AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > December > 28 > Entry
What change will politics bring women in 2007?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
No matter what side of the political aisle we may call home, we can agree that powerful women in Washington are off to an auspicious start in 2007. The new year will usher in the first female speaker of the House, making a woman — for the first time — third in line for the presidency. And sometime soon, the first serious female contender for that lofty office will probably toss her hat into the ring. More practically, the power shift to the Democrats — including the large number of women now heading up committees and subcommittees — probably means some major policy attention to “women’s issues.”
The problem is, I’m not sure that all those factors will actually translate into more positive results for the female half of the population. Although it is terrific that the people in leadership are women, the policies they are likely to champion may, unfortunately, be a net detriment to women overall.
For example, several likely Democratic initiatives, such as same-sex unions and strengthening no-fault divorce laws, would have the effect of weakening marriage as an institution. Yet studies show that the traditional institution of marriage (as opposed to simply cohabitating) is actually vital for women. As Maggie Gallagher, the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, pointed out in an interview: “By some measures, marriage benefits women even more than men. The data shows that married women are better off financially, emotionally and even have overall better health” than single women or those who are cohabitating.
As Gallagher also pondered, what will happen to other programs that have proven extremely beneficial to girls and women but have been opposed by Democratic leaders, such as abstinence education and tax incentives for low-income married families?
Perhaps most important, the pro-choice policies billed by our new female leaders as “pro-women” are actually the most damaging. As much as pro-choice advocates want to gloss over the post-abortion trauma many women go through, countless studies show that depression, substance abuse and grief haunt women even decades later.
As we enter a new year and a new political environment in Washington, I deeply hope that we are not going to watch so many talented, motivated women rise to the fore … only to champion policies that will be worse for women in the end.
Rebuttal
Shaunti isn’t worried about women. She’s concerned about compromising her religious values, now threatened by a Democratic majority in Congress. If she weren’t, the concepts of inclusion and choice wouldn’t have the same negative impact as an Ebola epidemic.
Personally, I don’t get it. Shaunti mentions same-sex unions as a threat to the institution of marriage. But how would a civil marriage between Gayle and Donna, or Joe and Jack, compromise my wedded bliss with a member of the opposite sex? It isn’t as if the Democrats are proposing the obliteration of heterosexual marriage, just the inclusion of gay marriage. Religious conservatives can rest assured — straight women could still get hitched.
Then there’s the conservative abortion card, complete with tiny violins playing in the background, eliciting empathy. Offering women a choice when to bear children, isn’t detrimental — politically or personally. Even though Shaunti believes women suffer post-abortion depression, I’d argue that, statistically, so do a small percentage of those who drink seasonal eggnog lattes. This is Shaunti’s belief talking, not hard science.
Seventy-two percent of women surveyed were satisfied with their choice to have an abortion during the first trimester, according to a 2000 study in the Archives of General Psychiatry. In fact, 80 percent of women, surveyed two years post-abortion, weren’t at all depressed. The vast majority felt there was “more benefit than harm.”
So while Shaunti thinks she is helping women see the truth, the truth is, she wants everyone to see the light, as a Christian. The problem is that not all of us are among the faithful; others don’t believe in her particular vision of Christ. The Christ I believe in is the one who includes all sexes and races and sexual preferences, a Christ who doesn’t limit women to biological categories, but offers limitless spiritual possibilities.
Women can be happy and healthy without being married. Women aren’t biologically predestined. Women are comfortable with more than one choice, because women like to think. And that’s why there was a Democratic shift in Congress. People started thinking for themselves.
Comments
By Lyrazel
January 1, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this
Nancy Pelosi once said on an interview: In politics is 25% of time is spent in work and 75% of time on re-election and fundraising. Is ANYTHING going to change because the Speaker is a woman (and the same one who admits spending 75% of her time on fundraising and re-election)? I doubt it. Look for more double speak, look for irrelevant issues to be brought to our attention rather than actual changes, look for more unfunded programs and mandates promoting feeling good measures all sound bites but no substance. Women have proven they are equally as capable of spin and being a politician as men—so that also means glory as well as warts.
2 Hillary wont run for political office because she knows she will get more of her agenda passed if she remains in the senate. Her name is shoved at us by TV media because the Dem. party needs the buzz. Mubarak also is a non-contender but keeps the buzz to the party—playing voter interest card is what these two political parties do. He may toss a hat into the ring for a spin run… Possibly add the Gov. of New Mexico to the list if immigration is the 2008 issue… Look for the same male contenders in the actual race…the old Boomers who served the party for years want their due… 3 The party that WILL run a woman will be Republicans. John McCain will choose a woman as his partner candidate (who knows maybe Condi but I doubt it). There is a chance Sonny might be considered as vice—mainly because he could bring the south—its on his list…but he’s not on John’s…expect this party to turn away from the religious right. 4 Dissatisfied voters will look toward moderate Libertarian candidates in attempts to establish a 3 party system in upcoming elections of the house and senate. Watch for upsets.Its politics as usual…enjoy the year…but don’t expect change from politicians.
By Lorraine Martin
January 1, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this
Well, it’s a New Year yet Shaunti is still up to her past laziness. She’s using Maggie Gallagher as a source. Yes. That Maggie Gallagher. The one who was banished from the legitimate press after it was discovered she was on the secret Bush payroll to push their agenda in her columns. Ole Maggie forgot, of course, as she was flogging the Bush talking points in her “fair and balanced” columns to reveal that she was getting paid, not just by her press syndicate, but also by the Bushies, to parrot their faxed memos. And this is Shaunti’s source? Come on, Shaunti, this is insulting to your readers. Who’s next to shore up your rants? Focus on the Family? Jerry Falwell (“America deserved 9-11”)? Take the time to find some respected sources, if you can find them, to backup your statements. Maggie Gallagher? (Here’s a clue: your paper doesn’t carry her columns anymore. Ask one of the smart people why.) You should be ashamed.
By Mara
January 2, 2007 07:43 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel - Mubarak?! And all this time I thought that Hosni Mubarak was already president of Egypt. Who knew there’d be “buzz” about him running for US President. LOL!!
And what’s this about Hillary not running “for political office because she knows she will get more of her agenda passed if she remains in the senate”? Am I mistaken in the belief that “Senator” is a political office? How’d she become a Senator without running for political office?!
My third question…Did you party way too hard over the weekend? Because usually you aren’t this…uh…(sloppy? lazy? mistaken?…) “casual” with the details in your posts. Seriously, I’m concerned! You’re usually pretty sharp…
By Mara
January 2, 2007 07:59 AM | Link to this
Lorrain - I also giggled a bit at Shaunti using Maggie Gallagher as a sorce. Speaking of “reliable sources”, she’ll probably use Armstrong Williams or James Guckert (aka Jeff Gannon; aka “Bulldog”)in her next column. Too many people have become familiar with the agenda of Jerry Falwell and the Focus on Family types to give them much credibility anymore.
By Brian Curtis
January 2, 2007 08:20 AM | Link to this
Naturally, with the incoming Democratic Congress, Shaunti has to declare that things will get worse for women. What else can she do?
After all, every advancement we’ve made that benefited women—from voting rights to FMLA and paid maternity leave to reproductive choice and equal-treatment laws—have come from liberals. Democrats. Shaunti has no choice but to deny all this and claim that the coming Democratic majority will actually be anti-woman.
Some days, it’s not easy being a Republican cheerleader.
By Lily Toad
January 2, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this
Hey, Shaunti,
If abstinence education really worked there wouldn’t be any need for abortions. If same-sex marriage weakens marriage why do gay couples clamour for the benefits it provides?
By lozen
January 2, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
Abortion is bad for women and women who have abortions suffer the rest of their lives for making their own choices about when to have kids? Puhhhhlease! Marriage benefits women more than men? Puhhhhhhlease! Every study I’ve read shows that single women are happier and live longer than married women. And they only have to do laundry for one person, themselves. It is true that married women are usually better off financially because two incomes are better than one. But if the women are lesbians who want to get married - Bad, bad, bad! Can some conservative tell me exactly how you think gay marriage would undermine straight marriage? (In 25 words or less. Just in case Chuck is lurking!)
By The72John
January 2, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this
Just curious, but…what does gay marriage have to do with the topic? It takes Shaunti…how long?…to loop this question around to the the dundermentalist mantras of gay bashing and abortion preaching. It’s got to be a record.
Apparently Shaunti doesn’t think that women have anything to be concerned about except getting married and having babies…what a shocker.
By Chica
January 2, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this
Wouldn’t it be nice if it became legal to execute pornographers? Especially those who post on a Woman to Woman blog? lol
Shaunti & Diane do you only get paid to write little articles each week? Shouldn’t you be making sure your blog isn’t being used by pornographers or trolls?
I like this blog, those porn posts ruin it.
lol lozen that is so true! I had an abortion in college & never had bad dreams, did drugs or had a nervous breakdown over it & never heard of anybody who did. Am I supposed to feel bad I’m on the pill now?
I can’t see how a married gay couple could ruin my marriage. Maybe if my husband leaves me for another man maybe. (jk that is NOT going to happen lol)
By Mara
January 2, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this
John - LOL @ Apparently Shaunti doesn’t think that women have anything to be concerned about except getting married and having babies…what a shocker
and we women are doooooooomed without that vital institution known as “traditional marriage” LOL!!
By Lily Toad
January 2, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this
Top of the Democrats’ list for the new session — raising minimum wage. Shaunti doesn’t mention how that will positively affect women who are on average paid less than men.
By The72John
January 2, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this
Porn is one of mankind’s oldest forms of visual expression. What’s the big deal?
By Lily Toad
January 2, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this
Social Security, Medicare, drug costs, disability rights, and funding stem cell research are all issues that affect women, but Shaunti has to focus on oooh, scary, gay marriage and depression following abortion.
By Mara
January 2, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this
Chica - while I don’t personally care for pornography I can’t support the legal execution of pornographers, who are, after all, merely expressing themselves. Once we start executing people for publishing content that we find offensive, where does the censorship stop? I find gratuitous violence much more offensive than pictures of people displaying their genitals. Shall we execute everyone who enjoys boxing? Or action/war movies? How about video game makers? Literary history gives us tons of graphic violence, shall we ban all those books? How about Mel Gibson? His “Passion of the Christ” and “Apocalypto” are awash in blood and violence…
One assume, of course, that you are refering to “mainstream” pornographers and not the child porn folks or those who use enslaved or coerced their “models”. Those people I might make an exception for.
By Chica
January 2, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this
72 John there is just too much of it everywhere. It’s degrading to women & it isn’t really good for men either. I know of 2 relationships that were ruined due to internet porn & too much time & money spent in strip clubs. Sure most women don’t work in that business but it get’s on my nerves to have to see it so much. lol it IS gross because it’s used for self-pleasuring & I really don’t want to be constantly reminded that guys gotta have that lol !
By Chica
January 2, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this
lol I was kidding Mara, sort of, well I’d rather them “disappear” into thin air.
I know I’m young & I don’t know everything about how things work as far as government. All I know is I’m really glad I don’t have to have a baby if I don’t want to & there are things I can use to prevent one.
I think more should be done about crime. Aren’t most people who commit crimes under 25 years old? Seems like all the bad people out there are my age. Where are their parents?
By The72John
January 2, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this
Chica,
Only 2? I can point to I don’t know HOW many relationships ruined by various other perfectly legal and socially acceptable activities. Everquest addiction, work obsession, gambling, drinking…the list goes on and on and on, and I suspect that there are far more relationships destroyed by these “normal” activities than by porn addiction.
I think you’re closer to the truth when you say it makes you uncomfortable to see it. It’s sad that we’ve become a society that tries so hard to reject our basic natures and drives. Many cultures throughout history embraced sexuality rather than turning it into something dirty and shameful, and I expect they were a lot happier for it.
As for degrading women, well - I can’t speak to that. There aren’t any women in my porn.
By Lily Toad
January 2, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this
Self-pleasuring? What’s wrong with that? It’s usually safe (unless performed while driving — if reckless) and it’s with someone you love and trust.
By Mara
January 2, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this
it IS gross because it’s used for self-pleasuring & I really don’t want to be constantly reminded that guys gotta have that
FYI - guys aren’t the only purveyers of pornography. Nor, IMO, should self-gratification be considered any grosser than partnered sex. Actually, it should be considered less gross, since the only one exposed to the jiggling love-handles and the extra belly fat is the one doing the “self-pleasuring”.
By Mara
January 2, 2007 01:07 PM | Link to this
Chica - lol I was kidding Mara, sort of, well I’d rather them “disappear” into thin air
sorry, I didn’t catch the “LOL” at the end of the first post. Iguess that after all the attempts in the last 8 years to curtail personal freedoms, I find myself hyper-sensitive to any suggestion that freedom be reserved for those we agree with. Sorry again. :^(
way off topic - can anyone tell me when “Gaspar the beluga whale” became “Gasper the beluga whale”?
