. We all took advantage of the birth control & yes legal abortion if needed that is available. Life is better for everybody when children are born when everybody wants & chooses to go through with it & take that life time responsibility on. I don’t understand people who have kids that can’t afford them. Maybe they are all Catholic.

By SusieHomeMaker

December 12, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

The second issue: …but bemoans the fact that there’re women having babies they can’t afford to raise! has to do with why, with all we know about the process that produces babies, would ANYBODY who knows thay can’t afford to have a child, put themselves into the position of making a baby with someone to whom they have NO COMMITMENT, and who has no intention of sticking around for it.

hence the need for legal abortions, birth control and sex education in schools.

By Monica

December 12, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

Chica, I am 35 years old and I am not a Catholic, yet my husband is the only person I have ever had sex with. We waited until we were married to have sex (I was 25 when I got married). It’s not a generation thing; it’s a religion/moral/right and wrong thing. As a Christian I try to follow the teachings of Christ, so I waited to have sex. I have a different perspective than most people regarding experiences with more than one person: if I have only had one partner, I don’t make comparisions about who is/was better. If is a “bad lover,” I won’t know the difference. If I had had multiple partners, and then found someone that I really loved, but hesitated about being monogamous with that person because he was really bad in bed… well, I just decided to avoid that issue altogether.

Mara, “one of the big differences between driving and having sex is that drivers are required to know how to drive safely. That’s why we test ‘em before liscensing them and allowing them to drive.” Now there is an interesting thought!! Require people to get a license to have sex… think of the problems that would solve!

By Chica

December 12, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

—hence the need for legal abortions, birth control and sex education in schools.—

And drinking education. Meaning if you drink have a sober-buddy with you to let you know that the person you think is cute isn’t really at all. lol !

By Archie

December 12, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

Chuck, right & wrong depends on who you are talking to.

I don’t agree with that because there are somethings that are definitely wrong. Are some of you under 18 and faking it out here? As for marrying the only person you’ve had sex with that’s not a mistake, just a choice and you don’t need anything to compare it to. Why would you need to compare your spouse to anyone? If you’re going to pick on Chuck and imply he’s close-minded then you need to make sense and understand his choice is his choice. I disagree with Chuck on politics and religion but how he conducts his sex life and marriage is his business. There is a thing called maturity and common sense and so many don’t have those things regardless of age or education but you can cover for it by having a little money. Sexual addiction is a terrible condition and it starts out as occassional fun. That may be what caused Clinton problems, Cosby problems, Gingrich problems, Kirk Franklin problems, Kennedy problems, Bill O’Reilly problems, and on and on. I only mentioned men because that’s all I could think of but I am sure women have had problems with sex. Almost all of those men I listed solved their problems with money and point is if they only had a desire for one woman(their wives) they would not have had problems. We need to push responsibility and yes morality to all people young and old. I am not rigid about things the way Chuck is but I definitely don’t believe we,humans, need to be buck-wild either.

By Chilao

December 12, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Little Mermaid Shimmering Lights Ariel doll (not BarbieDoll)

By SusieHomeMaker

December 12, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

And drinking education. Meaning if you drink have a sober-buddy with you to let you know that the person you think is cute isn’t really at all

LMAO — that should be sacred girlfriend rule number 1: never, EVER let me drink so much that Fido starts looking like Brad Pitt, (before the hair cut)!

By blablabla

December 12, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

Require people to get a license to have sex… think of the problems that would solve!

please tell me i didn’t just read this. reasonable people may disagree on dealing with the consequences of people having sex, but to actually create a hurdle to the exercise of personal freedom is such an affront to liberty it makes me gag. yes, let us all sign up with our local county sex board for our nooky licenses…

By Monica

December 12, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Blablabla, Please understand that I was kidding… LOL

By SusieHomeMaker

December 12, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

man law #9: no license for nookie! hunting, fishing, fighting — that’s bad enough, but a license for NOOKIE? egads what’s next? a masturb#tion manifesto?

By chuck

December 12, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

It’s called sarcasm bla.

By The72John

December 12, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

If you’re going to pick on Chuck and imply he’s close-minded then you need to make sense and understand his choice is his choice. I disagree with Chuck on politics and religion but how he conducts his sex life and marriage is his business

Chuck isn’t close-minded because he chose to wait until marriage to have sex. He’s close minded because he thinks that everyone who doesn’t make the same choice is fundamentally a bad person, and who deserves no help or support from anyone because they didn’t make what is, in his black and white mind, the “right” choice.

By Chilao

December 12, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

It’s called sarcasm bla

Yes, Chuck was in NO WAY condoning the legalization of prostitution. GASP.

But on that Sex education thing, why is it that we attempt education in so many important areas, but leave that one to bumbling around, doing the hit-and-miss(did we get it right? and not talking about the simple mechanics) type of education?

By Chilao

December 12, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Heck, we even had Drivers’ Ed courses. Why not just let people/kids loose behind the wheel, let them figure it all out?

By kimberly

December 12, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Thanks for clearing that up (again) for the blog, John! And it’s not just that we’re bad in his mind for making different choices, or that we don’t deserve help or support, but we also deserve to pay and pay and pay and pay the price of not being pefect, forever and ever and ever, (allelujah!) and beyond that, the government should force us to pay and pay forever and ever, right up until the time we’re all thrown into hell and he and his friends do the dance of joy whle eating baked chicken and ‘nanner puddin’ over at the church to celebrate our eternal suffering and damnation.

By 2D

December 12, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

John… Chuck isn’t close-minded because he thinks people who don’t make the same choice as him are fundamentally bad either. That may make him judgemental, but not closed-minded. BTW… EVERYONE on this board is judgemental about something. I know I am.

Chuck is closed minded because he is unwilling to honestly consider the other sides of the argument.

By Mara

December 12, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

chuck - Mara, I don’t believe that I have ever expressed my opinion about contraceptives on this board

so you aren’t the same “chuck” who advocates abstinence-only sex ed, requiring perscriptions for emergency contraception, and allowing pharmacists to decide which perscriptions they want to fill?

blablabla, Monica - let us all sign up with our local county sex board for our nooky licenses

what kind of criteria would you need to master to get that license? LOL!!!

By Monica

December 12, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

Oh, didn’t you know? We have sex ed in high school - taught by the PE coaches, and at our school, they happen to be all male PE coaches. The girls are too embarassed to ask them any questions. Oh yeah, and schools can only teach abstinence.

By The72John

December 12, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

But on that Sex education thing, why is it that we attempt education in so many important areas, but leave that one to bumbling around, doing the hit-and-miss(did we get it right? and not talking about the simple mechanics) type of education

Because most other areas are not so ideologically charged as sex education. Despite the failures of abstinence-only education - check out the GAO’s recent study on the subject - there is still this small cabal of religious extremists who are doing their level best to ensure that teens remain ignorant and afraid.

By Big John

December 12, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

In reading the discussion here, chuck’s position is clear: one man-one woman for life. While many will argue that this is an impractical policy, at least he can state his position clearly. On the other hand, both Chica and kimberly seem to be advocating unlimited sexual partners with no strings attached. Could you ladies clarify your position?

Also, kimberly, why are you bothered so much by the term “slut”? In view of your apparent anything-goes policy, you should be proud to have had many partners.

By The72John

December 12, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Gosh, 2D. What would I do without you to “correct” me, yet again.

By Archie

December 12, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

72John I understand your points about Chuck and why you disagree and I don’t have a problem with you but there are some that bash the man for no reason. I was responding to folk that just see the fun part of sex. There are different ways of doing things and when I disagee with Chuck I want to make sense when I debate him.

By 2D

December 12, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

John… You’d realize you weren’t saying anything.

By The72John

December 12, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

In reading the discussion here, chuck’s position is clear: one man-one woman for life. While many will argue that this is an impractical policy, at least he can state his position clearly. On the other hand, both Chica and kimberly seem to be advocating unlimited sexual partners with no strings attached. Could you ladies clarify your position?

You realize that there is an enormous middle-ground between “One sex partner for life” and “unlimited sexual partners with no strigns attached”, right? You are creating a false dichotomy by suggesting that the only alternative to one partner is promiscuity.

72John I understand your points about Chuck and why you disagree and I don’t have a problem with you but there are some that bash the man for no reason.

There are very few regulars on this blog who don’t have perfectly valid reasons to, as you say, “bash” chuck. He has laid his particular brand of ultra-fundamentalist judgement and condemnation on just about every regular participant. He has earned every snide remark and verbal blow directed at him. I actually think he likes it. It lets him go home at night with a real feeling of sanctimonious affirmation. He’s got that whole “Christian persecution complex” going on, so anytime anyone tells him what a truly unpleasant human being it is, it just confirms in his wee little mind what he already believes.

So, really, we’re doing chuckie a favor by “bashing” him.

By The72John

December 12, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

John… You’d realize you weren’t saying anything.

Physician, heal thyself.

By Mara

December 12, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

Big John - On the other hand, both Chica and kimberly seem to be advocating unlimited sexual partners with no strings attached

while I won’t speak for Chica or kimberly, I will say that “unlimited sexual partners” is certainly an inflamitory way to put it. Speaking for myself, I don’t see why you would assume that “more than one”, or even “many”, implies “unlimited”. As long as you’re practicing safe sex, what difference does it make how many lovers you take? I wasn’t aware that “volume” was an issue…

Frankly, I don’t know anyone who would have the stamina to take on “unlimited sexual partners”.

By Monica

December 12, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

Mara, you know that to get a driver’s license, you actually have to drive the car… LOL - I guess they’ll have to put an age requirement, parental consent under a certain age, and in some places, you will have to have a marriage license before you get the other license. Oh well, it was a good thought! LOL

2D, you have added so much to the blog!

By kimberly

December 12, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Big John, where the heck did YOU come from? Did you half-read a week’s worth of posts and think you know the people you’re talking about? I don’t have a problem with Chuckie’s choice; I have a problem with the blanket condemnation of those who didn’t make the same one man/one woman choice in their lives.

Surprise, surprise! An awful lot of people did NOT find true love at the age of 18 or 20, save themselves, marry, and live happily ever after. An awful lot of people found themselves in love with the wrong person. A lot of people found WORSE (* things we good krisssschen folks don’t talk about unless we’re blaming the sl-t it happened to, right?*) A lot of people marry young and “grow apart” when one partner starts screwing a co-worker. A lot of people don’t fall in love with whom you’d expect them to, and spend their whole lives defending the nature inside them that makes them love differently.

I don’t advocate lots & lots of partners, mostly because it’s none of my business how others choose to conduct their sex lives. Celibacy and monogamy are choices, and I’m all about choice. I’m just uber-sick of self-righteous blow hards who think everything is a choice and any different choice is bad, and even if it’s not your fault, it’s still your fault, and that the only people who deserve love or happiness of any kind are those exactly like said self-righteous blowards. Now if you want to stick yourself in that category, go right ahead, Biggie. (you know what they say about those who brag….)

By 2D

December 12, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

John… I never said I didn’t need fixin’ every so often so when you see the need, jump right in.

By Chilao

December 12, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

Mara - Trust you are current on your Rabies shots? Going to renew mine lunchtime. LOL

By 2D

December 12, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

Kimberly… What do they say about those who brag??? i’m not familiar with the saying.

By Renee

December 12, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

LOL @ unlimited sexual partners. Mara, again, well put. I am still cracking up at your 1:04

One should be able to sleep with whomever they choose, whenever they choose. Usually the people who voice against this, are the SAME ones who would jump at the opportunity to have “free” sex.