By dakota
January 2, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this
Well, well we’ve destroyed Shaunti’s argument in a few deft strokes and now, ta da! On to porn! I have such mixed feelings about it. I saw quite a bit of it when I visited the Museum of Sex in NYC. Japanese art prints, the history of the porn film, some funny machines, etc. I read Fanny Hill and enjoyed it. I’ve watched porn films. I enjoy some of it. I despise some of it. I laugh at some of it. It is laughable sometimes to watch other people doing the deed. Sometimes it’s a turn-on. Some of it makes me feel kind of sick - much like the film in grade school that went inside the stomach and intestines to show how we digest food. I think some men who watch a lot of porn get the biggest dis-education about sex and what pleases women. Other men are just interested in sex and “there’s nothing wrong with that.” The heaviest porn user I ever knew was a male friend who had no self confidence at all with women and hadn’t dated more than once or twice when he was 35. He needed an outlet, ya know. To me there’s nothing at all gross about self-pleasuring; it is a wonderful thing. Babies come into the world feeling themselves! It’s something everyone does unless they’ve been brain washed into thinking it’s bad, it’s a sin, blah, blah, blah. Some couples use porn to enhance their sex lives. That’s a good thing. I guess it’s all in how you use it, just like everything else.
By lozen
January 2, 2007 01:22 PM | Link to this
Self pleasuring is a wonderful thing, Chica. It’s relaxing, soothing, legal, perfectly safe always, and can be done in the privacy of your home whenever you feel the need and exactly the way you want pleasure! 72John, your comments started me thinking: Is it only some women who feel degraded by porn? Do any men ever feel degraded by it? Gay men or straight men? Many cultures throughout history embraced sexuality rather than turning it into something dirty and shameful, and I expect they were a lot happier for it. Hear! Hear!
By chica
January 2, 2007 01:38 PM | Link to this
LOL WHAT have I done now everybody’s self pleasuring. rofl !
By Mara
January 2, 2007 01:44 PM | Link to this
hey lozen, “perfectly safe always”? don’t tell that to those folks who’ve gotten their “personal property” stuck in those handy household sex aids (like vacume cleaners and pool intakes…) ROTFL!!
By Brian Curtis
January 2, 2007 02:05 PM | Link to this
Now see what you’ve done? All these fine folks typing one-handed on the forum today….
By Little John
January 2, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this
lozen—What studies are you referring to that support the idea that single women are happier than married women? My personal experience is the exact opposite. In fact, most women will stay in a miserable marriage rather than going out on their own.
Chica—Keep telling yourself that abortion is a GOOD THING. Maybe you will believe yourself one day.
72John—Loved your comment about gay porn. Kind of takes the wind out of the argument that women are victimized by porn.
By Lily Toad
January 2, 2007 02:52 PM | Link to this
I also had an abortion in my 20’s and never regretted it.
By lozen
January 2, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this
Little John, do you know how to Google? Go for it! Your comment to Chica was way uncalled for. You know better than she does what is/was/will be better for her life? I don’t think so. You know that abortion your mother didn’t have? Just keep telling yourself it was a GOOD THING. And 72John’s comment about gay porn does not say one thing about women who feel victamized by porn. Not even one!
By Chica
January 2, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this
Little John abortion is a good medical option for all women. For men as well. Actually it’s necessary for all women to have control of thier reproduction & overall health. I was making the right decision for myself, my health & it’s what was best for my future & my future family. I’m not going to debate abortion, especially with a guy ! geesh !
The women I know staying in a bad relationship do it because they never did anything about a real career after school & can’t even support themselves, especially if they had a baby.
I dont’ feel victimized by male gay porn at all ! ! lol
see what I mean about allowing porn everywhere? Why does the AJC allow a blogger to show links to a site called high school girls?
I think the AJC is getting a portion of the porn profit & that’s why they don’t delete the porn trolls.
By Lyrazel
January 2, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this
Mara—never sit without an open newspaper and think you know the names of everyone in the world—then spew—yes, its me. GUILTY!
One day Shaunti’s child will browse the web to read her articles and click on some of the links of her blog. Shaunti will catch him doing it but the boy will say: I was at YOUR SITE mom!!! Not only did I find teens willing but low cost auto insurance!!! What a great country we live in mom!
My nephew is going back to Iraq. Its his 4th tour of duty. His wife just had their first child in December. 2007 rang in hollow…
By Little John
January 2, 2007 03:34 PM | Link to this
Lily, lozen, chica—Everyone makes mistakes in life, sometimes really big ones. As such, abortion should remain legal. However, it shouldn’t be glorified. It is a shameful act, and should remain stigmatized.
Of course, once we do wrong, we have to find a way to forgive ourselves and move on. The best way to do this is to simply admit error. The worst way is to start justifying evil.
By chica
January 2, 2007 03:47 PM | Link to this
There’s nothing wrong or shameful about abortion. It’s a medical procedure. It should be glorified because it allows women to truely be free. uggg I don’t like debating with guys who can’t even get pregnant.
Forgive ourselves? For what? Accidents happen. If I was in a car accident I wouldn’t feel evil for getting medical treatment. Sex isn’t evil either. I think self pleasuring is because I’ve heard it causes blindness? lol
In 2007 I’d like to see an advancement in birth control. I shouldn’t take the pill after 30? What do women do after they turn 30?
By The72John
January 2, 2007 03:57 PM | Link to this
I think the question about victimization is a fair one. Gay men and straight men don’t feel particularly “victimized” by porn, and both groups participate in the industry as much as women do.
I understand that many women, and I’m sure men as well, are uncomfortable with some types of porn, particularly the bondage and domination sorts, but as for victimization…I don’t know. I think it ties into a certain belief that says that any woman who is taking a passive or submissive role must be victimized.
Unfortunately, that belief doesn’t hold up when one stops to consider that there are lots of women AND men who ENJOY taking those roles. There are people who LIKE being tied up or spanked or “forced” to lick someone’s boots. I’m not one of them, but I appreciate the fact that there are people who do, and that there’s an entire culture that revolves around that kind of activity, one with rules and mores that ensure that both partners are safe and…ahem…fulfilled.
I’ve read many discussions of B&D/S&M where the participants reveal that the submissive partner actually holds all of the power in the encounter, that it is the submissive who chooses to allow the dominant to do whatever he or she does. So, if that’s the case, then why are women victimized by participating in something they find pleasurable and desireable?
Perhaps “back in the day” when porn movies were made in smoke-filled back rooms and women were often mistreated by the producers of it, victimization was a problem, and certainly there are still some less-than-scrupulous types making porn today, but for the most part the porn industry is as clean and regulated as it’s possible to be. It’s a business where the companies have large corporate offices and multi-million dollar studios and everything about the production is tracked, recorded, logged and overseen.
I think that porn should remain regulated and that anyone who coerces someone to participate in it should be locked up for a long time, and don’t even get me started on what should happen to people who use children for that purpose, but no, I don’t think that anyone who willingly participates in that industry can be accused of being victimized.
By Mara
January 2, 2007 04:01 PM | Link to this
chica - great comment @ 3:47
By Archie
January 2, 2007 04:23 PM | Link to this
First of all Shanti is entitled to her opinion and I am entitled to disagree with her. Women can be happy and healthy without being married. Women aren’t biologically predestined. Women are comfortable with more than one choice, because women like to think. And that’s why there was a Democratic shift in Congress. People started thinking for themselves. This a very good paragraph coming from Diane. Good job Diane. As for same-sex thing it’s about time for people to get over that because there will always be gay people. As for the porn thing, some women use that to enrich themselves and as 72John says there’s no victimization and many women like porn. I often wonder do people really listen to the radio and actually talk to other people outside their circle. Just coming to this blog you find people that you can agree with and disagree at the same time. I disagree with women on male vs female issues sometimes but there are so many intelligent women, and men.
By No victimization??????
January 2, 2007 04:42 PM | Link to this
It is typical that liberal-minded people, when facing censorship, would rush to defend pornographers’ right to produce whatever they want, even if the products objectify, humiliate and violate women. But shouldn’t we ponder what we are defending and what kind of value system supports that defense?
By No victimization????
January 2, 2007 04:50 PM | Link to this
Most of the women and men I interviewed first watched pornography in their early teens or even younger. In other words, pornography is sex education. In an already male-dominant society with epidemic levels of sexual and intimate violence, pornographic messages help further solidify and normalize male supremacy in the bedrooms and elsewhere.
One of the most popular booths at this years porn expo in Vegas was for the BangBus, which consistently drew large crowds of almost entirely male fans. What’s the BangBus concept? One of the producers explained that the videos show men in a large van, picking up what appear to be women on the streets, talking them into having sex, and then degrading them in some way – dropping them off in desolate places, or throwing their belongings out the door.
Pornography encourages people to disregard others’ pain for one’s own pleasure. Many people I interviewed acknowledged that, based on their own experience and knowledge of the human body, certain sex acts they’ve watched in films likely would have been painful for the female performers. However, they argued that since the performers were paid, it was not the viewers’ concern, and they acknowledged that they get aroused watching it. That mentality helps create a world in which a producer can brag about having originated a popular video series that shows women gagging during forceful oral sex.
That is what we have taught our sons to be normal.
By No victimization????
January 2, 2007 04:56 PM | Link to this
Pornography has been primarily made by men and used by men. Men watch these videos for their own sexual stimulation. Pornographers are eager to explore the female market, with some claiming to make women-centered pornography. However, looking at the repetitive content, whether male-centered or female-centered, the essential message is the same: All women want sex all the time, in whatever fashion men want them.
One only has to take a real look at the amount of websites filled with pre-teen looking girls to realize what direction this business has gone. I was amazed at how many men defend it.
By The72John
January 2, 2007 05:03 PM | Link to this
Hey, “No Victim”. On THIS blog we prefer that people use their own words. If you are going to cut-and-paste something that you didn’t write, at least have the courage and honesty to cite your source, rather than passing something off as your own, hmm?
Here, I’ll do it for you.
http://www.alternet.org/story/21095
By No victimization????
January 2, 2007 05:23 PM | Link to this
The sex industry, is founded on capitalism, greed, and men’s contempt for women and people of color. It frequently defines sex as a service women perform for men, and it almost exclusively markets women’s bodies, usually photographed in submissive positions, to men and even boys. It sexualizes racist stereotypes about Black women, Asian women and other women of color, and promotes racist beliefs about men of color as well. Yet, most of the liberal men I know defend their right to use pornography despite their supposed commitment to social justice. They defend pornography despite the fact that, in the most popular pornography, women’s humiliation and subordination are eroticized. At best, pornography connects male sexual pleasure with the belief men have the right to buy sexual access to women; at worst, it allows men to climax to images of women’s suffering.
The majority of women who go into pornography are poor & they have fewer privileges in life.
The lives of women hurt by pornography should matter. The lives of those who feel broken by pornography should matter, too. Why is it so unacceptable to ask men to give up pornography?
By NoVic forgot source
January 2, 2007 05:31 PM | Link to this
Women are the population most hurt by all types of pornography, and should be the first to refuse to look at, watch or accept it.
Pornography, by its very nature, has nothing redeemable. Some will try to call a percentage of it artistic, trying to rationalize the negative and harmful nature of it.
Many men who do have a mate still engage in viewing pornography, thereby replacing their mates, and acknowledging by the act of viewing porn, that their mate is not enough for them.
Porn is always the promotion of sex that is not within the bounds of a commitment. It is never in the normal context that one would have to practice self-control. It is in a context that implies premarital, extramarital, and is simply anti-marital in its character. Porn lacks values by simply being a denigration of respect for women, marriage, self control, morality and ethics. Porn teaches men that sex is simply an instinctual, animal drive, and removes it from a context where emotion and love are involved.
Porn also harms women because it causes men to unknowingly view women as less than human, as less than themselves; as objects or animals. It teaches them to not only be dominators, but also misogynists-meaning they believe women are not their equal-but their pets, their servants.
If men believe women are less than human, it is logical to believe that viewing pornography leads to violence against women, as statistics have shown. If women are viewed in reality, as the objects that they are in porn; to be used, abused and tossed aside at will, than the logical result will be spousal (or partner) abuse.
By TramadoL5503
January 3, 2007 12:09 AM | Link to this
I just don’t have much to say recently. Such is life. I’ve basically been doing nothing. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. Oh well.
By PharmACT
January 3, 2007 03:03 AM | Link to this
Hi! Official VIAGRA Web Site for erectile dysfunction, impotence, and sexual health information Only now !!! Free try Viagra
By TramadoL32621
January 3, 2007 08:06 AM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to anything these days. So it goes. I can’t be bothered with anything these days.
By Brian Curtis
January 3, 2007 08:32 AM | Link to this
quote: “It is typical that liberal-minded people, when facing censorship, would rush to defend pornographers’ right to produce whatever they want…”
Well, yes. And how shameful is it that so-called conservatives aren’t interested in fighting censorship and defending our freedoms along with us?
“But shouldn’t we ponder what we are defending and what kind of value system supports that defense?”
Yes, we’re defending freedom of expression, even those ideas and images that most of us would find offensive. “What kind of value system supports that?” One that values individual freedom over theocracy, that’s what kind.
Next question?
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 08:40 AM | Link to this
Porn is one of mankind’s oldest forms of visual expression. What’s the big deal?
None. There’s nothing wrong with porn. It shouldn’t break up a family if a person is not comparing a person’s fantasy as his reality. Unless one of the partner’s have a porn “addiction” there should be no cuase for alarm.