This is an issue of personal choice/freedom and should be respected as such.

By Mara

December 12, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

Chilao - don’t forget the distemper and parvo shots too! Y’know you can’t be too careful in these situations LOL!!

By Kevin

December 12, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

I am not feelin’ the love on the blog today. What happened? It was much more civil last week, or it least it was until FM’s ex began blog-stalking him. Did I just make up a new word? LOL!

2-D and Monica, you are my blog heroes. You are able to discuss issues without getting angry and making personal attacks (except for 2-D’s sucker punch @12:57 that is). Well, nobody’s perfect!

By TramadoL35932

December 12, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

I’ve just been hanging out not getting anything done. What can I say? I’ve basically been doing nothing worth mentioning, but pfft. Not that it matters. Pretty much nothing exciting happening to speak of. I haven’t been up to much these days.

By chuck

December 12, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

Yes Mara, I advocate abstinence only sex-ed. That is not a position on contraceptives, it is a position on sex ed.

Requiring prescriptions for a drug that could lead to a woman BLEEDING to death or having other reactions is a responsible position I believe, based on medical necessity.

As for Pharmacists, that is a religious freedom issue, not a position on contraceptives.

So yes, I am that same Chuck, but these were not positions on contraceptives, which as I stated earlier today I am not particularly against.

BTW Mara, so I get your position straight. Are you and other liberals in favor of FORCING a nongovernmental medical professional to do something that he or she thinks is morally reprehensible? If so, wouldn’t that preclude you from criticizing me for advocating any of the things I stated above? After all, if you want government intrusion into the private lives and businesses of pharmacists isn’t it hypocritical to denegrate me for advocating similar intrusions?

Archie, it is pointless to try to reason with 72john. He has proven long ago with countless repititions that he is incapable of using anything OTHER than attacks. He tries to be a bully on this board because he is so impotent in real life.

By The72John

December 12, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

John… I never said I didn’t need fixin’ every so often so when you see the need, jump right in.

Oh, no. I wouldn’t dream of correcting such an obvious intellectual powerhouse. Given that apparently I say nothing on a regular basis, my poor criticisms of your near god-like wit and eagle-like accuity of vision would be as innefective and meaningless as our current Iraq srategy.

By chuck

December 12, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

oops repetitions

By The72John

December 12, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Don’t sell yourself short, Chuckie. You can attack and bully with the best of us. When you aren’t busy condemning everyone, that is.

By chuck

December 12, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

I condemn activities not people. People can only condemn themselves.

By chuck

December 12, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

If you feel condemned by what I say, then I’m guessing it is a guilty conscience that condemns you and not me.

By 2D

December 12, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

John… Actually, I’m not all that smart and I apologize for the pot-shot. It is very unlike me and I shouldn’t have written it. I regretted the statement immediately after hitting the post button.

BTW… I agree with you on our current strategy in Iraq.

By The72John

December 12, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

If you feel condemned by what I say, then I’m guessing it is a guilty conscience that condemns you and not me.

What twisted reasoning this is. If I attack you, and you feel attacked, then it must be because you deserve it.

Is this the kind of reasoning that allows zealots to do the things they do? It certainly absolves them of any responsibility for the damage you do to others and society in general, and allows them to continue to feel good about yourself.

What a pathetic, shrivled soul you have.

By The72John

December 12, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

2D - I should be the one to apologize. I took the first pot-shot. Sorry - under a lot of stress this last week and a half.

By Chilao

December 12, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

This abstinence education thing is starting to look good, maybe I will move to a high-rise in downtown ATL and get a job I can walk to, since continuing to drive could get me in an accident OR worse, get me killed.

oh, wait, that isn’t exactly REALISTIC for me, now is it? LOL (actually it IS, but trust me, it ISN’T)

By Mrs. Churchie Gurl

December 12, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Boy, there’s no puttin’ a bushel over Chuckie’s light! It shines the Lord’s love into every dark corner, don’t it? I heard he saves a soul a minute. A soul a minute? Yep, a soul a minute. That’s how good he is. No sin there! Just a good swift boot in the a— to all those sinners who need to be in hell instead of clutterin’ up the earth with their sinful presence. Repentance? Go whine about that in hell, losers. Chuckie don’t care if you have regrets, feelings, or love in your heart. You’re a filthy sinner. No soup for you!

By Chica

December 12, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

Why are the women being asked to clarify exactly how many men should or do they want to or have had sex with?? George Clooney is very open the fact that he won’t marry & enjoys “seeing” different women. Come to think of it single men aren’t being questioned about who, what & how many times they’ve had sex. Nobody asks single guys why would you have sex with a woman you wouldn’t marry? Nobody asks single guys why are they having sex if you don’t want a baby? What’s the deal with that?

By Mara

December 12, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

chuck - FORCING a nongovernmental medical professional to do something that he or she thinks is morally reprehensible…you want government intrusion into the private lives and businesses of pharmacists

A pharmacist dispenses drugs prescribed by physicians and other health practitioners and provides information about medications and their use to patients. That’s his job. If their “morals” prohibit them from doing what they were hired to do, they should re-think their career choice. As for “government intrusion” into the businesses of pharmacists, i.e. “pharmacies”…in case you didn’t know it, pharmacies are already licensed by the state, so yeah…government should be “into the business of pharmacists”. Their private lives, however, are their own business, just like mine. If they want to go to their “He-man Woman Haters Club” meetings after work, bully for them. It’s what they do on the job that concerns me.

It’s not hypocritical to require a pharmacist, or anyone for that matter, to fulfill their professional obligations.

By Monica

December 12, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

2D, and 72John, very noble of both of you. Good job :)

By NetBanker

December 12, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Wow! I see we’re in a bit of a brawl today.

One should be able to sleep with whomever they choose, whenever they choose. Easy there!! What happens when you’re in a really boring meeting and your mind starts to wander about the hottie across the room? CLEAR THE CONFERENCE TABLE! I have a more pressing need! LOL!

Totally off topic because I see that everyone is holding their own…I heard on Boortz this morning about a new Video Game released by the “Left Behind” people for kids. Apparently when the player meets and non-believer they either have to work to convert the person or kill them. No other options. If you kill the non-believer you lose Salvation Points. What kind of F’ed up Christian message is that? Sounds more like a Muslim game, but even then Muslims have the option to tax the non-believer or make them a slave.

By 2D

December 12, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Mara… Not sure if I totally agree, and I guess that would depend on their employer. For example, if a pharmacist worked for Eckerd, the Eckerd policy was to dispense birth control and the pharmacist refused, then I think there are grounds for dismissal. However, if a pharmacist owns their own business and chooses to not dispense birth control, then that is their prerogative.

Now, if the state wants to pull that private pharmacist’s license, they can, and I’m sure we’d settled the good old fashioned American way… A high profile legal battle. Not sure who would win, but it would make for some interesting BLOGging (is that a word?).

I’m curious as to how you’d feel if a particular pharmacist decided to not dispense something due to a professional opinion versus a religious one.

For example, I recently visited my doctor and needed to get a prescription. They could prescribe one of I believe four different FDA approved brands. But mu doctor indicated that they NEVER went with two of them b/c in their opinion, those brands did nothing and were a waste of money and time. If the two my doctor liked hadn’t worked (fortunately one did), what should be done? Should I find another doctor? Should the state force my doctor to prescribe one of the other brands?

By chuck

December 12, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

So if the government changes the law and the company he works for changes their policy it would be okay to NOT fill the prescription then?

Certainly pharmacists are licensed by the government. That doesn’t give the government the right to dictate religion to them. Businesses are “licensed” by the state also. Should a Christian business owner be required to sell booze, which is also licensed by the government? Should doctors be REQUIRED to perform abortions if their patients want them? What about plastic surgery?

I guess my REAL question is, “Are you as willing for the government to control PERSONAL behavior as you are for them to control religious behavior?”

By Mara

December 12, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

Hi ya, Renee! The sad part about you laughing at my 1:04 is that I was being serious! ;^P

Monica - 2D, and 72John, very noble of both of you. Good job

Hear, hear!

Chica - don’t you know, men need to have sex, but women choose to be whores. (only slightly tongue-in-cheek)

By 2D

December 12, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Chica… I don’t think “women” were begin asked to clarify the number of acceptable partners. I think you were being singled because of your previous posts.

George Clooney has stated his position very clearly. Some people agree with him. Some don’t. Some don’t give a flip one way or another (I’m one of those).

Chuck has stated his.

I think Big John was just asking you to do the same as Clooney and Chuck, clearly state your position.

By Chilao

December 12, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

See, NetB, in the Christian version, the player LOOSES Salvation Points for killing a non-convertible.

in the Muslim version, the player GAINS Salvation Points for killing the non-convertible.

BIG DIFFERENCE

LMAO

By Kevin

December 12, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

Kudos to 72John and 2D.

By Chilao

December 12, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

but either way the non-convertible ends up Dead so it doesn’t really matter…LOL

By chuck

December 12, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

NetB, here is the real story about the game:

LEFT BEHIND: ETERNAL FORCES A statement from Left Behind Games Inc. Troy A. Lyndon, Chief Executive Officer

Recently, much controversy has ensued due to published articles in the media which discuss the violence in our upcoming game, Left Behind: Eternal Forces. However, references to “praise the lord and pass the ammunition” or “kill in the name of God” or others were made by journalists spreading misinformation, which is absolutely not true. And for this reason, I have published this statement.

There is no blood or gore in Left Behind: Eternal Forces. The game is designed to be a classic battle between good and evil, but it does not gratuitously depict violence or death.

Others are concerned about the pre-trib religious doctrine believed by the Left Behind authors. Left Behind is not the Bible, it is a fictional story and accordingly, situations resulting from the stories’ post-apocalyptic time-frame are used to encourage gamers to think about matters of eternal significance, a topic largely ignored by modern games.

Because our game is a ‘strategy’ game, never does a player click a key or press a button to actuate a first-person violent act. Instead, control is managed by the player in much the same way as an animated chess game would be when pieces fight for position, except that in ‘real-time’ strategy games, many pieces fight for position at the same time.

In Left Behind: Eternal Forces, the players’ objective is to find ‘tribulation clues’, which include Bible mysteries, codes and fascinating and eternally relevant information. In the initial missions, there is little emphasis on physical warfare and gamers are introduced to powers of influence which result in a battle for the hearts and minds of people. As missions progress, there are no ‘objectives’ to cause war physically. However, physical warfare results when the player is required to defend against the physical forces of evil; led by the Global Community Peacekeepers.

Several months ago, there was a news story with erroneous information about the game. Unfortunately, some readers accepted the misinformation as being factual, and then the rumor mill and the blogs were off and running.

If you hear someone making negative statements about this game, we encourage you to ask if they have personally reviewed the game. If they are merely passing on hearsay, it is false and misleading information.

At Left Behind Games, we are dedicated to making great games. Left Behind: Eternal Forces is coming to the PC and will be released on October 2006. We believe it will be a great day!

By Mara

December 12, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

2D - of course a pharmacy has the right to set their own policies, withing the scope of their state-board requirements. IMO, Illinois has staked out the middle-of-the-road on this issue. If a pharmacy fills the perscription for some contraceptives, it must fill the perscriptions for all contraceptives. If I recall correctly, businesses are required to post some kind of notice regarding their policies. This allows individual pharmacies to set their own business rules while ensuring that anyone patronizing their establishment clearly understands what services they choose to provide.

I’m curious as to how you’d feel if a particular pharmacist decided to not dispense something due to a professional opinion versus a religious one

Certainly, there’s a difference. One assumes that the “professional opinion” has a sound, scientific basis. Religious opinion…maybe not so objective.

By The72John

December 12, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Mara and 2D, you both make good points.

I tend to agree with Mara - if one takes on a profession that requires one to do something he or she considers unethical, then one should possibly reconsider a different profession, particularly if that profession has a certain code of ethics by which to operate. I don’t know that pharmacists have a codified ethical system, but I think it’s safe to assume they do, since most medical professions do.

By the same token, a private pharmacist should be able to stock what he wants, and if he or she chooses not to stock that particular drug, then customers would learn that and choose to patronize his establishment or not patronize his establishment based on that private business owner’s choice.

However, there is a distinct difference between saying “I’m sorry, we do not stock that medication,” and saying “We have that medication, but I will not sell it to you.”

Of course, there’s a whole slippery slope involved when people start choosing what services they will and will not offer based on religion. Would it be OK for a Christian zealot to refuse to treat a Muslim patient who is injured? Is it ethical for a Muslim restaraunt owner to refuse to serve members of other religions? Is it ethical for a dedicated racist to refuse to serve blacks at his coffee shop?

Seems like we’ve had that problem once, and it didn’t work out so well.

By Big John

December 12, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Chica, I don’t think it’s wrong to ask someone to clarify his or her position, is it? If you have children, you will have to explain (or show) them what is right or wrong one of these days. One solution is to just avoid the moral aspects during sex ed altogether and simply focus on how to use contraception. Is this what you are supporting? It’s hard for me to believe that all of ladies here will advocate promiscuity for your daughters.

Also, for the ladies who are upset because society embraces a double standard for men and women, well, tough, that’s just the way it is. Women have a for greater biological investment in pregnancy than men do, and are for more susceptible to STDs.

By Archie

December 12, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

That was interesting reading 72John as far as the GAO study on abstinence-only. I did not read the entire thing but what I did read was interesting.

Chuck is closed minded because he is unwilling to honestly consider the other sides of the argument.

That would describe everyone on this blog at some point. I disagree with Chuck without the name-calling.

By Lily Toad

December 12, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

Big John,

Teaching about contraception is not advocating promiscuity. What if a teenager has only one boyfriend, is that promiscuity? I don’t think teenagers should have sex but many will. If they do engage in sex they should know about different types of birth control and their effectiveness.

By Mara

December 12, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

chuck - Businesses are “licensed” by the state also. Should a Christian business owner be required to sell booze, which is also licensed by the government? Should doctors be REQUIRED to perform abortions if their patients want them? What about plastic surgery

You’re being deliberately obtuse, chuck. If a christian has a job at a liquor store, yeah, he should be required to sell liquor. If a doctor works at an abortion clinic, then yeah, he should expect to perform abortions. Ditto on the plastic surgery. A pharmacist working in a pharmacy should expect that they would be required to…fill perscriptions.

Are you as willing for the government to control PERSONAL behavior as you are for them to control religious behavior

So now ones job is considered “personal” and requiring them to fulfill their duties is some kind of attempt to “control religious behavior”?! painting with a pretty raggedy brush there, chuck.

By The72John

December 12, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

don’t think teenagers should have sex but many will. If they do engage in sex they should know about different types of birth control and their effectiveness

48% of all high school students, according to the GAO study - 63% of high school seniors. Yes…I’d say many is an accurate number. Which is preferable - that they know how to use a condom to mitigate against the possible negative consequences, or that they remain ignorant in the hopes that this particular figure will drop to zero?

By Mara

December 12, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

John - there’s a whole slippery slope involved when people start choosing what services they will and will not offer based on religion

how about refusing anti-retroviral drugs to gay HIV patients because one believes homosexuality is immoral and AIDS is gods punishment? Or penicillin to a prostitute because she got syphilis turing tricks? How about refusing Anabuse to a drunk? A slippery, slippery slope my friend. A slippery slope indeed.

By Chica

December 12, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

If I do have daughters I will teach them every detail about birth control & dating. I will also teach them what to watch out for & give them all the knowledge I can give them. They will probably still fall for one of the bad ones, we all do. But that’s part of life isn’t it? Sure women have more at stake because we get pregnant, but with the right precautions why would I teach my daughters to give into the double standard? I will teach them that there is nothing wrong with birth control & if by chance your birth control fails or for whatever reason you become pregnant abortion is available & legal & it is your choice & don’t let anybody make you feel bad for your choice whatever that may be.

Why are people still obsessed with women having sex? That’s so weird nobody my age dwells on it. The more freedom of sexual expression women have the more angry those older people get. I will teach my daughter/s that people like that are mentally ill & probably can’t get laid anyway. lol There can’t be a double standard if everybody ignore’s it.

Anyway boys run in my husband’s family, isn’t the sex determined by the sperm? I heard that somewhere.

By Chica

December 12, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

—What if a teenager has only one boyfriend, is that promiscuity? —

Why didn’t you say “if a teenager has only one GIRLFRIEND is that promiscuity?”

is it only promiscuity when you are talking about a girls sex life?

I’m not arguing with you, just asking a question. : ) (you did ask a good question)

By Chilao

December 12, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

So the St Paul, MN, Moslem cab drivers(Somalians I believe), licensed by the state to have airport queue access, should be able to decline passengers as fares who are coming in who have bought liquor and have it in their luggage?

I think we heard that “Just the way it is” argument way back when there were two drinking fountains at the bus station, you know, one labeled Whites Only and the other labeled Colored. But lo and behold, there was this thing called Progress.

By Mara

December 12, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Chilao - But lo and behold, there was this thing called Progress ROTFLMAO!! Good one!

By Chilao

December 12, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

and somehow I am reminded of some movie scene where a passenger, in getting back at a nasty cab driver, asked each driver for something Nasty, got thrown out of the cab, and then when he got to the driver he was trying to get back at, gave all the other cabbies a Thumbs Up, implying the cabbie HAD consented. Hilarious scene, at any rate. details escape me. But have actually seen it twice.

By Lily Toad

December 12, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Chilao, I was responding to Big John’s remark It’s hard for me to believe that all of ladies here will advocate promiscuity for your daughters. That’s why I responded with the one boyfriend. But I think promiscuity is not limited to one gender.

By Lily Toad

December 12, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Chilao, I should have said “Chica.”

By Lily Toad

December 12, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

And Chica, what will you teach your boys about dating and birth control? Why did you only say what you’d teach your daughters? And aren’t boys the ones that need to be taught to ignore the double standard?

By The72John

December 12, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

So now ones job is considered “personal” and requiring them to fulfill their duties is some kind of attempt to “control religious behavior”?! painting with a pretty raggedy brush there, chuck.

You have to remember, Mara, that to a zealot “controling religious behavior” means anything that prevents someone from discriminating on the basis of religion. Extremists think that being forced to hire someone of another faith, or someone that they think is immoral, is an attack on their religious freedom. The EEOC is the ultimate in “controlling religious behavior”.

For them, it’s not about being able to worship freely, it’s about being able to discriminate freely. It’s an ugly truth, but truth it is. I, for one, am grateful that this country still has laws that prevent the uglier sides of human nature from taking the fore. Others see those laws as a curse.

By Chica

December 12, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

Nobody seems to care who is having children as long as they aren’t poor, divorced, single, drug addicts, criminals or alcoholics. How can we make sure everyone in those groups don’t date & have sex? How can we turn them into walking zombies without any sexual feelings? I’ll call the Pope & see what he says.

By chica

December 12, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

Lily somebody asked about daughters that’s why I just mentioned daughters. : ) Same goes with boys. They are under a different pressure to BE players & to play girls to get sex. Guys like that seem to have parents that didn’t teach them respect for girls. You can tell the guys that have good parents.

By 2D

December 12, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

John… To many people, their religion and faith go beyond worship at the local church/temple/mosque/etc. It is a complete way of life, including how and with whom they work, do business. etc.

Riddle me this… If Jewish deli only wants to purchase food only from “kosher” providers, or hire only designated preparers of their food should they be able to?

By Lily Toad

December 12, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

I think there should be more emphasis on male responsibility if a girl gets pregnant. One of my daughter’s friends was telling me about how he was paying child support to two different women and that left him with very little for himself. Young men like that should go around to high school assemblies and talk to the boys so they might be more inclined to use condoms.

By chuck

December 12, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

Who is really being obtuse Mara?

First, I specifically said BUSINESS OWNER.

Second, I was asking for a comparison from you…Are you AS WILLING to have the government control PERSONAL behavior (for example abortion, homosexuality, adultery, drug use, etc…) as you are for the government to control RELIGIOUS PRACTICES (for example a pharmacists refusal to fill a prescription that he believes is for a drug that goes against his deeply held religious beliefs)?

The point is that you are perfectly willing to allow the government…no, require the government, to step in on the first intance and require that the pharmacist in effect perform a chemical abortion, but scream about personal freedom if the government intervenes in anything that YOU think they should stay out of.

I guess I’ll try to make it clearer for you next time.

By 2D

December 12, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

John… Here’s another tha’s not religious in nautre. Should an employer be able to not hire smokers if they have procurred a reduced health plan based on the fact that none of the employees or dependents are smokers? Not sure that could happen, but sure would be cool if you could.

By Lily Toad

December 12, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

2D, employers can already refuse to hire a smoker if they want. Health policy notwithstanding. They can also fire a smoker if they see her smoking outside of the office. In Ga. employees can be fired for any reason in the world. But should they? I’d like to see more protection in the job market.

By Big John

December 12, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

Chica, I’m not taking a position here, just asking questions regarding what some of you consider to be appropriate. Gotta watch out for that moral dissonance , you know. Might cause your head to explode.

By TramadoL26463

December 12, 2006 09:27 PM | Link to this

I haven’t been up to anything today. I don’t care. I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. Basically not much happening right now. Maybe tomorrow. I guess it doesn’t bother me.

By TramadoL63794

December 12, 2006 09:36 PM | Link to this

I just don’t have much to say these days, but so it goes. Today was a total loss. I guess it doesn’t bother me.

By TramadoL56540

December 13, 2006 03:14 AM | Link to this

I’ve just been hanging out not getting anything done. What can I say? I’ve basically been doing nothing worth mentioning, but pfft. Not that it matters. Pretty much nothing exciting happening to speak of. I haven’t been up to much these days.

By TramadoL41191

December 13, 2006 04:10 AM | Link to this

I haven’t gotten anything done recently. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I haven’t been up to anything these days, but it’s not important. Today was a total loss.

By Brian Curtis

December 13, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this

“let us all sign up with our local county sex board for our nooky licenses”

“what kind of criteria would you need to master to get that license? LOL!!!”

I don’t know, but I think I’ve found my new dream job…. talk about government benefits!

By Limp Bizkit

December 13, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this

Does that nookie license require an oral examination?

Cuz I won’t lie, I can’t deny, I did it all for the nookie.

By Brian Curtis

December 13, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

By the way, I think Bruno-Dog is back….

By 2D

December 13, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

Lily Toad… How would an employer know if a prospective employee were a smoker, unless they asked? Perhaps smelling the clothes or noticing matches/cigarettes in the pockets? I’m not sure that is a legal question for an employer.

I have several friends who concealed their pregnancy during the interview process knowing that was not a legal question to ask. Very dishonest if you ask me, and quite frankly, should be grounds for dismissal.