By 2D
January 3, 2007 08:48 AM | Link to this
It seems to me that this country has spent the better part of the last decade, actually the better part of my lifetime, defining individual groups rather than coming together as the greatest country ever established in history of the world. I’m sure everyone has heard the story of the father with many sons, it has been told in many forms. Anyway, the father has twelve sons and gives them each a bundle of sticks to break. All twelve try and cannot break the bundle. Then he gives each of them a single stick and they break it with ease. We need to do the same thing here in this country. If we continue to quarter ourselves off into little groups rather than meld into one powerful whole, we are doomed.
For us, it will require more work, because unlike other nations of the world, we are not of a common race or follow a common religion. Our individuality makes a strong and innovative, but if we are not willing to make sacrifices for the whole it can also be destructive.
My hope and prayer for 2007 is that we on this BLOG and more importantly throughout the country will move on toward a more united future with civility and dignity.
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 08:52 AM | Link to this
It is typical that liberal-minded people, when facing censorship, would rush to defend pornographers’ right to produce whatever they want, even if the products objectify, humiliate and violate women
How can you “humiliate” someone who’s promoting their “film” to the world? Is Jenna Jamieson “humilated?” I would agree if a date rape sort of drug was used and the unconscious person filmed while being raped, to me that’s considered humiliating and a violation of someone’s rights. But if the person is cognizant of what’s going on and agrees to do it where is the crime? Is it a crime because the majority of men enjoy pornography, or is it a crime because pornography is mostly made by men?
By Brian Curtis
January 3, 2007 09:08 AM | Link to this
Susie: Apparently, it’s a crime because men enjoy it and sex is involved, thus uniting the extremist fundies with the extremist (note, I say extremist only) feminists.
There’s nothing funnier than seeing Andrea Dworkin in bed with Ed Meese.
By novic
January 3, 2007 09:09 AM | Link to this
Studies indicate that between 75-90% of all women in the porn industry come from a background of rape, incest, or other sex abuse in their childhood. Jenna Jamieson isn’t a roll model for anybody.
The Slow path from dancing, to modeling, to porn, to stripping and back, pornographers take advantage and essentially con women into doing things they wouldn’t otherwise.
That is not freedom of speech.
By NoVic
January 3, 2007 09:11 AM | Link to this
You defend pornography despite the fact that, in the most popular pornography, women’s humiliation and subordination are eroticized. At best, pornography connects male sexual pleasure with the belief men have the right to buy sexual access to women; at worst, it allows men to climax to images of women’s suffering.
By TramadoL90822
January 3, 2007 09:22 AM | 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 SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 09:32 AM | Link to this
Not ALL pornography depict women as chattel, suffering, and/or being victims. There are specific films dedicated to that type of genre, (S&M etc); as well as specific women who LIKE that type of sexual expression.
I don’t understand the vehemence behind the anti-porn movement. I have LOTS of my own personal pornography at home. Granted, it’s different from the “every day” porn, mine is more female oriented, (it’s called Erotica by publishers), but it’s STILL Porn! It’s not the visual type, (although I do have the visual), but it’s still classified as pornography!! It’s more romantic, and viscerally stimulating then male pornography but it’s still considered porn.
As of yet, I have not raped or molested anyone because of it. I do however, take long hard looks at my kid’s sunday school teacher ever since I read “Teach Me” by one of my favorite authors.
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 09:37 AM | Link to this
Studies indicate that between 75-90% of all women in the porn industry come from a background of rape, incest, or other sex abuse in their childhood
So do women who are currently abusing drugs, women who have intimacy issues, prostitutes,promiscuous women, etc. I’m not denying the statistics, I’m just saying they are very broad and can be used as a referral to a lot of women’s issues.
I just don’t see anything wrong with pornography — I’ve been to the Lourve in Paris, the Smithsonian, etc. there’s more pornography in Musuems then there is anywhere else.
By NOVIC
January 3, 2007 09:40 AM | Link to this
Apologize for long post but it will answer some questions.
Among strippers, eating disorders are rampant. Many of the women starve, vomit, abuse exercise or laxatives to become the unnatural shape that is demanded of them. Plastic surgery is almost invariably required especially artificial breasts to produce unnaturally large breasts. This surgery is considered a necessity despite the evidence that artificial breasts interfere with mammograms, and are implicated in autoimmune deficiency disorders in the women, and digestive disorders in the babies of the women who have had the surgery.
Strippers are often substance abusers as well; one study found the number to be 40%. Sometimes this is-because they have to numb themselves to be able to do the work they do. Often the consumption of alcohol is required on the job.
Their personal lives and relationships suffer as well. Women who work in the sex industry have only a 25% chance of making a marriage that will last as long as three years. That is if they are able to find a man willing to be in a relationship with a stripper.
These women often hate men and disparage them. They believe that all men are capable of the attitudes and permission-giving beliefs that allow men to feel entitled to buy the physical and visual invasion of women’s bodies. Many strippers say they would never date the men who go to strip clubs because they find these men disgusting. Often the only kind of “dates” that these women make with customers is for prostitution. The hatred of men by strippers is deep and widespread. They describe their inner dialogue while they are stripping and it is virulent hate speech against the customers they pretend to desire. The psychological demand to numb themselves or to cover their disgust for their customers exacts a terrible toll on the strippers.
The job that they do is fraught with dangers and unpleasantry. In one study 100% of the strippers reported some kind of physical or verbal abuse on their jobs. Verbal abuse by customers is extremely common with 91% reporting incidents. They were routinely called degrading names like c—t (52%), w—-e (61%), and b—-h (85%). Besides the verbal abuse, all endured some type of physical abuse on the job. Despite the fact that it is illegal to touch a stripper, strippers reported that customers grabbed them by the arm (88%), grabbed their breast (73%), or their buttock (91%). Customers at strip clubs often assault the women. Customers pulled their hair (27%), pinched them (58%), slapped them (24%), or bite them (36%). They are often attacked in the str1p club in front of bodyguards and other audience members.
If men would do this to women in public, what would they do to women in private? Strippers are often raped. Strippers have reported that they have been followed home (70%) and have been stalked (42%). The fact that strippers work with bodyguards is evidence to the fact that their fears that this activity causes violence are realistic.
The level of sexual violence in the society is at epidemic proportions. We are experiencing a sexual holocaust. One in 8 women are raped, 50% of females will be sexually harassed on their jobs. By the time a female in this country is 18 years old, 38% have been sexually molested. We are the most sexually violent nation on earth.
Yet the porn industry wants to continue the cycle of violence and damage. They depend on our silence to continue to make money by hurting people.
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 09:43 AM | Link to this
Quick Question: Will the abolishment of pornography stop incests, child rapes, and sexual abuse? Or is this something that has been going on for quite some time, BEFORE pornography, (in its now more visual format), took place?
By Chilao
January 3, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this
There’s nothing funnier than seeing Andrea Dworkin in bed with Ed Meese.
Is that kinda like Dawg and Whiley in bed together here as well?
LMAO
I started to read yesterday, got side-tracked for the rest of the day researching those 44-wide dark Rio girls. Just doing research for W2W of course. LOL
I think I remember mentioning here the two Aussie women a room-mate knew way back, had come over the the States SPECIFICALLY to make it big in porn. Never heard of some pimp beating them over the head to make them do it, either.
By Brian Curtis
January 3, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this
Ahh yes, the “subordination and humiliation” of women that’s apparently inherent in all porn.
That must be what’s going on in those gay-male and dominatrix films, not to mention lesbian erotica. Do they take turns being humiliated in those, just to keep the “subordination” theme going?
By Chica
January 3, 2007 09:54 AM | Link to this
Good morning! OK so I agree with what No V is saying really how can we deny it? It would be nice to see less of it advertised everywhere I know where to find it if i ever need it lol. And it is mostly for guys & I don’t want to see other naked women no thank you. Plus you can’t complain about young people having sex & getting pregnant or having abortions if they’re always seeing sex stuff everywhere they go.
ok everybody stop talking about sex it’s too early in the morning. lol
By GOB
January 3, 2007 09:55 AM | Link to this
Many of the women starve, vomit, abuse exercise or laxatives to become the unnatural shape that is demanded of them.
How exactly does one abuse exercise?
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this
NoV: You forget to mention that many of the women do these things,(starve themselves, plastic surgery, work as a stripper), by CHOICE. Like I said the female version of Porn is called Erotica — same themes, (Sex), different music.
By Chilao
January 3, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this
And alot of women starve themselves AND get “body-enhancement” surgery and don’t work anywhere near the sex industry.
Many women are even alcoholics, and also do not work in the sex industry.
By The72John
January 3, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this
I guess “NoVic” hasn’t learned the lesson about posting other people’s words. This particular long post that I’m sure most of us read a paragraph of before zipping past the rest comes from one of those shrill “Stop Porn!” web sites.
http://moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?pornsEffects/laydenhealthy.htm
Now, none of the “facts” and statistics quoted in the article are cited and no discussion of the methodology of any of the studies from which these stats would be derived is made. So, gosh, their accuracy is certainly…um…suspect.
All of these arguments focus on women and how they are poor victims of big mean ole men…Why are these supposed feminists so obsessed with the idea of women as weak, powerless, victimized and powerless? Where’s the discussion of all the men involved in front of the camera? What about gay men and straight gay-for-pay men who bottom in gay videos? Where are all the complaints about THEIR victimization and degradation? Poor Billy - some big mean ole man touched his wee-wee!
Yaaawwn.
By Chilao
January 3, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this
Can we congratute both Diane and Shaunti for becoming humourists in writing?
The eggnog lattes correlation alone… LOL
on this alcoholism thought, I would be willing to beat that at least 90 percent of the WOMEN on Fortune-500 company boards are alcoholics. A correlation can be made? Aspiring to be on the board causes alcoholism? hmmmmmmm. Or perhaps a woman needs to be able to drink like the alcohlic men in order to get ON the board? hmmmmm. 4 of the 5 male VPs of the company who just left (due to a buyout) were alcoholics, complete with ruddy faces and shaky hands. A correlation between being a VP and being an alcoholic? hmmmm.
By CheapDrug
January 3, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this
Best selers of drugs vicodin buy tramadol buy xanax online butalbital carisoprodol
By The72John
January 3, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
Chilao, did you just say you wanted to beat 90% of the women on Fortune 500 boards? Did exposure to porn make you hate successful women?
By kimberly
January 3, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this
“Starving yourself is the feminine thing to do these days.” “Thin feels better than food tastes.” “If plants can learn to subsist on sunshine, water, and the air around them, so can we.” “A third of the country is obese. Why add to that number?” “Don’t give up five minutes before the miracle.” And my favorite: “If you’re weak and dizzy, you’re almost there!”
These and other priceless tidbits of Thinspiration brought to you by the fleeting, oft-censored, and increasingly difficult to find Pro-Ana websites. HAPPY NEW YEAR’S DIETING! {:-D
By Chilao
January 3, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
LOL, how about bet….(instead of beat)
No, exposure to porn did not make me hate successful women, however, exposure to alchie-women on the board made me hate alchies…..LMAO
But I know what to say the next time a woman asks me for a spanking…(But that is so humiliating and degrading, what’s wrong with you, anyhow…LOL)
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
I think we’re missing the point here. We need to stop senseless abuse of exercise equipment!! It’s downright criminal how people abuse exercise equipment!!! While working out, they taunt the equipment, (You can’t break me baby!!), sometimes they lovingly touch and caress the weights in public, they show off their new exercise equipment to friends and family right out of the box while it’s naked and defenseless!!!
We take pictures of our exercise equipment and put it on WEBSITES for all to see!! Damn pornography!! It’s EXERCISE EQUIPMENT ABUSE that we need to be fighting. Get the big picture here people. Get the big picture…..
By Lily Toad
January 3, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
Chilao must be watching Foxy Board Chicks Gone Wild videos.
By Chica
January 3, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this
We are Americans, most of us can’t starve ourselves even if we wanted to. lol Some of you are being mean about women in the sex industry. Just because they are choosing to do it doesn’t mean they should. I can’t imagine any of it being healthy & it seems dangerous to me. Most of the porn out there hard core, teen looking gross stuff. All those girls are somebody’s daughter. That’s no way to treat somebody’s kid.
Didn’t one of the Ms America girls get booted out just for having naked photos that were 4 years old? What kind of good company is going to hire an ex porn star? Seems to me if you get into any of that business you can mess up your whole future.
By Justin
January 3, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
One change in 2007 for the women of Georgia will be the inclusion of their income in setting child support awards. We will continue to work on the child support guidelines and custody laws to ensure fairness to men and non-custodial parents (NCPs) in family court. If there are any men or NCPs who are paying to much under the old guidelines, check to see if you are eligible for a modification.
By Chilao
January 3, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
Chilao must be watching Foxy Board Chicks Gone Wild videos
Oh, there ARE some? google, here we come.. LOL
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this
Just because they are choosing to do it doesn’t mean they should
Chica the appropos words here are “choosing to do it”. It’s their choice. By definition choosing to do something is exercising your own free will. Being Americans we are all about freedom — we make bumper stickers proclaiming our choices and our freedom to choose.
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this
One change in 2007 for the women of Georgia will be the inclusion of their income in setting child support awards. We will continue to work on the child support guidelines and custody laws to ensure fairness to men and non-custodial parents
Ah yes, the “Second Wife And Her Kids Need More Than The First Wife” Law. Hopefully all the Second Wives will one day be Ex’s…….I wonder how they’ll like the shoe on the other foot then.