A relative of mine actually got duped by a pregnant woman during the same situation. The woman was hired into a high level, very important managerial role, and then right when she was getting good traction took off for maternity leave. I know that had all of the facts been known up front the woman would have never been hired.

Also… It is much more difficult than you think to “fire” an employee after the initial 90 days. Employers can “RIF” at will, but removing a troubled employee can take several months due to the documentation process required. Poor performance (or other issues like tardiness, attitude, etc.) must be identified and counciled prior to outright termination. During the 90 day period (at least that is the standard I am used to) then everything is fair game.

By Chilao

December 13, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

By the way, I think Bruno-Dog is back….

You current on YOUR rabies shots as well? LOL

Notice we got the tribal reasons for purity of womenhood, we need those breeders around to pump out plenty of warriors for when resources are tight, to make war against those who DO have more resources. Just make sure you breed only with your own tribe there, ladies. Us(whoever we are, it changes with the seasons and years) against them(whoever they are, it changes with the seasons and years), once again.

By Suzi-Q

December 13, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

2D I have to respectfully disagree. I was terminated from a job once and it was a total shock. I had no history of ANY write-ups’ of ANY kind. There was no counseling or other warning. Just came in Monday morning and was asked to clean out my desk. I asked why I was being terminated after 4.5 years of service and the answer was “The Company is going in a new direction”. Up till that day I thought all my supervisors were thrilled with my work. I did receive unemployment after a lengthy discovery process. But still GA is an at will state.
That was many years ago, and I love my job now :-) so all for the best I say!

By Brian Curtis

December 13, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

2D: “I have several friends who concealed their pregnancy during the interview process knowing that was not a legal question to ask. Very dishonest if you ask me, and quite frankly, should be grounds for dismissal.”

Wait a minute… if it’s not legal to ask about it, how exactly did they “dishonestly conceal” this information? Should they have volunteered personal information that the employer could use against them, even though it’s illegally discriminatory to do so?

That’s some f*ed-up reasoning right there. Just how far over backwards are we supposed to bend for our corporate taskmasters? The dishonesty is on the part of the employer who wants to discriminate and is angry about being robbed of the opportunity.

By Monica

December 13, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

Hey BC, I wonder what the requirements for your dream job would be? How much experience do you need to issue that license? Any coursework necessary to obtain that job? :)

By Chilao

December 13, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

Do you think it is interesting that cultures like the South Pacific Islander cultures, who did not evolve in the arena of limited resources, and hence did not need to war constantly, developed a very different set of Sexual mores than the ugly desert-dwelling cultures did?

By Chilao

December 13, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

2D - I am waiting for the employers to decide they need not have fat people workign for them, causing all those insurance claims and all, for unhealthy livestyle choices, and began firing people for being seen leaving a McDonalds, etc.

I think that TEST down at the DSA(Department of Sexual Activity) would have to be a Written test. LOL

By Suzi-Q

December 13, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Another question 2D: Should a man who gets hired with a pregnant wife also be considered dishonest and should the employer have grounds to fire him? Pregnancy is a PERSONAL event in MANY people’s lives that take them away from work. If I am remembering right the government now makes employers give paternity leave in the same amount as maternity leave if asked for. Why should there be one set of rules for a man and another for a working woman?

By The72John

December 13, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

2D, Georgia is one of the few states that left that continues to follow the doctrine of “Employment at will”. It is perfectly legal in Georgia to fire an employee at any time and for any reason. It may be that your company has its own policies in place that mitigates this, but under Georgia state law, they would be under no obligation to follow those policies - any such policy would be self-imposed and self-policed only.

As to your other examples:

A kosher deli selecting a kosher supplier isn’t discriminatory - it’s a matter of choosing the correct supplier for one’s business. One could no more demand that a kosher deli purchase pork products than one could demand that a store dedicated to selling lamps purchase radios.

The involvement of religion in the creation of the kosher product is simply a step in the process. It’s irrelevant - a kosher deli isn’t choosing to not buy from a Christian, it’s choosing to purchase from a kosher supplier. Now, if that same deli stopped serving Christians, then there would be a problem.

The smoking thing - looks like people are already tackling this. However, having spent several years working on the backend of the insurance business, I can tell you that almost every health policy is set up in classes, with various premiums assigned to each class. There are already companies that pay the same health benefit for each employee and require employees who fall into higher classes to pay the difference. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with any criteria being used in hiring other than the candidates ability to perform the job in question. Companies don’t have any business regulating the personal lives of their employees. They aren’t gods, they’re employers.

By Suzi-Q

December 13, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

Well said The72John (10:07AM)

By Archie

December 13, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

*Wait a minute… if it’s not legal to ask about it, how exactly did they “dishonestly conceal” this information? Should they have volunteered personal information that the employer could use against them, even though it’s illegally discriminatory to do so?

That’s some fed-up reasoning right there.

I agree with you Brian 100 percent. Gosh some folk are used to doing whatever they want to in this country as far as discrimination they can’t even see it logically..

By Renee

December 13, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

2D - I am waiting for the employers to decide they need not have fat people workign for them, causing all those insurance claims and all, for unhealthy livestyle choices, and began firing people for being seen leaving a McDonalds, etc.

That would be interesting. And what would the definition of fat be. Would a weigh-in coincide with your evaluation. And how enforcable would that be.

Good post Suzi @ 9:56.

I don’t think not telling a potential employer at all is dishonest. Being that it’s not a legal question to ask, why would I willing volunteer information. Does being pregant hamper ones ability to do the job? And Suzi brings up a good point, that the man is due equal time off for the birth of a child. To dismiss someone on the basis of “not telling” is treading into some very dangerous waters.

No matter how inconvenient it may be to an employer, life events do happen. Whether it’s pregnancy, which can be both unplanned or planned whether you are married or not, or sickness, surgery etc… I have a coworker who has to get infusions once a month or sometimes more frequently that upsets my manager, but unfortunately sh!t happens. I had another 2 coworkers go out at the same time for maternity. Yes the department is tight, yes our workload has increased, but such is life. And one person who is on maternity leave is a new hire (or relatively new). It’s the nature of the beast, for lack of a better term.

By 2D

December 13, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Suzi-Q… Not sure of the specifics of your prior job so it is difficult for me to comment. I can only speak to the places I have worked, my family and friends have worked and the businesses my family and friends have owned. Add all of those up, and the sampling is substantial. In those scenarios, “RIFs” are fine, termination when the position is not being eliminated or redfined is a very lengthy process.

On your other question about the man with the pregnant wife… The answer is no. His wife being pregnant would more than likely not cause substantial disruption to the work environment. Sure he may take some vacation, or be out for doctor’s appointments, but the pregnancy (unless there are substantial complications) would not keep him out of the office. The example I gave would/did.

If you were the owner of a business and needed a VP to run a division of your company, you need someone to jump in and be ready to effectively manage that portion of your company. Would you hire a person for that position if you knew they would be unavailable for at least three months in the very near future. Probably not.

As for the paternity leave… Not sure, so I can’t comment. I however,do not know of ANY man who has taken paternity leave that wasn’t accrued vacation. Perhaps because the household would not have been able to afford both people not bringing in income, because if I remember correctly, that paternity leave does not come with pay.

By The72John

December 13, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

Here’s a REAL F’d up example from the other side of the equation. A friend of mine left her job a while back to be the Executive Assistant to the CEO of another company. The position had come open because the previous assistant was going out for extended maternity leave. She was promised during the hiring process that when the previous assistant returned, that she would be moved into a comparable position.

She had six months of very succesful employment - frequently praised by her boss, given all sorts of incentives, etc. The day the previous assistant returned to work, she was let go and her boss who had been so complimentary during her stay chose to take a day off rather than give her the news himself.

By 2D

December 13, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

John… Interesting response to the kosher question. And I do agree with you on the service part, at least when it comes to public restaurants, stores, etc.

I also agree with you on hiring people on the ability to do the job, however, I would expand the definition. Smokers are statistically less productive than non-smokers. Why? Because they statistically take more breaks to endulge their habit and they miss more days of work due to health issues. Similar thinigs could be said for overweight people. That loss in productivity costs the company money. I don’t see that as the employer controlling a person’s behavior. I see that as the employer making the best investment possible for their business.

This is not a moral question. It is just business. If I’m going to pay out a salary, I want the most productivity for each dollar as possible.

By Renee

December 13, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

If you were the owner of a business and needed a VP to run a division of your company, you need someone to jump in and be ready to effectively manage that portion of your company. Would you hire a person for that position if you knew they would be unavailable for at least three months in the very near future. Probably not.

So are you suggesting that if someone is of childbearing or married or partnered with someone of childbearing age, then they should not be in the position?

By 2D

December 13, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Brian… Let’s see. The most extreme case of hiding their pregnancy was how the woman forced herself into a very tight girdle and then squeezed into the smallest suit she had in an effort to hide the “baby bump”. She knew that if the employer saw that bump she’d never get the job. That was not a case of “don’t ask, don’t tell”. That was a case of calculated deception.

By The72John

December 13, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Why? Because they statistically take more breaks to endulge their habit and they miss more days of work due to health issues.

That’s an assumption based on generalizations. It’s little different from saying “I don’t want to hire an African-American - they’re not as smart as a white person” or “I don’t want to hire a Hispanic - they’re lazy”.

Disclaimer - I don’t actually believe these things, just using common stereotypes

If there is a work-related performance issue with a particular employee, say a smoker who takes lots of breaks to smoke or misses more than his or her alloted sick days, then it’s addressed as a performance issue and dealt with that way. There are as many people who waste extra time during the day wandering around, surfing the internet, or chatting with co-workers as there are smokers who take long smoke breaks.

I’m a light smoker myself. I make it a point to not smoke at work, period. It keeps my consumption low and allows me to work. Individuals are that - individuals. That’s why we have employment laws that prevent companies from making their decisions in hiring based on stereotypes, assumptions, generalizations, or anything other than the specifics of an individual.

By 2D

December 13, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

Renee… Absolutely Not! what I’m saying is this…

Yes people get pregnant. Yes people get sick. Yes other catastrophes happen. I understand. EVERYONE understands.

BUT…

If I have a position to fill, I am not looking to fill it, then turn around and have to either shuffle duties in the office or fill it again in four or five months. I want to fill it and have a reasonable expectation that the person will be on the job for a long time.

By Suzi-Q

December 13, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

2D I don’t know what ‘RIF’s’ are but I do know the state law. And I think others here have stated the law correctly also. I believe that would out way the personal experiences you have had, now maybe those business were worried about being sued (which if they have the same opinion about pregnant woman as you do they might need to watch out for that) and therefore took extra precautions.

On your other question about the man with the pregnant wife… The answer is no. I think, IMHO, this is a very outdated view. I am not sure of your age 2D but I think it is increasingly likely that the husband/father will take leave also for the birth of a child. Also MOST women do not miss substantial time from work during the PREGNACY.

In your example I believe you would be surprised at the number of high level ‘VP type’ moms that are back to work in 4 weeks. And sometimes even less time than that, some times in 2006 woman are the primary bread winners and the new Father has more opportunity to stay at home, and are choosing to do so. I am sorry you do not know any men of this caliber. I do.

By Suzi-Q

December 13, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

Thanks for posting my exact question Renee @ 10:37!!

By Monica

December 13, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

There are as many people who waste extra time during the day wandering around, surfing the internet, or chatting with co-workers as there are smokers who take long smoke breaks.