By Justin
January 3, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this
SusieHomeMaker, Most of the men I know who are involved in getting fair child support awards can’t even afford to remarry so there is not a second wife! The ex-wife should contribute and not financially bankrupt her children’s father. By doing so, they ruin their children’s future. “Most women” (not all) don’t save for the future and college for their children. They are too busy at the next Macy’s sale.
By Justin
January 3, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this
Anyway, SusieHomemaker, I bet you remarried. So, why are you mad because your ex remarried and move on too? I am sure you will have more children if you want but I bet you don’t want your ex-husband to have more children? Just like most women, controlling during the marriage, controlling after the marriage until the man goes to his grave!
By Little John
January 3, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
SusieHomemaker—Happiest New Year to you!
Chica—Take your argument against “porn”, and substitute the word “abortion”. Notice any inconsistencies between your positions?
By The72John
January 3, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this
AH yes, Justin and his crusade to make it even easier for non-custodial parents to abdicate their financial as well as their emotional and child-rearing responsibilities for the child they have abandoned.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
Novic—I will agree with you that porn is not “artistic”. It’s just a cheap, easy way to get your rocks off. Does it have a healthy place in society? That’s a difficult question, because for some men, it’s all they have.
By Jack
January 3, 2007 01:02 PM | Link to this
Hi Sweet Thing! And Howdy to all. Snuck the laptop in today. Hope all is well. Ditto to 2D’s last sentence on her 8:48 post. I think about my virtual friends often and I catch up on weekends. As far as porn goes, after a while it all looks the same (kinda like oysters on the half shell).If you don’t like it, don’t look at it. Lozen, I meant to give you a wet cyber kiss too. Another three to Kim. Later tater!
By Little John
January 3, 2007 01:06 PM | Link to this
Glad to see you on board, Jack. Big Yankee hello to you.
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 01:08 PM | Link to this
SusieHomeMaker, Most of the men I know who are involved in getting fair child support awards can’t even afford to remarry so there is not a second wife! The ex-wife should contribute and not financially bankrupt her children’s father. By doing so, they ruin their children’s future. “Most women” (not all) don’t save for the future and college for their children. They are too busy at the next Macy’s sale.
Wow! So bitter! (a) I have NEVER heard of someone who can’t afford to get remarried!!
(b) The Ex-wife DOES contribute — who pays for the food, clothes, extra-curricular activities, gas to take kids to and from said activities? Who has to carry the medical and dental insurance? Who has to miss work when the child is sick? Who has to help with the homework, the special projects? Who has to wash the kids’ clothes? Who has to foot the bill for the kids’ braces and school shots? If you think these aren’t contributions, you are sadly mistaken!
(c) Most single parents do the best they can by trying to provide for their children’s education — but that’s pretty hard to do and ESPECIALLY hard to prepare for when you’re also carrying the full load of a household AND children’s daily expenses! The mother usually carries the medical and dental on the children — by Georgia’s ridiculous HMO and PPO laws, that’s a pretty big chunk that comes out of her paycheck every payday.
(d) Too Busy at Macy’s Sale……That was really beneath you!
By Little John
January 3, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this
Hey Jack, Are you fired up about the Eagles, or what?? McNabb goes down, and they go on a five game win streak! I made quite a few dineros betting on the Eagles the past few weeks and by betting AGAINST the Falcons. I cleaned up betting on Boise State as well, although they almost gave me a heart attack with 1:24 to play. I’m sure kimmy is please with Auburn’s performance this year, excepting the Georgia game.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 01:12 PM | Link to this
2D—are you really a woman? If so, you have done a great job of staying “gender-neutral” in your posts, your stated goal.
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 01:13 PM | Link to this
Anyway, SusieHomemaker, I bet you remarried.
Susie shuddering at the mere thought of remarrying. No Justin — I have not remarried. I have decided to just get publicly flogged — it’s just easier on the psyche.
So, why are you mad because your ex remarried and move on too?
I’m not. They’ve divorced now and she and I are the best of friends, (she calls the me and the kids every other weekend); AND we sit around and laugh at soon-to-be-wife number 3!!
I am sure you will have more children if you want but I bet you don’t want your ex-husband to have more children?
He can have as many as he likes, (and please quote me on this), as long as he can AFFORD TO TAKE CARE OF THEM!!
Just like most women, controlling during the marriage, controlling after the marriage until the man goes to his grave!
Oh yeah! That’s we women!! Control, control, control!! And we just don’t stop at the grave; if we see him in HELL we will run him down and CONTROL his punk a$$ some more!!! It’s so liberating!!! Viva La Revolution!!!
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 01:17 PM | Link to this
Hi Little John!!! Happy New Year to you too!!
By Chica
January 3, 2007 01:18 PM | Link to this
Chica—Take your argument against “porn”, and substitute the word “abortion”. Notice any inconsistencies between your positions?
Hey lil john ! porn & abortion are completely different things because abortion is a medical procedure chosen to protect the well being, health & future of a woman. Porn is sexual arousal created to steal money from horny guys lol
Justin aren’t most strippers young single mothers that don’t get any support? I don’t think it’s fair that a guy can get put in jail for not paying support if he lost his job but other than that there’s no excuse for not paying child support. If you can’t afford your child support don’t make any more babies.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 01:19 PM | Link to this
Chilao, speaking of Corporate Board excesses, what did you think of Nardelli’s going away present from Home Depot? Their stock didn’t go up even a nickel under his leadership, and he walks away with $221 million.
By Jack
January 3, 2007 01:20 PM | Link to this
Hi Dog. Gotta disagree with the second wife’s income being considered for support.
By 2D
January 3, 2007 01:22 PM | Link to this
Justin…
The child should receive the necessary support regardless of where the child is living. It’s not their fault that mom and dad couldn’t make things work. While I would hope that mom and dad would do everything possible to keep their relationship intact, and I do mean everything, sometimes divorce is necessary.
Never been divorced. Hopefully won’t ever be divorced. But from my friends who are/have been/heading there, I’ve heard that unless the spouse with custody of the child has no possible way to support themselves, they receive only child support. That sounds more than fair to me. The non-custodial parent should absolutely contribute to the child’s well being. They would have contributed if the marriage stayed together, right???
My understanding is also that the laws are far less cut and dry than before when it comes to child custody. Gone are the days that the woman always gets the child and then bilks the man of all his money.
By Chilao
January 3, 2007 01:27 PM | Link to this
Dawg - it’s the American way. He probably made all kinds of business decisions with the sole purpose of appeasing some money-grubbing greedy Wall Street stock-speculative whores, who don’t give a rat’s arse about the company itself, just as long as the stock price goes up before they dump it.
It’s the American Way, man.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 01:27 PM | Link to this
Question for you, SusieHomemaker—How did so much “cool” end up in one person (you)?? You would fit in perfectly in my Texas holdem poker group, do you play?? We’re up to 50% women now, and the whites are in the minority!! I love it!! Tonight’s game is down by the airport, I’ll likely be the only cracker there.
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 01:31 PM | Link to this
I don’t think it’s fair that a guy can get put in jail for not paying support if he lost his job
That’s because a loss of one’s job does not negate parenthood. As you said earlier, a woman will STRIP if she has to to feed her kids; so loosing one’s job,(man) does not mean you stop feeding your kids. What you do is find ANOTHER JOB or another way to make ends meet.
By Chilao
January 3, 2007 01:34 PM | Link to this
wow Jack’s Back,
(not to sound like The Shining or anything)…LOL
By Jack
January 3, 2007 01:35 PM | Link to this
Hey Chilao. I see Dog is up to his old tricks. It’ll be either the Eagles (iggles) or Bears this year. If 2D is not a female it won’t be the first time I was wrong. I thought Scalia was female.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 01:36 PM | Link to this
You know I’m not a “liberal”, Chilao, but all the shenanigans by these corporate boards makes me sick! Few of these CEOs are worth what they are being paid. I support free market, but there’s something wrong with our system.
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this
Cool huh!?? (Susie smirking at her co-workers who thinks she’s L7!!) Thanks for the compliment!
I can’t play poker — I don’t have a poker face. I smile when I have a good hand, (sometimes I jump up and down and break dance too); I cry when I have a bad hand….I just can’t win!!
However I play a mean game of Bid Whist and Spades and Dominoes. If you’re ever in Great City of Canton (where all the homies hang), holler at a playa (that’s Susie being Uber Cool!!)
By kimberly
January 3, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this
JAAAAAACCCCCCKKK! smoooooooch!
Regarding the child support thing, yes I’ve met men who, like the Narrator in Fight Club describes (it’s a book too), move, remarry, and start a new family every five or six years. They totally CREEEEP me out! Especially when they’re all “conservative values” and dragging the family to church. Uh-huh. You’re sooooo good to your cute little, 15-years-younger third wife, aren’t you? Oh, you knocked her up again! Way to go! And they wonder why the kids from the first marriage are out of control. No stamina where it really counts. Heh. NO sympathy. Bleed ‘em dry.
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 01:44 PM | Link to this
Chilao: He, (Nardelli), did. I have friends who lost their jobs during the recent “lay offs” at Home Depot. And now, guess what? They’re HIRING!!! Amazing!
By Justin
January 3, 2007 01:45 PM | Link to this
SusieHomeMaker
(a) I have NEVER heard of someone who can’t afford to get remarried!! Most men in Georgia can’t after the family law judges and their ex-wives fleece them in court.
(b) The Ex-wife DOES contribute — who pays for the food, clothes, extra-curricular activities, gas to take kids to and from said activities? Who has to carry the medical and dental insurance? Who has to miss work when the child is sick? Who has to help with the homework, the special projects? Who has to wash the kids’ clothes? Who has to foot the bill for the kids’ braces and school shots? If you think these aren’t contributions, you are sadly mistaken!
And the father pays for food, clothes, camp (extra-curricular), and gas to and from the activities and school also at their home. Many fathers have their children from 30-50% of the time. Most fathers have to pay for medical and dental insurance in addition to child support, plus 1/2 of all non-covered medical and dental expenses (co-pays, braces, etc.). Plus, most women can get “free” legal help when going back for a increase in child support or make their ex pay the legal fees. You would think women would want a similar standard of living at “both” homes instead of having their children at the father’s home that is in a low rent area because the ex-wife won’t accept her financial responsibility.
(c) Most single parents do the best they can by trying to provide for their children’s education — but that’s pretty hard to do and ESPECIALLY hard to prepare for when you’re also carrying the full load of a household AND children’s daily expenses! The mother usually carries the medical and dental on the children — by Georgia’s ridiculous HMO and PPO laws, that’s a pretty big chunk that comes out of her paycheck every payday. See my comment on (b). Most fathers get all of the responsibility of all the medical and dental coverage. The mother can use some of the child support to cover her portion of the co-pays…
(d) Too Busy at Macy’s Sale……That was really beneath you! I speak the truth about that…except, well, I guess I forgot to include the other stores…Linens and things, Bed, Bath and Beyond, Marshall’s, Kohl’s, Parisian, Nordstrom…
By Little John
January 3, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this
I’m surprised kimmy’s not heating the board up this afternoon in light of Jack’s appearance. Question for you, Jack—Considering how easily kimberly can get all the guys’ attention on the board, can you imagine what she would be like in person?? Hot, hot, hot!! Of course, since balance is unavoidable, there has to be another side to her as well. That side might be a little frightening. ;>]
By Chilao
January 3, 2007 01:53 PM | Link to this
I support free market, but there’s something wrong with our system.
but we need to cut taxes on that $221million, we wouldn’t want the CaymanIsland bankers to have less deposits.
oops, sorry, I am the wrong poster there. Was having an identity crisis.
But you can understand why many formerly-public companies are being taken private by private investment groups.
By Justin
January 3, 2007 01:54 PM | Link to this
SusieHomeMaker, Finding any job won’t due in family court for men…If the job pays less than what the man made before, the judge will still impute his income at what he made on his job he lost and will not modify the child support. Thus, you could have someone who is saddled with a child support award that is taking most of his income. Then, he is more likely to fall into arrears. The thing to do is base the child support on the current salary. We all know that it is harder to find jobs making the same salary one used to have with so many layoffs…
2D, most good fathers will take care of their children. However, if in an intact family, the mother contributed 40% of the family income and the father 60% of the family income, that is what they should be responsible for in terms of the children’s expenses. However, the old guidelines, were giving astronomical child support awards. They were based on welfare recipients and not middle to high income families. The present new guidelines still need some work because there were a lot of compromises. It still has one of the highest underlying tables in the nation and one that no one else uses. It is an average of the two tables that are used. Also, fathers should bet credit for the time they have the children. If the father has the children all summer, he should not have to pay the mother child support. He needs that money for camp and daycare expenses. She uses the money for vacation.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this
Susie—I love playing Spades, along with Hearts. Nothing is more fun than dumping the Queen on someone!! I haven’t played much Whist, although I did take up Euchre for a while. One of the homes we meet to play poker is near Kennesaw, I’ll keep you posted.
By Jack
January 3, 2007 01:57 PM | Link to this
Spunk works both ways Dog.
You made my day with that response Sweetness! Gotta go now don’t want to be looking for a job! :):):)
By Chilao
January 3, 2007 01:58 PM | Link to this
d) Too Busy at Macy’s Sale……That was really beneath you!