Extending the pregnancy issue, there are many new moms returning to work who take frequent breaks to pump their milk. I’m not saying that they should be considered wasting time; I’m just adding to the discussion.

Additionally, just because a person is overweight doesn’t mean he or she has health problems and will miss more days of work. However, it would be an interesting study to compare smoking employees and obese employees to see who is more costly to insure.

72 John, what happened to your friend just plain sucks.

By Chilao

December 13, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Most companies that I have ever worked for had maternity leave available for the FATHER of a newborn. Not saying that is the norm, just saying many companies DO allow for that leave and not due to any governmental law.

Renee - the point there was there are ballpark 400,000 tobacco-related deaths yearly, and ballpark 300,000 fat-related deaths(not necessarily related to being over-weight, it could be merely clogged arteries from years of unhealthy food) yearly, and I can not consider the difference there exactly material. And I was being sarcastic.

As we are learning, companies wanting to get the MOST out of their investment in employees, send their jobs overseas, if doing a strictly ROI decision. They won’t be left with any local customers eventually, but at least THIS QUARTER financials will look real good. LOL

By Boggle

December 13, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

EMPLOYMENT AT WILL

Georgia recognizes the doctrine of employment at will. Employment at will means that in the absence of a written contract of employment for a defined duration, an employer can terminate an employee for good cause, bad cause or no cause at all, so long as it is not an illegal cause.

From the Georgia Department of Labor, just so we’re all clear.

By Archie

December 13, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Similar thinigs could be said for overweight people. How do you define overweight? Some people say my weight’s fine but I walk everyday because I like it and because I am not satisfied with my weight and since I lift weights I have muscle but then since I drink alot of tea I have a slight bulge, so who do you call overweight and unproductive. If you go charts I have seen on the internet I am overweight but if you account for muscle then I’m okay. So what if the woman hid her pregnancy? It sounds as if someone has some issues to work on and that’s exactly what opens up men for criticism. We(men) can’t get our complaints taken seriously because there’s always a borderline sexist around the corner. Maybe that’s why women don’t take our complaints about their housekeeping seriously because they know they will have to deal with sexism somewhere, somehow.

By Renee

December 13, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

There are as many people who waste extra time during the day wandering around, surfing the internet, or chatting with co-workers as there are smokers who take long smoke breaks.

Excellent point.

If I have a position to fill, I am not looking to fill it, then turn around and have to either shuffle duties in the office or fill it again in four or five months. I want to fill it and have a reasonable expectation that the person will be on the job for a long time.

Ideally this is what will occur. But, you have to realize that no matter how much you would like for something to happen, it does. Let’s say a female took the job as VP. She’s driven , motivated, anticipates being in the position for a long time to come, and boom, one night, her husband, boyfriend, whoever, impregnates her. Has she done something wrong? She didn’t plan on it, but it happened. Or maybe she did plan on it. Has she let her employer down. Businesswise, situations like this should be planned for on an ergonomical as well as an economical level.

By Chilao

December 13, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

said as I sit here and read Frank Hayes, in ComputerWorld, a column Vet All Code being done by the US Dept. of Defense, seems all their code for systems is done overseas, and the concern is hidden bombs in extremely complex code, affecting national security.

By Renee

December 13, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this

Chilao - my comment wasn’t directed to you at all. I was just commenting on it in general. Sorry if you took offense, non intended.

As we are learning, companies wanting to get the MOST out of their investment in employees, send their jobs overseas, if doing a strictly ROI decision. They won’t be left with any local customers eventually, but at least THIS QUARTER financials will look real good. LOL

I was laid off at GE for that very reason!! Personally, I think it’s terrible. Also having to deal recently with a personal Hewlett Packard issue, it was more than aggravating have to talk to someone at customer service who was in India, every time.

By Chilao

December 13, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Renee - I was not offended at all, and did not think it exactly directed, either way.

I just always like to point out that there are more than simply smokers causing insurance rate issues. LOL

Speaking of HP, anybody catch the Law and Order Friday night that dealt with the exact recent HP eaves-dropping issue, company name was Hallagan and Watts(or something like that) and lo-and-behold if the company logo didn’t look EXACTLY like HP’s logo. LOL The perp was a cross of Carly F. and Duncan, as CEO. (she had a raised-in-the-Rio-slums high-priced-hooker/girlfriend that actually pulled the trigger). No word yet from HP….LMAO

By lozen

December 13, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

2D, so a relative of mine got duped by a man with heart disease when he hired him into a high level managerial role. The guy knew he had heart problems and it was only a few months after he was hired that the big one hit. Then he was out for several weeks! S hit happens!

By Renee

December 13, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

I just always like to point out that there are more than simply smokers causing insurance rate issues. LOL

very true…

Mara/Monica - did you catch House last night?

By Monica

December 13, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

Renee/Mara, in regard to House - the most tasteless line of the year: “Care to go for a spin?” I almost fell off the couch!

By 2D

December 13, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Suzi-Q… Not sure if you meant the “…men of that caliber…” as a slap in the face, but that is exactly how it was taken. I certainly hope you didn’t.

Also… I typically do not give any details about myself. I won’t give you my age per se, but I have posted in the past that I am part of GenX, so, there’s a range for you.

By 2D

December 13, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Renee… Good question. However, I think we can agree that the situation of a person who is knowingly pregnant, ill, etc. and taking a job is different than one where a person takes a job then becomes pregnant, ill, etc.

The only scenario where the two above generalizations woould be close to equivalent is the one where a woman takes a job, then immediately and actively becomes pregnant. Even then it’s not the same.

I’m sorry, but personnally I believe that type of behavior is dishonest. Others can disagree and that’s no skin off of my nose.

By Renee

December 13, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

I do agree that the situations are different, 2D, I guess our difference just lies in the morality or right and wrong of the situation. I don’t think the woman/man is obligated, nor has done anything wrong if they don’t reveal pregnancy any more than I think someone should reveal that they have coronary artery disease, cancer or anything else.

I do understand, however, when you speak of business sense, I just don’t think it’s realistic and ends up being quite discriminatory. Not to mention the pickings would be slim if you are trying to get a completely healthy, non childbearing age, or wife not being of childbearing age individual to be the candidate for your position.

By Mara

December 13, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Renee, Monica - the most tasteless line of the year: “Care to go for a spin”

I thought that was the most hilarious line in the whole show! I almost fell off the couch too, but that was from the laughing. Also liked the line “House, you’ve tanned!” when Epps trots out Houses theory about moving to the pancreas instead of concentrating on the liver. At least it looks like this annoying storyline with the cop is coming to an end, or at least I hope so.

By Chilao

December 13, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

When you get down to it, it would be in a company’s best insurance rate interest to find some reason, like suddenly poor performance (real or imagined and the imagined is REAL EASY to write-up), to terminate all employees once they reach, say 30. Since over 30 they start having kids(gasp, an insurance claim), and perhaps even decide to go to the doctor (another gasp). And then they can hire younger workers who not only will work for less, will work 90 hour weeks for 40-hours pay, and the company will get cheaper insurance rates to boot. Assuming they even have to hire us grossly overpaid Americans. SNORT

By Suzi-Q

December 13, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

2D Sorry if it was taken that way did not mean it to be taken personally by you.

So my question is if you are sick or could become sicker from an illness you know you have or are planning to have a family soon you should not seek employment? Seems kind of unreasonable.

By 2D

December 13, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Renee… We can agree to disagree on the position of a candidate providing said information or the ability of the employer to ask such questions. However, we do agree on your second point, that an employer could very well be limiting their potential employee pool if they place restrictions on candidates like you described.

But, shouldn’t it be the choice of the employer if they want to limit their candidate pool in such a fashion?

By Renee

December 13, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Mara/Monica - I have to admit, I found the line hilarious.. I also found the “House, you’ve tanned” funny as well. I do hope the story line is coming to an end as well, but being that House is busted yet again, who knows. Personally, I don’t think he’s strung out, I’m thinking he’s in pain, although they went over the top last night.

By Monica

December 13, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Mara, oh, I was laughing too! I’m not that much of a prude!! I loved the spunk displayed by the girl’s mother.

Chilao, I think that’s what companies are already doing! My father-in-law lost his job of 26 years, with no retirement or benefits of course, and they gave his job to a 20-something newbie. You won’t hear me complaining of teacher pay; at least I can sign a contract and have job security.

By Boggle

December 13, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

But, shouldn’t it be the choice of the employer if they want to limit their candidate pool in such a fashion?

Perhaps you are unfamilliar with the EEOC and Americans with Disablilities Act?

By Renee

December 13, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

Interesting question 2D. I am for less governmental intervention, so I guess I would say it would follow my views to have the employer choose from a smaller pool if they so chose to do so. I think eventually it would do more harm than good to the employer, because through word of mouth, people would not want to work there, and if they felt strongly enough about it, they would not want to patronize them or buy their product or whatever…

Even with my belief in free enterprise, I don’t believe, however, the question should be asked like “what are your illnesses” or “are you pregnant?” But, under your scenario, if the person doesn’t tell, then how would you find out? And if you are willing to fire the person for lying if somethng comes out. And proving that will be difficult. The female may not have known she was pregnant at interviewing time.

Chilao, I really like your 12:42…

By jim

December 13, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

population needs to be controlled. Another form of child abuse are people that have children when they can’t afford to take care of themselves.

By Renee

December 13, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Jim - How do you propose controlling the population?

By jim

December 13, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Renee - How about individual responsibility as population control?! Amazing concept. Choosing Vasectomies, tubes tied, whatever. And yes it would be a wonderful CHOICE for most people. I didn’t infer government interference or another sinister way, as you were probably doing in your question.

By jim

December 13, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Remember ole Bob Barker says “have your pets spayed or neutered” and everyone says that’s a great thing. I say same things for most humans!

By Monica

December 13, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

I may have said this before, but a friend of mine had this suggestion to population control: everyone should be sterilized at birth, and when they want to have children, they have to pay to have the procedure reversed! ~Before anyone makes any comments, I am being sarcastic

By jim

December 13, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

Monica - Great idea!!! I guess that should prove some immediate financial capabilities of the future parents!! lol

By Renee

December 13, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

I’m all for individual responsibility. Enforcing it, however, would be a tad….let’s say tricky.

By 2D

December 13, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Boggle… Nope. Didn’t forget about the EEOC or Americans With Disabilities act. My statement clearly indicated how I thought employers SHOULD be able select their employees, not how they are currently legally bound to select their employees.

By 2D

December 13, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Suzi-Q… Thanks for teh clarification. Don’t worry, that comment didn’t offend me in the least. I was asking the question in deference to others.

By Chilao

December 13, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Monica - but think of the bottom-line for your father-in-law’s former company. We know that is really ALL that matters in life. (it seems).

By Chilao

December 13, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

speak of da debil, just got a YahooHotJobs email, for, drum-roll please, Hewlett Packard. LOL

By The72John

December 13, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

2D - Boggle is I and I am Boggle. Boggle is busy tweaking the religious nuts raving about the war on Christmas and forgot to change his handle back.

Yes, I understand your position intellectually. I just don’t “understand” it. We have labor protections for a reason. We’re a better country because of it. Eliminate those protections and we’re back to slave wages, company scrip, unsafe working condititions, discriminatory hiring based on race, etc.

It may violate your precious completely unregulated free market dreams, but it makes the world a better place.