I actually thought that was rather funny, Justin not being known for humour and all.
But then I am not paying child support or alimony. Gotta make wise decisions up front, before deciding to date..LOL
By Justin
January 3, 2007 01:59 PM | Link to this
I meant to say… Finding any job won’t do in family court for men
By Little John
January 3, 2007 02:00 PM | Link to this
kimberly—You seem to be a sucker for those “conservative values” guys. What gives?? Sounds like you had a very strong father, but the wimps of today can’t match up. Am I close with my guess?
By Lily Toad
January 3, 2007 02:02 PM | Link to this
Even if the mother doesn’t have the children all summer she still has to pay mortgage on the house large enough for her children. And why shouldn’t she go on vacation? She spends the rest of the year at home with the kids.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 02:02 PM | Link to this
Justin—quit crying, and be a man. If you have kids, you should be proud to support them.
By Justin
January 3, 2007 02:06 PM | Link to this
As far as fathers abandoning their children, that isn’t true for most fathers. The courts take away our parental rights even as they say we have joint custody, give all the control to women, and let the women get away with denying fathers their visitation rights. It is easy for people to say, “Go to court and fight for your rights”. However, it costs $3-5,000 for a retainer for an attorney plus the courts tend to make us pay the mother’s attorney fees. We can’t afford to fight in court. The judges only slap the mothers on the wrist and say don’t do that again. That is why more and more fathers are getting police reports when they are denied visitation. Hopefully, the courts will take notice after seeing how much fathers are denied visitation on the whim or false accusations of some women.
By Justin
January 3, 2007 02:12 PM | Link to this
Lily Toad, the father has to pay a mortgage also…And, most fathers have their children during the school year. I have my children 45% of the time, but pay 100% of their expenses at their mother’s house and my house. Plus, with the child support, and yes, I am going back for a modification under the new guidelines, she gets an extra several hundred to spend. After my modification, I will be able to put back money for their college education because she isn’t saving a dime.
Little John, I am a man and don’t mind paying for my children. However, I want to be able to pay for their college education. With fair guidelines, I can do both. Their mother spends every dime she gets her hands on…that was part of the reason our marriage ended.
By teens
January 3, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this
handjobs handjobs [url=http://www.mnipm.umn.edu/NPCBExpertDisc/00000045.htm]handjobs[/url] handjobs handjobs porn handjobs porn [url=http://www.mnipm.umn.edu/NPCBExpertDisc/00000045.htm]handjobs porn[/url] handjobs porn t
By Little John
January 3, 2007 02:14 PM | Link to this
I think Chilao must be a closet Limey with all the British spellings: honourably and now humour . Turncoat!
By Justin
January 3, 2007 02:15 PM | Link to this
Chilao, yes, be careful who you date and if you marry…all I can say is prenup, prenup, prenup…
Include in the prenuptial that the two of you agree to joint legal and joint physical custody of any children born during the marriage. Also, ask for a DNA test for any child born during the marriage (can’t be too sure these days…)
By Little John
January 3, 2007 02:18 PM | Link to this
Justin, I do sympathize if you married a spend-aholic. Out of curiosity, didn’t you see any signs of that before you got married??
By Chica
January 3, 2007 02:21 PM | Link to this
That’s because a loss of one’s job does not negate parenthood. As you said earlier, a woman will STRIP if she has to to feed her kids; so loosing one’s job,(man) does not mean you stop feeding your kids.
Thats a good point children don’t stop eating or stop using diapers when dad loses his job. Maybe more guys should strip instead of trying to not pay for their kids. Justin, how do you look in a thong?
By Little John
January 3, 2007 02:21 PM | Link to this
Also, Justin—Don’t worry about paying for your kids’ college educations. I received absolutely no support at all during college, and did fine. In fact, I think the work ethic I had to develop as a result is what allowed me to retire at age 45.
By Chilao
January 3, 2007 02:22 PM | Link to this
blame it on Encyclopedia Britannica. Marred for life.
By Justin
January 3, 2007 02:25 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, most of my male friends who are divorced and remarried are married to women their age or slightly older. The younger woman trophy wife is mainly in remarriages with men who are rich. After having everything taken, the last thing we won’t to do is get with a younger woman who can barely spell her name and has absolutely no career goals.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this
I always preferred World Book Encyclopedia growing up—It was much easier to plagiarize than Britannica.
By Chilao
January 3, 2007 02:30 PM | Link to this
I also never understood parents paying for their kids’ college-education. My parents did not contribute a dime to mine, and I still managed to do it, sure it took longer than four years and I missed the frat(aw shucks, snort), but it still happened. Now they would have been glad to contribute, if it was on THEIR terms, but I did it on mine.
By Lily Toad
January 3, 2007 02:33 PM | Link to this
Justin, if your kids spend 45% of their time with you and you pay 100% of their expenses at both places, something is seriously wrong with that (financial) arrangement. I think if parents split custody there is no true NONCUSTODIAL PARENT and each parent should be responsible for splitting the costs, eg. one buys all the clothes and shoes and the other pays for insurance, or some other split of expenses.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 02:34 PM | Link to this
Chica—I considered stripping until I visited the Coronet Club a few times. For any of you not familiar with that fine establishment, they feature both male and female dancers, all in the same room. None of us guys wanted to look over at the male stage, but eventually you have to, just out of curiosity. It’s hilarious to watch the female patrons, the way they carry on. Then, I noticed that there was a big crowd of men at the male stage as well and the reality hit me that I would have to dance for both men and ladies!! Talk about “shrinkage”!!
By Justin
January 3, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this
Little John, I did see signs and regret not calling off the wedding. I only pray that I can get a modification and start saving for their future. If not, I will apply for every scholarship I can find for them. Their mom is spending everything we worked for and bought a new luxury car using the equity in the marital home. She is not even thinking about their future but only about her “standard of living”. I try to expose them to the good things in life money can’t buy…
Chica, I look good…However, my ex, who has gotten fat, had better stick with just trying to marry for money…
By Justin
January 3, 2007 02:40 PM | Link to this
Lily Toad, They based my child support on 27% of my gross salary (not net) which covers 100% of their expenses at her house plus an extra windfall…
I cover all of their expenses at my home and pay for their camp during the summer all the while still paying my ex-wife child support. The money should follow the children…that is what it is for…
By Little John
January 3, 2007 02:44 PM | Link to this
So, call me biased, but I find the female form to be a work of art, but not the male form.
By Justin
January 3, 2007 02:45 PM | Link to this
Chilao, I just don’t want to see my children’s disappointed faces when they start college and I don’t have the money to help. All I can do is keep all my receipts and show them how much I supported them through child support payments and expenses at my home. Then, their mother will have to explain what she did with all that money and why she didn’t save the extra for their future. I really feel sorry for them. I know they love their mother but they are already beginning to see why the two of us aren’t together. She already puts them on guilt trips if they say they love me or want to see me. She hasn’t interfered with my parenting time anymore due to police reports.
By Archie
January 3, 2007 02:45 PM | Link to this
Justin I don’t have a problem with what you’re trying to say and I have never been divorced or required to pay child support. Justin a lot of people have never been married thus they have no understanding that a relationship is not a pie-in-the-sky thing and when it goes bad it’s not always the man’s fault. Women deserve criticism just like men and it’s not whining to deliver such criticism. This attitude about losing a job doesn’t negate child support is rather useless since it is understood that yes the child still has needs but then so does the parent and the parent can’t take of the child if said parent is not working. I have never been through what Justin has been through but since men and women of today are so selfish I don’t doubt the things he describes.
By Justin
January 3, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this
Lily Toad,
The family courts in Georgia are so biased. I have a friend who has custody of the son and his ex-wife has custody of the daughter. His child support is based on as if his ex-wife has custody of both children. When he told the judge that she is putting his son at risk because he can’t afford to pay his ex-wife child support based on having both children and raise his son, the judge replied, “Well, let your ex-wife have both children”. This is a blatant misuse of power and the judge should be removed from the bench. The female judge in Cobb County has a history of misusing her authority in family court. However, attorneys won’t push the issue because they have to see her in other cases. This is one main reason judges shouldn’t run unopposed. They get too settled and feel they are untouchable.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this
Out of curiosity, are there any former Coronet Club patrons here as well?? Former Coronet Club dancers??? I bet kimberly went to The Lemon Peel before. Is it still around?
Justin—good one about your ex needing to marry for money. It’s a shame we often have to learn the hard way to LISTEN to that little voice inside that says “NO, NO”. Playing poker is a good way to develop that ability.
By Chica
January 3, 2007 02:54 PM | Link to this
lol justin ! Sounds like you are in a pickle with your ex & I am sorry about that. Most of us girls aren’t like that I hope you know.
By Jack
January 3, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this
One more post. Agree with Dog. A fine work of art is the female. If I were a female and was presented a pre-nup, I would tell my fiance to put it where the sun doesn’t shine, “I” turns to “we” after you say “I do.” BTW Kim heats up the board whenever she posts.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 02:58 PM | Link to this
Maybe the government should require disclosure forms before getting married, kind of like they do when you sell a house. In my case, I was 100% truthful to my ex about my self and my wicked ways before we married, and she said she would accept me exactly as I was. A week after the ceremony, she announced “Now that we’re married, let me tell you how I really feel about things…..”
By dakota
January 3, 2007 03:00 PM | Link to this
“Ninety percent of divorced fathers have less than full custody of their children.” Jonathan M. Honeycutt, Ph.D.(c), M.P.A., M.A., I.P.C. Director of Research, Clinical & Consulting Psychotherapist, National Institute for Divorce Research, Panama City, Florida.
By Justin
January 3, 2007 03:05 PM | Link to this
Chica, I know most of the women on this blog aren’t like that… Hopefully, you will talk to your sisters out there and educate them on the need to not push fathers out of the children’s lives and to be fair. Not all of us are cheating jerks…
Archie, if I could go back in time…However, I have wonderful children so something good came out of the marriage. I just feel sorry for them because their mom’s spending is out of control. Thank goodness for my parent’s who are able to give them some of the things I can’t…
By Lily Toad
January 3, 2007 03:05 PM | Link to this
Don’t worry, Justin, kids know more than is clear to you at the time. My former partner was a noncustodial parent and we paid for all their shoes, clothes, summer camp, braces, school expenses, and dental care and had a house big enough for them. After we broke up her son told me that they knew that I was the one paying for all that.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this
Jack—I totally agree with you about the prenup. I would be ashamed to demand a prenup, no matter the circumstances. Love means taking that chance. To me, a prenup says that you don’t really trust the other person, thereby sabotaging the relationship from the outset.
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this
Justin: Please spare me the whining!! If you are paying 100% for two households, I can only surmise that:
(a) you have small children under 5 years old and your ex is a stay at home mom. However when the children reach school age that will probably change.
(b) you are P-Diddy or Justin Timberlake and can AFFORD 100% at two houses.
(c) You are lying.
By Chica
January 3, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this
Justin remember you have a lifetime to spend with your kids, one day you won’t have to pay anybody anything. I would suggest not feeding into the hate from that mens site you posted from before. Those guys just seem to feed on each others hatred. Breakups are never good & marriages are harder, add kids to that & if one of yall is crazy look out. Hey maybe you got out easy. What about that woman on Oprah that tried to leave her husband & he showed up at her work, poured gasoline all over her & set her on fire. She lost her fingers & is completely disfigured.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 03:16 PM | Link to this
Lily—I agree with you 100% about kids knowing the truth. In my case, my mom never said one bad thing about my dad. We knew the truth. For that reason, I’ve always admired my mother’s character. My guess is that running your ex down to the kids most likely backfires in the long run.
By Chilao
January 3, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this
You go to an art museum for beautiful art, to an aquarium for beautiful fish, and to a strip-club for beautiful women.
Now, granted, I have been to alot more museums and aquariums, but I never understood the difference. Except for maybe every painting or fish is not sticking their paws out for more dineros with a gimme gimme attitude. LMAO
By Justin
January 3, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this
Lily Toad, That is commendable of you. And, her son will always remember your kindness. One of the main problems is the judges don’t want to work and listen to the facts of the cases. If criminal judges and juries were like family court, then there would be a lot of innocent people in jail for crimes they didn’t commit. I just want the judges to look at the cases and not paint a broad brush.
Often, when I see in the news about children dying or being killed by their mom’s boyfriends, I wonder, “Where is the father?” “Was he given a chance at custody?” “Was he forced out of his children’s lives?” I, like many others, bought into the myth of the deadbeat dad or the dad who isn’t active in the lives of his children just sending a check until I and many friends went through it. It is a different world and the entire story is not being told. It saddens me because children need their fathers…
By Little John
January 3, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this
Check out the ad at the top of W2W for the upcoming Atlanta Boat Show. It features some old, fat guy surrounded by four young chicas in bikinis. Looks like an ad for Costa Rica to me—some old guy with four Ticas.
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this
Justin: Unless you are the MAIN CAREGIVER you are crying needlessly.
Main Caregiver: The person who stays up at night with the sick child over 90% of the time AND has to get up and go to work the next morning.
Main Caregiver: The person who has to rush from work to after care of the Babysitters or Daycare BEFORE the agreed upon time or face a late fee.
Main Caregiver: The person who gets 90% of the calls from school if the child is sick, acting up, throwing paper, hitting little billy, and how to discipline, and/or care for the sick child.
Main Caregiver: The person who spends 80 - 90% of the child’s life with the child. Weekend visits don’t count.
Main Caregiver: The person who has to decide whether to buy that new coat on sale at 50% off for herself OR spend the money on the Cub Scout Trip or the Girl Scout Trip for her kids.
THAT’s a Main Caregiver. All others are impersonators.
By Justin
January 3, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this
Little John…yep, sounds familiar…they don’t let you know most of their true feelings until you have signed away your freedom. Let’s be real…that is why at bachelor parties, they have a ball and chain…because your wife becomes a parent…
By Little John
January 3, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this
Justin—Chica gave you some good advice @ 3:15. Give up the websites full of bitter ex-husbands, they’re not helpful. Your payments won’t last forever, but hopefully your relationships with your kids will. The truth is that having kids is a one-way proposition: you give and they take. It’s payback for all that your parents did for you quando era un nino..
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 03:35 PM | Link to this
Justin: This is called the “grown up world”. A lot of people are divorced but we have learned not to be bitter, to live up to our obligations and to MOVE ON.
So you got your heart broken … I understand — mine and probably, (just guessing), 75% of the people on this blog has had a broken heart too. But broken hearts mend and you don’t die from it. But Justin two wrongs don’t make a right. Don’t blame ALL WOMEN for YOUR bad choice in a woman. I don’t blame all men for my bad choice — I have outgrown that need to lash out and “get back” at the other gender.
My father and brothers are good men; to denigrate and blame ALL MEN for something my ex did is ridiculous.
By Justin
January 3, 2007 03:35 PM | Link to this
SusieHomemaker,
(a) you have small children under 5 years old and your ex is a stay at home mom. However when the children reach school age that will probably change. No, the children are in elementary school
(b) you are P-Diddy or Justin Timberlake and can AFFORD 100% at two houses. No, I am not, that is why I can barely afford to live… I pay $1700 a month for two children. That covers their part of the mortgage, after school care, lunch, ballet, utilities and clothing. I pay their expenses at my house.
(c) You are lying Not at all…
By Little John
January 3, 2007 03:35 PM | Link to this
Justin—The truth of your situation is that you were hurt deeply by your ex. She didn’t really love you and pay attention to you the way that you thought she should. All your complaints about the support payments are a diversion from the real issue. Friend to friend, you will feel much better by accepting reality as it is. There’s no shame when someone doesn’t really love you. It doesn’t mean you’re unlovable, just that the other person was lost in their own little world. If your ex is a spend-aholic, I guarantee she spends a lot of time in a fantasy world, and not the real one. Don’t let that drag you down.
By dakota
January 3, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this
The Federal Office of Child Support Preliminary Statistics for 2004 reports over $107 Billion in accumulated unpaid support (up from $100 billion in 2002) is due to 17 million children in the United States. The government child support agency collection rate, the percentage of cases receiving one or more payments was 50%, which is down from 68% in 2002. Additionally: 50% of all white children growing up in single parent households who do not receive support live at or below the poverty level. 60% of all Hispanic children growing up in single parent households live at or below the poverty level. 70% of all black children growing up in single parent households live at or below the poverty level.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 03:44 PM | Link to this
Susie—You are a role model for all. More power to you, sister!!
By Justin
January 3, 2007 03:48 PM | Link to this
SusieHomemaker,
Main Caregiver: The person who stays up at night with the sick child over 90% of the time AND has to get up and go to work the next morning. Both my ex and I did this during the marriage and I continue now when I have them which is 45% of the time. We both got up when they were sick. I also continue to go to all of their dental and doctor’s appointments even though it sickens me to be near her.
Main Caregiver: The person who has to rush from work to after care of the Babysitters or Daycare BEFORE the agreed upon time or face a late fee. When I was married, I took the children to school and she picked them up. Now, we both pick up or drop off since I have them almost as much as she does.
Main Caregiver: The person who gets 90% of the calls from school if the child is sick, acting up, throwing paper, hitting little billy, and how to discipline, and/or care for the sick child. We both get calls and I have ensured that by giving the schools a copy of the custody agreement and a copy of state and federal law which states that they are to inform me as well as her. Yes, I go whenever they are parent-teacher conferences. In fact, the teachers would rather see me than her. She doesn’t get along with any of them because she knows it all. I am also an “active member” of the PTA. I take them to ballet class also.
Main Caregiver: The person who spends 80 - 90% of the child’s life with the child. Weekend visits don’t count. Since I have the children 45% of the time and my ex 55% of the time, I guess neither one of us qualify, huh?
Main Caregiver: The person who has to decide whether to buy that new coat on sale at 50% off for herself OR spend the money on the Cub Scout Trip or the Girl Scout Trip for her kids. I can’t afford to buy anything for myself so I guess I win this round! My ex, on the other hand, doesn’t have to make a choice, she can use the CS money for the girls and still buy herself a new coat which isn’t on sale.
Yes, men take care of their children during marriage and after.
By lozen
January 3, 2007 03:48 PM | Link to this
Does anyone else think Little John doth protest too much about not wanting to look at male strippers and not appreciating the male form as art? We all know about those super homophobic men don’t we!
By Justin
January 3, 2007 03:50 PM | Link to this
Little John,
Thank you!
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 03:51 PM | Link to this
No, I am not, that is why I can barely afford to live… I pay $1700 a month for two children
$1700.00/2 = $850.00 per month per child. I have no idea how old your children are but if you think $850.00 per month per child is a LOT OF MONEY, PLEASE visit a single FEMALE parent and ask her what her expenses are. Quality DAYCARE alone runs between $250 - 450 per WEEK. And that’s just for an INFANT who can’t do anything but lay in the bed.
You can fool some of these other people on the blog, but you are TALKING TO A SINGLE PARENT who knows the expense it takes to take care of a child. Try Again.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 03:53 PM | Link to this
lozen, I do get a little excited looking at myself in the mirror….. What does that mean?
By kimberly
January 3, 2007 03:54 PM | Link to this
My, but you flatter me, Dear…. blush
Y’all, we’ve tried talking to Justin ‘till we’re blue in the face. His anger is his best buddy; he doesn’t WANT to let go. Many of us had bad first marriages. The healing begins when we acknowledge our own culpability and poor judgement. Even if we are telling the 100% truth about how truly horrid the other person was, we are still at fault for marrying such a person. I hate to agree with Mongrel today, but he’s right. It’s the relationship with the children, and being there for them that matters. It’s one way from you to them. Don’t wanna end up with empty pockets? Don’t have kids, then. Even those who stay married will make sacrifices and have less for themselves if they love their kids. Are they healthy? Do they know you? Things could always be worse, you know. Always.
By Lily Toad
January 3, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this
I find the female body and the male body beautiful. I do have a personal preference as to which I’d like in my bed, though.
By Justin
January 3, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this
Many studies have demonstrated that joint custody arrangements lead to much better compliance in financial child support and greater parental involvement. “Controlling for the quality of family relationships before separation and socioeconomic status, fathers with joint legal custody see their children more frequently, have more overnight visits, and pay more child support than fathers in families in which the mothers have sole legal custody.”
“Father by Law: Effects of Joint Legal Custody on Nonresident Fathers’ Involvement with Children.”
www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/nsfhwp/home.htm
“Almost 40 percent of the custodial wives reported that they had refused at least once to let their ex-husbands see the children, and admitted that their reasons had nothing to do with the children’s wishes or the children’s safety, but were somehow punitive in nature.” (Julie A. Fulton, “Parental Reports of Children’s Post-Divorce Adjustment, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 35, 1979, p. 133. Fulton reported that 53% of the non-custodial fathers claimed their ex-wives had refused to let them see their children).
“Research by Drs. Judith Wallerstein and Joan Berlin Kelly revealed that approximately 50 percent of mothers either saw no value in the father’s contact with his children and actively tried to sabotage it, or resented the father’s contact.” (Wallerstein, Surviving the Breakup, HarperCollins , 1996, p.125).
“There’s an important link between the amount of contact a non-custodial parent has with a child and the willingness of that person to pay child support. In 1991, about 4.4 million non-custodial parents with visitation privileges and/or joint custody owed child support. Of that number, 79 percent paid all or part of it. By comparison, only 56 percent of the 900,000 people with no visitation or joint custody rights paid all or part of what they owed.”
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this
Justin: you said you go to ALL of their dental and doctor appointmetns? Justin I personally don’t know you, but I honestly feel that you may be “stretching the truth” just a little on this blog.
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 04:02 PM | Link to this
I had my bacherlorette party at the Crazy Horse Lounge in Tempe AZ. Hot sticky climate and some hot sticky men!!! God Bless America!!!
By Little John
January 3, 2007 04:03 PM | Link to this
Justin—You stated today that $1700 per month represents 27% of your gross income. A little math says that you’re grossing close to $7000 per month, then. Sorry, my shoulder isn’t available to cry upon if those figures are accurate.
By Justin
January 3, 2007 04:05 PM | Link to this
Dakota, That data only includes those who have child support taken out of their paychecks directly or under child support enforcement. Many men pay via certified check and are not under that office, so those statistics are included. They have higher rates of compliance. Plus, how many of those men have had their salaries imputed and couldn’t afford to pay at the level they were required?
Actually, we should separate the statistics into two groups…those who were married to the mother of their children and those who weren’t…
Men who have a child and not married to the mother have to petition the court for visitation rights and basically have no rights to the child.
By dakota
January 3, 2007 04:07 PM | Link to this
Notice how the discussion on Woman to Woman about the political issues important to women has been completely diverted to the discussion of the problems of the poor, taken-advantage-of- divorced man. Justin, please go somewhere else for your pity party. We know your bad choices had nothing to do with your situation. Your motives for marrying were pure. her’s were not. Your motives for wanting her not to get your money are pure but her’s are not! You only think about the children but she does not!
By Little John
January 3, 2007 04:07 PM | Link to this
kimberly—I’m not sure why you hate to agree with me, because we are actually a lot alike. You’re addicted to excitement, like I am. It’s a struggle for both of us to continue to channel that energy in healthy ways.
By Chilao
January 3, 2007 04:07 PM | Link to this
LOL @ Lozen’s 3:48 I was wondering about coining a new word, not quite Sexism but gendist came to mind.
and in case anyone else has any bright ideas, copyright paperwork has already been submitted…j.k
By Justin
January 3, 2007 04:08 PM | Link to this
SusieHomemaker, Are you even reading all of my posts? That covers their after school care, they are not in daycare! They are in after school care for about an hour or so. I pay their camp during the summer months. I pay for their lunches and after school care on the days during the school year they are with me. So, yes, I am covering all of their expenses at both houses.
By Chilao
January 3, 2007 04:09 PM | Link to this
I worked for a publisher once, who did weekly financial newsletters for snail mail, and one of my duties was to fill out and mail the copyright form to be sent to the government.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this
lozen, Actually I do occasionally find some males “attractive”, but not sexually attractive. I had many pro athletes as clients over the years, and it was hard not to be a little jealous of some of their physiques. Surprisingly, all of them were extremely nice people off the field, though, even though some of them were brutal on the field (or on the ice).
By Justin
January 3, 2007 04:14 PM | Link to this
SusieHomemaker, Their after school care is $200 per month per child ($400). I pay for the days I have them so that full amount is not coming out of the $1700. My ex doesn’t pay for anything…
By Justin
January 3, 2007 04:19 PM | Link to this
Little John, Take out the fact that she claims the girls on her taxes and I don’t, consider the taxes taken out of my gross income (Federal taxes, SS, etc.), plus child support and you will see that the net income is not quite enough to cover expenses while my ex doesn’t contribute anything. If you have your numbers right after that, you might feel sorry for me after all…
susiehomemaker, yes, I go to all of their appointments. I want them to know I am there for them and not to believe their mother’s lies…
By Little John
January 3, 2007 04:22 PM | Link to this
But since I like you , kimberly, I’m going to share with you my personal secret to success: While we often wish to be a different person from who we are in the present moment, we can’t be. We are who we are, at every moment. For that reason, almost all self-help books and courses are useless, because they are predicated on the idea that we can fundamentally change the way we feel about ourselves (i.e. negative image to positive image), when we really can’t. In the end, it’s more a matter of coaching yourself, not changing yourself. Positive self-talk is a lie, and we all know that at some fundamental level, so it never works. It’s far more effective to acknowledge your feelings, then form a strategy based upon them, than to be someone you’re not.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 04:28 PM | Link to this
Justin, since I like you as well, I will share with you my secret to financial success: How much is coming in is far less important than what is going out. My current monthly budget is only around $2000. To me, being retired is far more important than having an expensive car, big house, etc. In my opinion, time is our most precious commodity in life. A such, I want to spend my time as I wish, not being a slave to materialism.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 04:33 PM | Link to this
Susie—loved your 4:02 about the Crazy Horse Saloon. You’re definitely my kind of woman!!
By Justin
January 3, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this
Thanks Little John, I live simply but it is still hard to make ends meet even making what I make. After taxes and CS, it is hard. Luckily my car is paid for…
I had planned to be retired by 45 but marriage messed me up…I can’t even attempt to be an entrepreneur or take a chance because if I can make that cs payment, it is lockup. So, I can even try to better myself because I can’t take the chance…
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 04:42 PM | Link to this
Justin as much as it pains me to say this YES I am actually reading your posts. God help me.