By chuck

December 13, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

2D, the whole discussion about the “pregnant applicant” comes down to one insidious idea that has crept into the American psyche…job entitlement. People think they are ENTITLED to work wherever they want to work and even worse HOWEVER they want to work.

I have stated before that private businesses (meaning ANY business not run by the government directly) should be able to hire ANYBODY they want and FIRE anybody that they want to. Businesses exist to make PROFIT. The are not social agencies.

Most businesses are decent corporate citizens because it is good for the bottom line. People won’t shop at stores that they don’t like. Businesses can’t afford to make too many people mad or they won’t stay in business. These should all be business decisions controlled by the market and NOT the government. Since government belongs to ALL of the people it should operate differently…more democratically if you will.

As for maternity leave for men, that is FEDERAL law. It is actually called FAMILY LEAVE. It can be used for family illness as well as maternity and other issues. It only applies to companies of certain sizes…I think 100 or more employees…and it does not have to be PAID leave (neither does maternity leave for that matter). It is usually only paid if the employee has built up enough sick leave to cover the time missed. I think it is really stupid for the government to be involved in those kinds of policies. These types of things would probably be found unconstitutional if a company had the nads to take it to court.

By 2D

December 13, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

John… How does allowing an employer more freedom to choose their employees cause slave wages and poor working environments? That choice has nothing to do with minimum wage laws, OSHA or the like.

Perhaps the Federal government should be more diligent about keeping a tighter lid on the borders and import/export policies. If they did that, we wouldn’t be faced with outsourcing of jobs, a flood of foreign workers here legally on Visas or here illegally through other means and the inability to compete with 3rd world manufacturing that has ripped the heart out of the current economy.

Those are the fish to fry. If those were taken care of, the rest would fall into place.

By The72John

December 13, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

2D - I was speaking of labor protections in general, not specifically your example.

By Carmen DeLaGata

December 13, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

A few comments on Shaunti Feldhahn’s take: “Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb predicted that population growth and finite food supplies would eventually conspire to starve hundreds of millions of people to death. Why was he wrong? …We innovated, improved technology and increased that supposedly-fixed food supply.”

That is only a part of the story. Civil wars and outright genocide killed off a number of people before they could produce more children. And when a few job opportunities become available—as opposed to subsistence farming—when women have access to a smidgeon of education, and/or when women have access to family planning, the end result is invariably fewer offspring. A larger family is a cultural norm in some societies. But when you look at, for instance, Chicana women in the United States, the trend is to have fewer children than their counterparts with similar education and incomes in México. Why? Because their income and educational levels trend upward in the States. Indisputably, a very large contributor to the drop-off in the fertility rate was due to China’s rather draconian policy of one-child families. (True, it should be noted that producing more offspring has become a conscious political decision among certain groups, so that they will increase hegemony via sheer numbers. For example, Muslims in Palestine and parts of Europe, and certain Orthodox Jews in Israel. But it will take quite a while for these efforts to substantially increase world population.)

Concern about possible decline of American birth rates isn’t about racial fear. It’s about ultra-practical economics.” Actually, America has a large, stubborn and at times vicious streak of xenophobia in this country, seen in both in our past and in the present. Periodically, the media have whipped this up, and the results have NOT been pretty. (Recall, for example, the “Yellow Peril” of the 19th century, the anti-immigrant hysteria following World War I, and the ferocious anti-Mexican deportation policies under the Hoover administration.) Additionally, you have to factor in the unconscious apprehensions of white people in losing privileges associated with numerical and economic superiority, even though quantifying this would be profoundly difficult. I know—8 to 9 out of 10 white people say “I’m not prejudiced” and even believe it; but people of color certainly see a quite different story,and perhaps a discussion for another day…) That being as it may, let me also address one comment by Diane Glass. “What’s going to happen if the millions of Chinese, now suddenly infatuated with gas-guzzling automobiles, decided to purchase SUVs at the same rate as Americans?” It’s quite apparent that China has not learned from our example of the effects of pollution and consumption of a finite resource. Having a vehicle has become a profound status symbol, setting one apart from poor people on bicycles. The government’s unchecked, even raging emphasis on industrialization and exportation of goods sweeps all other considerations aside.

By Big John

December 13, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

Carmen, is that prejudice or just plain common sense to want to live in a white-majority country? Last time I checked, most Central and South American countries are still third-world nations, while Africa appears to be a lost cause. So call me loco, but I don’t want my standard of living to go down the toilet.

Oh, I forgot, the problems in South America and Africa are all the fault of the gringo, right?

By Big John

December 13, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

While you’re on line, Carmen, I’m hoping you can explain to me the Latino practice of saving old tires in the back yard (even the front). All of my Latino neighbors have piles of them everywhere. You guys aren’t planning a “necklacing” party are you? I understand that’s very popular in Africa.

By Big John

December 13, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

Personally, I like to think of myself as not being prejudiced so much as being postjudiced .

By 2D

December 13, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

John… now I am a bit confused. You say you don’t “understand” my position, cite the benefits of labor protections, then say that you were speaking of labor protections in general, not in response to my particular example/question.

So how do you feel about my original statement?

Does that mean you agree with my position that an employer should be able to hire whom he/she chooses and do not see any negative impact arising from such practice? If not, I’d be curious to know why.

By Gabacho

December 13, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

Get with the times, man, what the heck is a gringo?

Dear Mexican, Why do Mexicans call white people gringos?

“Dear Gabacho,” began Gustavo Arellano’s answer in the OC Weekly alternative newspaper. “Mexicans do not call gringos gringos. Only gringos call gringos gringos. Mexicans call gringos gabachos.” Arellano went on to explain that gabacho is a sometimes pejorative slang term for white Americans, with “its etymological roots in the Castilian slur for a French national.”

By The72John

December 13, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

Does that mean you agree with my position that an employer should be able to hire whom he/she chooses and do not see any negative impact arising from such practice? If not, I’d be curious to know why.

No, I believe I stated quite firmly before that the only criteria that an employer should be able to consider is the person’s ability to do a job.

I further believe I have given you several examples as to why I believe that, in this discussion and in the past.

By Renee

December 13, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

does the latino “practice” somehow bother you?? It affects your life in some way, I’m sure.

Rather than having an intelligent debate, you would rather make pot shots and statements of ignorance. Or are you pompous enough to think you are the only one to have an opinion, therefore, your opinion MUST be correct.

By Big John

December 13, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

2D—I think chuck nailed it earlier with his observation that many people now view employment as just one more entitlement. In such people’s minds, the employer is the enemy , so that the employer’s interests never enter into their equations as to what is right or wrong regarding how you represent yourself during the initial interview, whether you are really sick when you call in and say you are, etc. It’s kind of like the shoplifters who invariably defend themselves when caught by saying “It isn’t really stealing”.

The biggest hole in 72John’s argument is the fact that most people in the US are NOT employed by large corporations with vast resources, but by small businesses struggling to make ends meet.

By TramadoL28832

December 13, 2006 11:35 PM | Link to this

I’ve just been hanging out not getting anything done. What can I say? I’ve basically been doing nothing worth mentioning, but pfft. Not that it matters. Pretty much nothing exciting happening to speak of. I haven’t been up to much these days.

By TramadoL35254

December 14, 2006 12:26 AM | Link to this

Not much on my mind right now, but it’s not important. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me. I just don’t have anything to say right now.

By TramadoL21822

December 14, 2006 04:15 AM | Link to this

I haven’t been up to anything today. I can’t be bothered with anything recently. Nothing seems worth thinking about. I haven’t gotten anything done recently, but oh well. Not much noteworthy going on worth mentioning.

By TramadoL4136

December 14, 2006 06:00 AM | Link to this

Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I haven’t been up to much these days. I just don’t have much to say right now. I can’t be bothered with anything , but whatever.

By 2D

December 14, 2006 08:05 AM | Link to this

John… I wonder, have you ever owned or operated a business???

By Small Business Owner

December 14, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

I have been reading the discussions about hiring employees. Now, a pregnant woman walks into an office to apply for a job but does not tell the employer-to-be that she is pregnant. First of all, the woman has disqualified herself from the company’s insurance (if they have it) for not reporting her condition prior to employment. Thus she and her child are not covered, thus all expenses for the childbearing will be hers and hers alone. Because of the deception she would not be accepted by the majority of insurance companies working with GA businesses. Second, automatically she has disqualified herself by lying on her employment papers—thus she can be fired without notice—and probably would be in both the corporate and at a small business level. The same is true if she failed a pee test for drug use but said on her form she does not use drugs. If a woman gets pregnant during employment she must inform both boss and the insurance company, the boss can begin finding and training a new employee to take over her duties during her maternity leave (if they have it, many small business owners cannot and will not be able to cover such expenses). At the end of her leave she should be able to return to her job by law, right. Well, NOT really. Many times, especially with small businesses with 2 or 4 employees the luxuries of the corporate world do not carry down into small businesses. The U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act provides for 12 weeks of job-protected leave, but it only covers those who work for larger companies. Small businesses do not need to provide leave of any kind whether for medical illness or family time. Employers must cover any job-related injury/illness by law. Its up to the employer to decide if an employee can do the job she was hired for—if she cannot then she can be dismissed. So, if you are a woman looking to have a family know the policy of maternity leave at your workplace BEFORE you become pregnant.

By Brian Curtis

December 14, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

And if she makes her pregnancy known, as 2D suggests, then the employer can “unofficially” discriminate against her in the form of rejecting her application.

Anyone see any good way out of this? Because if a burden and risk is going to be imposed unfairly, I suggest it go against the employer, not the woman.

By Monica

December 14, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Moral of the story: don’t look for a new job when you’re pregnant?? That’s not always an option for some women. I can see both sides of this issue and don’t know the answer. Any other small business owners or large firm human resources people out there?

By Brian Curtis

December 14, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

2D: Are you saying business owners have enough problems and headaches without being forced to treat people fairly? Sure sounds like it.

I’d expect Chuck to cheerlead for the ruthless bottom-line mentality—i.e., “Businesses have no obligation to do anything but generate profts”—but you at least should be aware that we as a society have the power to impose social-benefit conditions on business operations. This is not even an arguable point; we already do so, in countless ways. The only question is exactly what those societal-supporting conditions should be and how to implement them.

By Chilao

December 14, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

So, if you are a woman looking to have a family know the policy of maternity leave at your workplace BEFORE you become pregnant.

Most importantly, know the attitude of your employer concerning even having children. They MIGHT think you should stay home for the next 18 years.

By Mara

December 14, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

WARNING:!!! These articles may incite anger and outrage to those on the right AND those on the left…but for different reasons. Enjoy.

http://time.blogs.com/dailydish/2006/12/christianismin_2.html

http://time.blogs.com/dailydish/2006/12/militarychrist.html

By Monica

December 14, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

I know it’s only Thursday, but I couldn’t wait to share this email I just got…

My heartfelt appreciation goes out to all of you who have taken the time and trouble to send me “forwards” over the past 12 months.

Thank you for making me feel safe, secure, blessed, and wealthy.

Extra thanks to whoever sent me the one about rat s* in the glue on envelopes, because I now have to go get a wet towel every time I need toseal an envelope.

Also, I scrub the top of every can I open for the same reason. Because of your concern, I no longer drink Coca Cola because it can remove toilet stains and may eat my guts out as well.

I no longer drink Pepsi or Dr. Pepper since the people who make these products are atheist b*&%$s who refuse to put “Under God” on their cans.

I no longer use Saran wrap in the microwave, because it causes cancer.