PS: I posted my comment BEFORE I scrolled down to read yours about paying for this and that. All I can say is (horrible of me) I truly think you were treated correctly in Family Court. If you make 7K per MONTH why are you crying about 1700.00? They’re your kids — they deserve the best.
By Little John
January 3, 2007 04:45 PM | Link to this
Justin, you’re talking yourself out of a lot here. You most certainly can be an entrepreneur, if only part-time. But, do it only if you enjoy the feeling of being an entrepreneur, don’t do it because you expect to earn a lot of money. People who do things for money are never successful, no matter how much paper money and useless junk they accumulate.
By SusieHomeMaker
January 3, 2007 04:49 PM | Link to this
A Song For Justin: (Justin for some reason [i wonder why] you bring out the WITCH in me. I guess it’s because I’m a single parent of two kids under 10 and you’re making me puke with your crying).
Poor Poor Pitiful Me, As song by Linda Rondstadt
Well, I lay my head on the railroad track Waitin on the double e But the train dont run through here no more Poor, poor pitiful me!
Chorus
Poor, poor pitiful me! Poor, poor pitiful me! Oh, these boys [change to girls] wont let me be Lord have mercy on me! Woe, woe is me!
Well, I met a man [change to ex-wife] out in hollywood And I aint namin names But he [she] really worked me over good Just like jesse james
Yes, he [she] really worked me over good He [she] was a credit to his [her] gender He [she] put me through some changes Lord, sorta like a waring blender
(repeat chorus)
Well, I met a boy [insert ex-wife’s name here] in the vieux-carres Down in yokahoma He picked me up and he threw me down Sayin, please dont hurt me, mama
(repeat chorus)
Poor, poor pitiful me! Poor, poor pitiful me…
By kimberly
January 3, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this
Mongrel, I note today you say self-help books are useless, but you have previously recommended them to me. Fortunately, I don’t read self-help books, and was not (nor am I ever) tempted to take your advice.
Justin, are you familiar with the Serenity Prayer? It asks our Higher Power’s help in distinguishing what we can change and what we cannot. Just about everything in life goes in one of those two imaginary boxes. Try purging your mountain of issues by sorting them into the two boxes. Then focus only on the one. “I can’t change that, but what CAN I change?” Not that I’m optimistic you’ll try, but being a good Dad is a noble endeavor, and if you can learn to focus on what you CAN do, you’ll be much happier and more successful, IMO. Not all women are hateful, greedy bleeps, but we DO ALL tire quickly of a whining man. Good luck!
By Little John
January 3, 2007 04:57 PM | Link to this
Susie—You’re cracking me up, and singing my song!! You’re absolutely beautiful!! See, I knew what I was doing when I chose the Julia character to represent you in my mind!!
By dakota
January 3, 2007 04:59 PM | Link to this
“I will share with you all my personal secret to success.” Okay, I know you are waiting with bated breath now. I know I’m bragging and showing off and being sickening. I know you don’t give a s-it what my person secret to success is. I know you wish I’d just go away forever and stop trolling for approval and admiration and all the things my flimsy little ego desperately craves. Yuk. Yuk. Yuk.
By Justin
January 3, 2007 05:01 PM | Link to this
I ain’t saying she’s a golddigger But she ain’t dealin’ with no broke ———
That is the theme song for you susie…
By chica
January 3, 2007 05:05 PM | Link to this
Justin makes 7k PER MONTH ! ! !? Justin, geesh what a baby. I thought you were really being taken by your ex. If you wanted to retire at 45 you shouldn’t have had any kids. Wow I just realized Justin is one of those guys that wouldn’t give a dime in child support if they weren’t forced to.
By dakota
January 3, 2007 05:07 PM | Link to this
Well, Suzie I’ll tell you why Justin brings out the witch in you (and probably why he brought it out in his ex). Nobody likes people who spend every second whining about how bad they have it. And blaming all women and talking about how all women want to just take advantage of poor innocent men. How can a man who makes $7,000 a month resent giving his kids’ and their mother $1,700 a month?
By 2D
January 4, 2007 07:47 AM | Link to this
Susie… You might not thing that $1700/month is very much, but let’s do some simple math.
Let’s assume that Justin earns $85K / year. That means on a monthly basis he would clear roughly $4400 month depending on his deductions, retirement, etc. Now according to our illustrious government stats, that would be in the upper 1% of earners in this country, so this is a big assumption.
That means he now has $2700 / month on which to build his home. A home that must be able to support not only himself, but his two daughters when the are with him, basically a full family.
So, that means he needs to have a car and a house and food and savings and security that can accomodate a full family. Very tough to do on $2700, especially when you then only get to see your children less than half of the time. I can see how that would be a very bitter pill to swallow. Not sure what the ex does, but if she also works, it’s possible she could have a much higher standard of living than he. That makes it an even more bitter pill to swallow.
By Justin
January 4, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this
2D, You hit the nail on the head. These people think I clear my whole salary. I pay taxes on the $1700 and it comes off the top. My ex makes more than I do, plus get $1700 tax-free and can’t seem to save a dime for the children’s future.
It doesn’t bother me to support my children but I feel their mother should be financially responsible also.
By Lurker
January 4, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this
Justin, she has to claim that $1700. on her income tax so it is not tax free. If she has not been claiming it as income, she owes Uncle Sam a bunch of moola.
By Lurker
January 4, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this
If you are not writing off that $1700 from your income you need to fire your tax man.
By kimberly
January 4, 2007 01:11 PM | Link to this
Um, child support is NOT taxible income for the receiver and is NOT deductible for the payor. Lurker just wants to mess you up. I too feel this is unfair. Non-custodial parents who pay consistently throughout the year should receive SOME sort of child tax credit, as does the custodial parent. There is a huge problem nationwide with non-payment of child support, for which the states often pick up the slack for the impoverished custodial parent. Some reward for those who pay would be, in my opinion, justifiable incentive.
By Chilao
January 4, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this
Now, let’s all guess who “Lurker* is, no kids, no child support payments.
and the first two guesses don’t count, unless you are feeling mentally sluggish today, in that case, in the interest of being charitable…LMAO
By Little John
January 4, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this
Hey kimberly, get me a beer while you’re up, will you?
By Lyrazel
January 4, 2007 01:44 PM | Link to this
Justin, I know a man who had a bitter custody battle with his ex and whenever he was ahead he took her to court to get more custody/less alimony. During their 12 year battle that child ended up committing suicide because he could not stand his parents arguing so much over him. Want to hear the worst part: he took her to court after the child died to get back his alimony money trying to prove she did not take care of their son.
I know that children of divorced parents who are frequently exposed to their parents constant bickering take the battle out on themselves (even when they say they don’t). I was one so I know. Don’t sweat the money, Justin.
By Little John
January 4, 2007 01:49 PM | Link to this
Did anyone enjoy watching LSU wear out Notre Dame last night? Good football game! The oddsmakers are giving Florida 7 1/2 points in the National Championship, but I think Ohio State should cover. I’m probably going to bet the “over” on that game, it is only 46 points for the over/under.
By Little John
January 4, 2007 01:52 PM | Link to this
Chilao—You’ll have to accept one day that many people choose “fake” screen names to post under. You seem to think they all emanate from one source.
By Justin
January 4, 2007 01:54 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, I agree that those who pay should at least get a deduction.
Lurker, you don’t know about how child support works…
Lyrazel, I will go back to modify under the new guidelines. However, after that, I will abide by those new rules and not go back to court. I love my children and I don’t show how I feel about their mother to them. She definitely lets them know how she feels about me. She also tells them that I don’t take care of them financially, which is evil. When they are older, I will show them all my receipts, cancelled checks, etc. to let them know their Daddy took care of them. In fact, when they aren’t with me, they worry about if I am taken care of. My children are the only good things that came out of that marriage.
By Little John
January 4, 2007 01:54 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel—I agree with you that focusing on the money misses the mark completely.
By Little John
January 4, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this
Justin—You’re showing a great poverty of spirit by focusing so much on “proving” to your kids that you are a good dad by saving receipts, etc. Let it go, and just love them. It will all work out in the end.
By Chica
January 4, 2007 02:06 PM | Link to this
Since this is a Woman to Woman blog I’d like to mention a few things I’d like to see for women 2007:
I’d like to see single mom’s getting the child support they need.
I would like to see fathers more involved with their children, unless there was/is abuse. My guess many fathers aren’t allowed to see their children due to domestic violence there seems to be a lot of that going on.
I’d like to see more parents impose better curfews on their children. Kids out late tend to get in trouble or make trouble which makes trouble for everybody.
I’d like to see less domestic violence & more time spent on boys so they don’t end up abusers or criminals.
I’d like to see more protection for abused women so none of us will hear stories every week of women being murdered by a husband, ex husband or boyfriend.
I’d like to see all young people taught family planning & personal responsibility.
I’d like to see less school shootings in 2007. Maybe create a better emotional outlet for boys before things go to far, figure out who is being bullied for example.
I’d like to see an end to this war.
I’d also like to lose some weight. lol
By Little John
January 4, 2007 02:14 PM | Link to this
Chica, I’m not sure about your other wishes, but I don’t see an end to conflict with political Islam any time soon, unfortunately. They want to fight, so we have no choice.
By Chica
January 4, 2007 02:30 PM | Link to this
I know lil john it breaks my heart. It’s like if we don’t fight the terrorists we’re all in trouble, if we do we’re all still in trouble. It’s crazy most of those soldiers are my age & younger. Geesh can you imagine being a single mom over THERE?
By Little John
January 4, 2007 02:50 PM | Link to this
Chica, I think the truth is that, at some level, people like to fight. It’s often hard to see the benefits of that emotion, but there must be some reward since warfare has been the norm throughout human history, not the exception.
On a personal level, people appear to like conflict in their relationships as well. If that wasn’t true, it would be easy to get along with others. As for the solution to all this conflicet, again, to me, the secret is to ACKNOWLEDGE those emotions, and work WITH them, rather than trying to fundamentally change who we are as humans. In other words, we can’t stop ourselves from having negative feelings.
By Little John
January 4, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this
So for me, Chica, I hope to meet a lady one day with the self-awareness to realize that conflict is normal, so it could be just a game, rather than something which hurts people’s feelings.
By Little John
January 4, 2007 03:05 PM | Link to this
As for all the bloggers here, my guess is that SusieHomemaker has mastered this concept the best. She comes across as having an open, engaging spirit, not afraid to mix it up a little. Some of the other ladies here appear to like a good fight, but get nasty in a hurry when things don’t go their way.
By NetBanker
January 4, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this
I hope eveyone had a Merry Happy ChrismaHanaKwanzica and a safe New Year’s Eve. I thought this whole work thing was really over rated BEFORE I took time off over the holidays, but now that I’m back it’s even worse that I realized. LOL!
So I’m guessing that Shaunti’s position is a foreshadowing of the next Republican election cycle (blame it all on gays and abortion)? Or has she not gotten the new talking points for 2007/2008 yet?
For once I’d just love to see a conservative actually manage to cite an example of how 2 gay people getting married would affect a heterosexual marriage any more than did Liz Taylor’s 8 marriages or Britney’s 53-hour marriage has. But we know that will never happen (believe me I’ve pointedly asked Chuck time and again on this blog and STILL haven’t received an answer from him) because we all inherently know that a marriage is between the two people who entered into it and that no one else’s marriage can affect your own.
Hey Jack! Hope you’re doing well! Nice to see you around again.
On the porn thing I wonder how many MEN feel victimized by the number of hetero men who are gay-for-pay because men make a LOT more money filming gay porn than straight porn. If women supposedly feel victimized then shouldn’t hetero men feel victimized because their brethren have to go gay just to earn decent money in porn? Dog…you feel victimized by this at all even as you’ve admitted that you can appreciate the male form albeit in a non-sexual way? Jack…victim status check?
One more guy check question…why on God’s green Earth do some of you feel that you should even have a voice in any debate over whether abortion should remain legal? I’m not discounting that you can/should have an opinion, but what would give you the idea that it should be shared or carry any weight since you CAN’T possibly ever understand the situation? It’s a women’s issue so let’s leave it to the women to figure it out.
I support free market, but there’s something wrong with our system. What is wrong with the system is that the foxes are guarding the hen houses. Who sits on boards of directors that determine CEO compensation packages? Generally other CEO’s!! It’s the Richie Rich version of the good ol’ boy network looking out for each other.
Justin—You’re showing a great poverty of spirit by focusing so much on “proving” to your kids that you are a good dad by saving receipts, etc. Let it go, and just love them. It will all work out in the end. Justin…I say keep the receipts for back up. I’ve known several situations where the ex-spouse turned the kids against the other parent and filled their heads with lies because they were bitter. In the only case I know of where the Dad had saved cancelled checks, etc. and did get a chance to show the kids when they were in their early teens it DID make a difference with them. By exposing that one lie, the kids really began to question some other things Mommy had said that didn’t exactly reconcile with what they felt and had observed about their Dad. Ultimately the truth came out, the lies stopped, and the situation for everyone improved. The custodial parent has undue influence and can turn children against the other parent even when that parent IS doing the right thing. It can be an unfair fight and it that fight is a two way street.
I’d also like to lose some weight. Lol An easy way to start is by cleaning out your purse and getting rid of the shoes with the chunky heels before stepping on the scale. ~grin~
By Justin
January 4, 2007 03:07 PM | Link to this
Chica, I will add that I wish single or divorced mothers would choose their boyfriends carefully and not to trust them with the children…
I like to see more emphasis put on girls about being independent and how anger knows no gender. Women can be violent also.
I would like to see more women and the courts “allow” a father to be a father to his children.
By Renee
January 4, 2007 03:12 PM | Link to this
Hi everyone! Mara, Lozen, Kimberly, 72John, Net, Jack (he’s not here though is he), and whoever else I missed..
Once again, another great topic, LOL.. Shaunti’s arguments are, well, pretty typical… Amazing..
By NetBanker
January 4, 2007 03:21 PM | Link to this
I don’t see an end to conflict with political Islam any time soon, unfortunately. They want to fight, so we have no choice. My question to our government and world leaders is why aren’t they more to communicate with (i.e. push) the moderates and liberals of Islam to speak out against the violent factions of Islam? From the very little research that I’ve done most Islamic people abhor the suicide bombers and the violence. Yet what the world sees are demonstrations by Muslims over cartoons in Denmark, but not over the bombings of mosques, schools, and markets by their fellow Muslims. Where is their outrage at the senseless taking of lives of fellow and innocent Muslims? How can they be sooooo upset about children injured by American bombs during a time of war yet not a blessed peep about children blown up in their school or while out shopping for food with their mothers by Muslim bombs?
What I think many people are forgetting is that by staying in Iraq we’re providing a target for Syria and Iran to shoot at instead of each other. If we get out of the way then what will those countries do since they’re supporting Sunni and Shiite respectively while both being able to foment anti-American sentiment by using our presence in Iraq as an excuse?
By Renee
January 4, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this
And a special hug for ~chilao~ since I left you off my first hello…left off, but not forgotten, :)
Ummm…any chance littlejohn = DOG/GOD???
By Brian Curtis
January 4, 2007 03:23 PM | Link to this
Hey, I’ve got no kids and no child-support payments, and I’m definitely NOT Lurker. I’ve never posted under any name but my own (although someone else has posted under my name at least once).
By NetBanker
January 4, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this
Hey Renee! ~waving~ How was your visit home over Christmas? Did you stock up on grits and biscuit mix to take back North to the homefood cultural wasteland?
By Little John
January 4, 2007 03:29 PM | Link to this
NetB—I don’t feel “victimized” by anyone or anything, especially not gay porn. I did have a few gay adults try to hit on me when I was a kid, and didn’t like that much, but I was able to defend myself.
By Justin
January 4, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this
Political changes that will affect women in 2007 in Georgia
Relating to crimes against public health and morals, to provide that any abortion shall be unlawful
www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hb1.htm
Child custody - This is the bill that was based on a case where a teenage boy and his parents wanted to raise the child his girlfriend put up for adoption…
www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hb3.htm
Require health benefit policy coverage for vaccinations for cervical cancer and the human papillomavirus
www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hb11.htm
Changes nationally that will affect women
You better hope Pelosi does a good job. Or, should I say, for Hillary’s sake. Personally, with the issues in the Arabic world, I don’t think this is the time for a female president. We have already lost the respect of the world and we need a strong male presence to deal with those leaders who look at women as property.
In about four years, would be a better time for a female president.
By Chilao
January 4, 2007 03:34 PM | Link to this
(wiping away the tears for being ignored by Renee but now rejoicing in joy…LOL)
Hi, you back in Vermont?
smart woman there, Renee, on liljon. (You know what they say about a hit dog). But I am now in shock, total shock, I tell you, to learn more than one person might use multiple names. total shock. LMAO
By Chilao
January 4, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this
Hey, I’ve got no kids and no child-support payments, and I’m definitely NOT Lurker
ditto. LOL
By Justin
January 4, 2007 03:37 PM | Link to this
Interesting article…
www.thestar.com/News/article/167376
By NetBanker
January 4, 2007 03:43 PM | Link to this
If Hillary is as smart as people say she wouldn’t run for President in the next election. In fact, with the War on Terror and Iraq and outrageously growing federal deficit and sinking social security messes that need to be cleaned up why would anyone but a masochist or someone with a savior complex WANT to be president?
By GOB
January 4, 2007 03:45 PM | Link to this
Personally, with the issues in the Arabic world, I don’t think this is the time for a female president. We have already lost the respect of the world and we need a strong male presence to deal with those leaders who look at women as property.
Gee, I bet you are a hit with the ladies everywhere you go.
In about four years, would be a better time for a female president.
Yeah, I think we should have a female candidate win the 2009 presidential election…oh, wait…
By GOB
January 4, 2007 03:49 PM | Link to this
In fact, with the War on Terror and Iraq and outrageously growing federal deficit and sinking social security messes that need to be cleaned up why would anyone but a masochist or someone with a savior complex WANT to be president?
Has there ever been a president, or even a presidential candidate that didn’t have a savior complex? Imagine the sheer balls it takes to believe that you are the most capable person to hold the most powerful post in the entire world.
By Justin
January 4, 2007 03:50 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, Still Hillary wants the job…God help her…
By Little John
January 4, 2007 03:51 PM | Link to this
Hillary didn’t do very well in the Iowa Caucas, but then again Jimmy Carter started off veeeerrrry slowly in 1976 before pulling it out in the end. I still think Lieberman is the best of the bunch among non-Republicans. If I had to bet, I think McCain might win it all, although I personally prefer Guliani to McCain.
By Little John
January 4, 2007 03:55 PM | Link to this
Anyone remember Hillary’s National Health Care Plan? Doctor’s were threatened with fines of $250,000 if they saw a patient not assigned to them by the federal government. While she has made a good show of trying to appear moderate the past few years, it’s hard to believe her core values have changed. The bottom line is that she’s not an honest person, not to be trusted at all.
By Mara
January 4, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this
Hi Renee! Just lurking today. Too busy really to post. How was your visit to Atlanta? Hope you enjoyed yourself :^)
By Little John
January 4, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this
I would accept a woman leader, someone along the lines of a Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir. Never Hillary.
By Chica
January 4, 2007 04:01 PM | Link to this
Justin the topic is what changes in policies will affect women. This is not your personal opportunity to bash your ex wife & “unfair” child support payments. It just seems like you are angry you have to pay anything. Kids cost a lot of money that’s why we don’t have any at this time.
I’d like to see a biodegradable diaper. Aren’t those a big problem because they won’t break down?
By GOB
January 4, 2007 04:03 PM | Link to this
In about four years, would be a better time for a female president.
Yeah, I think we should have a female candidate win the 2009 presidential election…oh, wait…
And by 2009, I mean 2011
By Chica
January 4, 2007 04:09 PM | Link to this
Hey don’t bash Hillary. I like her because she is strong & isn’t afraid of all the rude people out there that try to keep her down. I’ll vote for Hillary before I vote for the same old same old people that keep getting elected. So her heathcare plan didn’t work out, at least she tried something. This is not the place to go on & on how bad the women are in office. I’m thankful there are some there even tho there aren’t enough, we are under represented as far as I’m concerned.
By Little John
January 4, 2007 04:09 PM | Link to this
Speaking of women in government, who can top Italy’s La Cicciolina?? I still can’t erase the image of Bella Abzug from my memory banks, unfortunately.
By Renee
January 4, 2007 04:10 PM | Link to this
lol Chilao!!
Net - you would be AMAZED at the amount of food that I brought back to Vermont. My carry-on, luggage, everything was about to POP!! I had food, clothes, shoes….made absolutely NO sense LOL…
By Justin
January 4, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this
Chica, Notice on my previous posts that I am off that topic…advice taken…
By Little John
January 4, 2007 04:13 PM | Link to this
Chica, If Hillary’s plan had passed, we’d all be in the crapper right now. I hope you look for more than just “attitude” in a woman candidate.
By Chilao
January 4, 2007 04:14 PM | Link to this
Italy’s La Cicciolina
yes, even hot porn stars can go on to respectable positions in politics. In Europe, anyway.
By Little John
January 4, 2007 04:17 PM | Link to this
Of course, hopefully any woman running for Prez will be post-menopausal . Don’t want to start a new war every 28 days…
Just kidding, ladies. Part of that “fun fighting” I was talking about.
Although, I am starting to get a little annoyed that kimberly hasn’t fetched my beer yet.
By NetBanker
January 4, 2007 04:21 PM | Link to this
Imagine the sheer balls it takes to believe that you are the most capable person to hold the most powerful post in the entire world. Or the most dillusional person! LOL
By Little John
January 4, 2007 04:22 PM | Link to this
You see, Chica, the real battle in this country is between the tax contributers and the tax recipients . Come visit the WIC facility near my home in Lilburn some day if you want an education. You’ll see lots of your fellow “chicas” getting out of brand new $40,000 SUVs to pick up their free grocery coupons. None of them bother to get married legally, so they can collect more benefits.
By Justin
January 4, 2007 04:26 PM | Link to this
Little John,
I agree… Of course, hopefully any woman running for Prez will be post-menopausal. Don’t want to start a new war every 28 days…
Now they have a pill that will allow a woman to have seasonal menstrual cycles, four a year…
Can you imagine the moodiness that would be three times as bad with those…
By Chilao
January 4, 2007 04:29 PM | Link to this
Although, I am starting to get a little annoyed that kimberly hasn’t fetched my beer yet.
maybe she had to run to the store to get some additives. LOL
I have had 5 lbs of grits in dry stores for some time, so decided recently to make some, for the first time. And like a good Yankee, I put in butter, then some honey, then having some whipping cream left over from making HolidayDesserts, used that instead of milk. Can we say Scrumptious?
By NetBanker
January 4, 2007 04:31 PM | Link to this
yes, even hot porn stars can go on to respectable positions in politics Or at least some interesting positions ~grin~
LOL Renee because I completely understand. I had to borrow a bag from my best friend the last time I flew back from Maryland just to carry back products that I can only seem to find there. I think I had about 5 boxes of these chocolate cream cookies from a local bakery that are my FAVORITE in the whole world. They’re basically a tiny, soft vanilla wafer used to hold up this HUGE mound of rich, chocolate fudge.
Chica…I understand what you’re saying about Hillary and I agree that at least she did try something on a problem everyone complains about and then does diddly to solve. but I’m not entirely sure that I trust her either. It has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her long association with/in politics. I’d rather get some younger/newer blood in there.
By Little John
January 4, 2007 04:34 PM | Link to this
Good point, Chilao—Could I really trust drinking a beer that kimberly may have doctored up first? Of course, I have been taking small amounts of strychnine over the years to build up my immunity just in case.
By Little John
January 4, 2007 04:38 PM | Link to this
Since kimmy is from the South, I wonder if she eats those disgusting boiled peanuts when she drinks beer. Yuck.
By Little John
January 4, 2007 04:41 PM | Link to this
It is amazing that that woman who poisoned two different men with anti-freeze almost got away with it. Wouldn’t you think that some of these folks like her and Corbin would be smart enough to pick a different M.O. the second time around?
By Pat Benatar
January 4, 2007 04:47 PM | Link to this
We’re losing control
Will you turn me away or touch me deep inside?
And before this gets old, will it still feel the same?
There’s no way this will die
But if we get much closer, I could lose control
And if your heart surrenders, you’ll need me to hold
We are young, heartache to heartache we stand
No promises, no demands
Love is a battlefield
By Justin
January 4, 2007 04:50 PM | Link to this
Little John, Maybe we should punish them by allowing the antifreeze widow and Corbin to marry each other…
By chica
January 4, 2007 04:52 PM | Link to this
It has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her long association with/in politics.
I’m not clear what you are saying, her marriage to Bill the cheater affected her career? I wasn’t paying much attention to that stuff back then I was just graduating ! lol of course everybody was telling bj jokes & blue dress jokes that I do remember! lol
By Pat Benatar
January 4, 2007 05:00 PM | Link to this
Chica, If you want the scoop on Hillary, look at how she conducted herself at the Rose Law Firm. I have forgotten now how many of the former Clinton associates are in jail. Or dead.
By Justin
January 4, 2007 05:01 PM | Link to this
Nancy Pelosi may throw her hat in the ring…
Let’s see
Condoleeza Rice Hilary Clinton Elizabeth Dole Nancy Pelosi Oprah Winfrey
Who else may be on the ticket?
By Pat Benatar
January 4, 2007 05:01 PM | Link to this
We are young, heartache to heartache we stand….
By batterbox
January 4, 2007 05:02 PM | Link to this
What irks me the most is how the media is focusing on Nancy Pelosi’s wardrobe and appearance, just like the stupid article on the front of ajc.com. Why do we judge a woman by her appearance when no one talks about George Bush’s boring ties or his nose job?
There will always be institutionalized sexism in politics. But I applaud Pelosi for going up against the good ole boy network.
By kimberly
January 4, 2007 05:05 PM | Link to this
My opinion on the aforementioned politicians: Lieberman: He’s a whore. McCain: Once honorable, now a whore. Gulianni: Whore. Hillary: Not my number one choice, but not a whore. (Perhaps why she’s so resented by men used to buying the desired behavior in a woman….)
Also, calling BS on “doctors were