I no longer check the coin return on pay phones, because I could be pricked with a needle infected with AIDS.

I no longer use cancer-causing deodorants, even though I smell like a water buffalo on a hot day.

I no longer go to shopping malls, because someone might drug me with a perfume sample and rob me.

I no longer receive packages from, nor send packages by UPS or FedEx since they are actually Al Qaeda in disguise.

I no longer answer the phone because someone will ask me to dial a number for which I will get a phone bill with calls to Jamaica , Uganda, Singapore , and Uzbekistan .

I no longer eat KFC, because their “chickens” are actually horrible mutant freaks with no eyes or feathers.

I no longer have any sneakers — but that will change once I receive my free replacement pair from Nike.

I no longer have to buy expensive cookies from Neiman Marcus since I now have their recipe.

I no longer worry about my soul, because at last count, I have 363,214 angels looking out for me in addition to all of you dear friends.

Thanks to you, I have learned that God only answers my prayers if I forward an e-mail to seven hundred of my friends and make a wish within five seconds.

I no longer have any savings, because I gave it to a sick girl who is about to die in the hospital (for the 1,387,258th time)..

I no longer have any money at all - but that will change once I receive the $15,000 that Microsoft and AOL are sending me for participating in their special e-mail program. And I’m lanning on going out to dinner once I receive my $50 gift card from Applebee’s.

Yes, I want to thank you so much for looking out for me that I will now return the favor!

If you don’t send this Good for laughs e-mail to at least 144,000 people in the next 7 minutes, a large flock of pigeons with a wicked case of diarrhea will land on your head at 5:00 PM (EST) this afternoon and poopy all over you. I know this will occur, because it actually happened to a friend of my next door neighbor’s ex-mother-in-law’s second husband’s third cousin’s beautician.

Happy New Year!

By chuck

December 14, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Of course you see it that way Brian. You are a socialist.

By 2D

December 14, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

Brian… You are correct. We as a society have the power to impose all types of what you call social benefit conditions and has been doing it for thousands of years through various organizations. However, you are equating society to government. That is where you and I disagree. They are not the same. There are various issues where society disagrees with government. In some cases this is a good thing, in others, it isn’t.

And yes, businesses have enough problems and headaches that I believe the benefit of doubt should go to the business and not the employee.

The bottom line is you trust government more than you trust private enterprise. Perhaps it’s because you’ve not owned or do not want to own a business. Perhaps you’ve been burned by bad employers. Not sure why, but you do.

Government doesn’t exist to allow business to thrive. Business, whether it be farms, artisans, etc. existed way before governments ever did. Without businesses and the business owners, there is no job market for the employees. Without jobs, there is no economy and subsequently no government.

By Brian Curtis

December 14, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

And without government to rein in the excesses of business, there is wage slavery, child labor, eighty-hour workweeks, and all the other problems of the Gilded Age. Indeed, there’s no real middle-class at all—just a few robber barons at the top exploiting an underclass.

The bottom line is you trust businesses not to screw over their workers and consumers, despite their stated intent and demonstrated history to the contrary. I’m not sure why, but you do. Perhaps its because you think “the market” produces justice and equality. Perhaps you’ve been burned by ineptly implemented regulations. Regardless, you seem to think that governments can’t be trusted, but corporations can—i.e., that political power corrupts, but economic power never does.

Businesses exist only to further their own ends, not the public good. To enact and defend non-economic ideals like “freedom” and “justice” and “equality,” you need government. ALL power should be mistrusted and closely monitored—political, spiritual, economic, etc.

By Chilao

December 14, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

And without employees, there is nobody to make the business prosper. Duh.. A day before even government? Is that in pre-historical times? redundant oxymoron, I know. LOL

Player Piano anyone? (Kurt Vonnegut)

anybody hear the NPR piece last evening, about the minimum wage thing? Seems many small-business owners in FL have been paying abit more that the legal minimum for some time, that is the only way they can get good employees, since apparently there is a SHORTAGE of available employees in FL. And many did not even think they would be affected by any minimum wage laws since they pay healthily more than that now. And to pay these higher wages, they merely raised the price of the products by a small amount. Not material of and by itself(for the buyer) but they added up(for the seller). Interesting piece, at any rate.

By Suzi-Q

December 14, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

ALL power should be mistrusted and closely monitored—political, spiritual, economic, etc.

Excellent, Excellent Point Brian Curtis!!

By chuck

December 14, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Wow Chilao. I wish I’d seen that.

Seems many small-business owners in FL have been paying abit more that the legal minimum for some time, that is the only way they can get good employees, since apparently there is a SHORTAGE of available employees in FL. And many did not even think they would be affected by any minimum wage laws since they pay healthily more than that now.

It’s a good thing BC didn’t hear it. It might have convinced him that if left alone and given time, the FREE MARKET actually does work.

Unbelievable.

By Chilao

December 14, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

I think Governments or at least forms of it, came into being when three people started sharing the same cave, since there had to be SOME rules-and-regulations there.

Anybody hear the SwiftBoatVeterans group has been fined $300,000 by the Federal Election Commission, since apparently them running the Anti-Kerry TV ads went against their charter as a non-profit/non-partisan group. Sounds familiar (we can do whatever illegal action we want, because by the time the courts determine it illegal, we will have gotten our way(or the damage will have been done, take your pick).

By chuck

December 14, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

And how WERE those problems of the “gilded age” solved Brian? Not by government as one author pointed out. Here is the url for the article and the article itself with just one examble of how PRIVATE business is always better than government business:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mim3514/isn3v40/ai13595225

I included the url because there were some links to other inteesting articles.

The Myth of the Robber Barons. - book reviews Success, April, 1993 by John Patrick Zmirak

Our heritage has been stolen, and it’s about time we took it back. The great entrepreneurs of the past have been smeared as robber barons,” and their enormous successes chalked up to theft and exploitation, according to business historian Burton W. Folsom Jr. of Murray State University in Kentucky. Men like Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller - the colossal innovators who built America’s banks, railroads, steel mills, and cities - have been set upon by a lynch mob of ax-grinding historians with political agendas. Folsom’s powerful book, The Myth of the Robber Barons, uncovers the lost victory stories of six inspiring entrepreneurs.

According to Folsom, the robber baron myth was created to justify government control over business. Every “abuse” committed by a “robber baron” was another argument for “reform.”

Every “reform” took power away from consumers and gave it to Congress, as regulations choked off competition and innovation. All this to protect the country from the “robber barons” - from such men as railroad pioneer James J. Hill, who created America’s most successful private railroad.

Advertisement

Hill worked for railroads, but dreamed of owning his own. In 1878, he saw his chance - an entire railroad for sale, the St. Paul and Pacific. Hill went to inspect his purchase and found a bankrupt line with only 10 miles of unconnected rail, its materiel scattered along the abandoned right-of-way.

Hill swore to complete it. Critics dubbed the railroad Hill’s folly, but Hill kept his promise.

He built a system that would last, using the highest-quality rails and laying track in carefully chosen spots to maximize safety and slash costs. He rediscovered a passage lost since the days of Lewis and Clark and used it to avoid a 100-mile detour.

Hill pursued an incremental strategy, developing the economy of each frontier area (with help to farmers including free cattle and wheat) before he moved farther west, creating for himself a huge customer base. That’s how a railroad grows when it’s driven by die market.

Built on Pork

What happens when the government drives it.; We’ve all heard the epic saga of the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads - their frantic drive across the West to link America’s coasts with a golden spike. Less well known is how massively corrupt and inefficient these railroads were. Perhaps the last spike should have been made of pork.

Congress lavished both lines with subsidies and loans - payable by the mile. This gave the railroads an irresistible incentive to build winding, meandering routes - a temptation they didn’t resist. Since the two companies were competing to grab the most from Uncle Sam, they both used cheap materials and slapdash construction methods. They laid rails on top of snow and ice, in hostile Indian territory, by the banks of flood-prone rivers - it didn’t matter. The goal wasn’t to create a profitable railroad but to gobble up government largess. They spent double what it should have cost.

The rail system that resulted was plagued with trouble ever after and never turned a profit. In response, Congress did what it does best - it passed a slew of regulations. These rules harmed the honest, successful lines without saving the faltering ones. Shortly after their celebrated meeting in Promontory Point, Utah, the UP went bankrupt, while the CP survived only by buying the California legislature and granting itself a legal monopoly.

In stark contrast stands the figure of James Hill, who disdained government handouts and crushed competitors who took them. Without subsidies to lead it astray, Hill’s Great Northern Railroad Co. grew with the region, reaching from St. Paul all the way to Seattle. It was a resounding commercial success and opened up American trade with the Orient. Hill later captured the entire Japanese market for steel rails by underbidding every firm in Europe.

Men like Hill built America, leaving in their wake vast cities throbbing with commerce. Folsom’s book is the first to do them justice. It is essential reading for anyone who follows in their footsteps.

COPYRIGHT 1993 Success Holdings Company, LLC COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

By chuck

December 14, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

I seem to also recal a book by someone…now what was his name? Oh yeah…Upton Sinclair…a PRIVATE citizen who disclosed the abuses in the meat industry. The OUTRAGE generated by the book triggered the changes and did way more for reform than the government did.

How about this quote from a speech by Teddy Roosevelt. He actually spoke these words 5 minutes after he was shot in an assassination attempt. The bullet was in his chest and he refused to go to the hospital until he gave this speech:

I have altogether too important things to think of to feel any concern over my own death… . I am ahead of the game anyway. No man has had a happier life than I have led… .

This effort to assassinate me emphasizes to a peculiar degree the need for the Progressive movement … every good citizen ought to do everything in his or her power to prevent the coming of the day when we shall see in this country two recognized creeds fighting one another, when we shall see the creed of the “Have-nots” arraigned against the creed of the “Haves” …

My appeal for organized labor is two-fold; to the outsider and the capitalist I make my appeal to treat the laborer fairly … That is one-half appeal that I make. Now, the other half is to the labor man himself. My appeal to him is to remember that as he wants justice, so he must do justice.

Theodore Roosevelt was publicly issuing his political last will and testament, standing his ground on the idea that societal division between special interests could mean suicide for the American experiment.

By 2D

December 14, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

Chilao… I don’t listen to NPR and didn’t hear that piece. I’m glad you pointed it out. It actually validates a story I was going to tell.

A good friend of mine works for a staffing company. this individual is responsible for finding jobs for people. This person indicated that nearly every employer is more than willing to pay $10-$12 an hour for workers because they know that minimum wage will only get them the least skilled of the bunch.

Can you believe that! Voluntarily paying > 2X’s the minimum wage. That is the free market at it’s finest!

By 2D

December 14, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

Brian… Actually, I expect government and business to screw people over equally.

Businesses are going to get as much work out of you for as little payment as possible. That is the very nature of business, to MAKE MONEY!

Governments are going to make whatever promises they need to make to whatever constituencies they believe will get them elected, only keep the ones that will get them re-elected and make the people who didn’t elect them pay for them.

By Chilao

December 14, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

Of course there was also the guy in Austin TX who owned 4 Dairy Queens and a few other similiar businesses, and he stated rather than lay anyone off(for having to pay the huge(LOL) minimum wage), he tended to automate. In other words, the drink dispenser, common at MANY places now ANYWAY, is now in his businesses. But he did not blame it on the minimum wage, since he and every other business ANYWAY, tends to want to automate everything. But he did point out that that would be one employee per location, he did NOT have to hire and pay them the huge minimum wage, since he had automated the drinks dispenser.

By 2D

December 14, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Chilao… Not sure of the point, but it sounds like being an automated drink dispenser repair person would be a great career.

By Small Business Owner

December 14, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

By Monica Moral of the story: don’t look for a new job when you’re pregnant?? That’s not always an option for some women.

No Monica, the moral of the story is NOT to lie to an employer or potential employer!

By Big John

December 14, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

Employment has to be a two-way street. Every business needs good, trustworthy employees to succeed, and last I checked you can no longer whip people into working. As such, every intelligent small business owner I know pays his or her employees well, provides good working conditions, etc. In return, the employees are obligated to honor their employment through giving an honest effort each and every day. I accidentally hired someone one time who lied about some very fundamental facts. When the truth was revealed, she was in shock that I no longer trusted her and didn’t want to employ her any longer.

By TramadoL20325

December 14, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

I just don’t have anything to say. Not that it matters. Eh. I’ve just been staying at home doing nothing, but I don’t care. That’s how it is.

By lozen

December 14, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Small business owner: I have lied to employers and potential employers and they have lied to me! It’s a two-way street. I used to be perfectly honest when applying for jobs until I was screwed several times by employers. I was hired, for example, by a small business owner as a manager trainee. But because I did such a great job with mail orders he hired a man 10 years younger than me, paid him a higher starting salary, and began sending him to other stores to get his management training while I was stuck in the shipping dept. I found out how much the new hire was making, and confronted the owner. He made this big deal about me snooping around to find out what salary others were making, and told me I was unethical! Ha, ha, ha.
I caught a fragment of Boortz the other morning ranting and raving about people who take sick time when they aren’t sick and how they’re stealing from their employer. Employees, of course, can justify that because we know in Europe people get 4, 5, 6 weeks of leave while we might get one week or two. Employees no longer trust their employers to care about their interests and we really don’t have much reason to feel any loyalty or concern for them because they no longer have any concern or loyalty to us. The man complaining about someone hiring a woman who didn’t tell she was pregnant, while ignoring the huge number of male employees who don’t work out perfectly due to their health and addition and personality problems is very funny!

By Big John

December 14, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

The truth is, when I was just a lowly employee , I thought the boss’s job looked easy. Just come in and start ordering people around, yeah that’s the ticket. Then one day, I became the boss, then the owner. Now I know why all the US Presidents look so OLD when they leave office. The mental price of being personally responsible for a business is huge. Usually, the money isn’t worth it in the long run, in my opinion.

By Lupe

December 14, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

If you don’t trust private enterprise OR government???? We all do what we have to do, no?

By lozen

December 14, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

Addiction problems, not addition…

By Big John

December 14, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

lozen, I like your ethics! Employers have lied to you, so it’s ok to lie to them. People in Europe have longer vacations, so it’s justified to passively-aggressively dishonor your employment contract. Didn’t get the promotion you deserved? Do a little “detective work” and throw it in the employer’s face. Sounds like you might have a book there, “The 7 Habits of Highly Ineffective People”.

By lozen

December 14, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Yeah, the ex-prez’s might look old when they leave. But then they can go rest up for the rest of their lives on the yachts and private jets and island villas of friends acquired while in office! They will have the best health care in this country for the rest of their lives. They will enjoy privileges people like us can’t even dream of. I just find it kinda hard to feel sorry for them!

By Been There

December 14, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Doesn’t matter in a right-to-work state. You can be fired for any reason. Period. I was fired after I “got myself pregnant.” I thought discrimination laws were applicable, but since I was just a white chick, and according to my boss who slandered me all over town, a drug-addicted little slut (not true, btw, but he realized he looked bad telling people he fired me when I became pregnant), nobody cares. I fought long and hard for my “rights” to not be discriminated against, and to not be slandered to other potential employers in the business, but in the end, it’s not about right or wrong, or legal vs. illegal. It’s about who can buy the best laywers. Motions were made and dismissed and decided without me ever getting to speak to a judge or present the huge stack of evidence I had that the fat bastard was lying, which he WAS. Nope, that’s the America you live in: justice, fairness, and everything else belongs to whomever can pay the best-connected lawyers. Don’t kid yourself thinking truth matters. By the way, it was a tough year and a half, but we’re all doing well now, thanks.

By Big John

December 14, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Don’t give up on the truth, Been There, no matter what. The system may be imperfect, and there are certainly selfish, vicious people who take full advantage of it, but keep your head high! (oops, was that an unfortunate choice of words, “keep your head high” in light of the drug accusations?) ; > ]

By Big John

December 14, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

I heard that in the Netherlands, you have to have at least two positive drug tests before you can be hired. Does anyone know if that’s true? Here in the US, we should certainly extend that benefit to school teachers, don’t you think?

By Norwegian Wood

December 14, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

I once had a girl, or should I say, she once had me. She showed me her room, isn’t it good, norwegian wood? She asked me to stay and she told me to sit anywhere, So I looked around and I noticed there wasn’t a chair. I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine. We talked until two and then she said, “It’s time for bed.” She told me she worked in the morning and started to laugh. I told her I didn’t and crawled off to sleep in the bath. And when I awoke I was alone, this bird had flown. So I lit a fire, isn’t it good, norwegian wood.

By Been There

December 14, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

Big John, thanks. I still believe in truth, I just don’t believe it matters to as many people as it should. I guess you could call me a Realist. {;->

By Roger McG

December 14, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

The eastern world, it is explodin’ Violence flarin’, bullets loadin’ You’re old enough to kill, but not for votin’ You don’t believe in war, but what’s that gun you’re totin’ And even the Jordan River has bodies floatin’

But you tell me Over and over and over again, my friend Ah, you don’t believe We’re on the eve of destruction.

By Big John

December 14, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

It’s easy to get discouraged, Been There, especially when it looks like the crooks are winning. But, being close to God has its own rewards. You’re a beautiful person, hang in there.

You might look into a really cool book, “The Ever-Transcending Spirit”. In all relationships, we give and take energy from each other, all the time. When we hang around folks who constantly steal energy from us, we feel depleted, and often build up thick walls around us to protect ourselves from the “energy thieves”. The best relationships are those in which the energy flows both ways.

By Big John

December 14, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

If the book is no help, try some Norwegian Wood.

By Big John

December 14, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

Hope everyone is studying hard for their nookie licenses. The test is tomorrow at noon. I tried to practice by myself last night, but my hand got tired…

By 2D

December 14, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

Lozen… Not sure why everyone wants to compare the US to Europe. If you do, you have to take the good (vacation time) with the bad.

I will gladly take my measly 2-3 weeks of vacation so I don”t have to pay nearly 60% of my income in taxes, can afford to buy a decent home and not stare double digit unemployment in the face.

To you, or anyone who wants to make that trade I say… Go ahead, take the next plane to Paris and I’m not gonna miss you.

To tie this into the original topic for the week, just wait until the population ages in Europe even further. At some point, Continental Europe will completely collapse under the enormous pressure caused by their government freebies that need to paid out without anyone to pay for them. It gets older and older, without any younger generations to do the work. The ones that are left will say “screw you guys, I’m going to the U.S.” and who could blame them.

By A Heart

December 14, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

With one more look at you I could learn to tame the clouds and let the sun shine through Leave a troubled past and I might start anew

With one more look or you I might overcome the anger That I’ve learned to know Find a peace of mind I lost so long ago

For when you look or me, my spirit feels a promise I won’t be alone Your eyes are like fingers Touching my body Arousing me so I’m riding the passion arising inside me How high can I go?

I see the hunger arise in your eyes And it’s urging me on Higher and harder and it’s faster and farther than I’ve ever gone But I’m secure In the fact that you won’t let me fall If it gets scary, I won’t look down….

By TramadoL40918

December 14, 2006 07:42 PM | Link to this

I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. I’ve basically been doing nothing worth mentioning. My life’s been pretty unremarkable these days. Eh.

By TramadoL85510

December 14, 2006 07:43 PM | Link to this

I just don’t have anything to say right now. I haven’t been up to anything recently, but it’s not important. I’ve just been sitting around waiting for something to happen, but shrug.

By TramadoL64295

December 14, 2006 08:32 PM | Link to this

I haven’t been up to much these days. Today was a loss. Nothing seems important. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me these days.

By Monica

December 15, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this

Who let the DOG out?

By TramadoL37155

December 15, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

Not much on my mind these days, but what can I say? It’s not important. I just don’t have much to say lately. I’ve just been letting everything pass me by recently, but eh.

By Chilao

December 15, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

Anybody else catch the extreme irony in an ethics lecture yesterday? Independent SideBar:Of course one also as to wonder how much of a CashIncome was reported as Income.

My Joke-Day contribution right there. LOL Will be busy elsewhere all day anyway.
Work/meetings/Holiday Festivities.

By Renee

December 15, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Totally off subject, but I literally can’t WAIT to get to ATL next week!!!

I agree, Monica, I DEFINITELY smell a DOG LOL

By Monica

December 15, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Renee, I’ll be thinking about you next week as you come to ATL. Will you be stopping at The Varsity for lunch one day, or will you only dine in the “non trans fat” establishments? :)

By Cash Income

December 15, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

100%

By Cash Income

December 15, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Nookie license testing begins in 1 minute. Everyone drop what they are doing and grab a partner.

By Cash Income

December 15, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

For the oral portion of the exam, you will need the following supplies: A rubber hose with a ping-pong ball inside, and two dozen tacos. A chrome trailer hitch may be substituted for the hose and ping-pong ball.

By Renee

December 15, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

I am DEFINITELY making a Varsity stop, Monica!!!

By The Department of Nookie

December 15, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

The results are in from this afternoon’s testing. Licenses will be issued to the following:

Class XXX license: Big John, 72John, kimberly*, NetBanker, Renee, SusieHomemaker, Jack.

Class X license: Chilao, Kevin, 2D, Mara, Monica.

Learner’s Permits: Brian Curtis, chuck.

• Class Valedictorian

By Applicant

December 15, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

Is BDSM a special license category?

By etc.

December 15, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

BruDog: Special Award for the smallest “norwegian wood”

By Big John

December 15, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

etc., Norwegian wood is something you smoke.

By The Department of Nookie

December 15, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

Dear Applicant: The Class XXX license will qualify you for BDSM activities, no additional certification required.

By Mara

December 15, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

study just out indicates that, statistically speaking, gay guys have larger willies than straight men. Andrew Sullivan has details.

By Lily Toad

December 15, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

Yeah, and Lesbians have longer fingers!

By Big John

December 15, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Mara. Now I know why people think I may be gay sometimes.

By TramadoL28828

December 15, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

My life’s been basically bland today. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. My mind is like an empty room. I’ve more or less been doing nothing to speak of. Not much on my mind recently.

By Brian Curtis

December 15, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Yep, the liar’s definitely back in town and begging for attention again. Have a good weekend, folks!

By Applicant

December 15, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Like I sometimes train girls to smoke on my big cigar?

By Monica

December 15, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

Merry Christmas to all! I’ll be checking in periodically the next two weeks - school’s out for us. I hope you enjoy your trip to Atlanta, Renee! We are planning on spending a night or two in the mountains - can’t wait!

By Childfree by Choice

December 15, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

Time to stop being PC and just say it: stupid people reproduce at a faster rate than those who are educated and informed.

By TramadoL56898

December 15, 2006 07:07 PM | Link to this

retty much nothing seems worth thinking about. My life’s been completely dull , not that it matters. I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen.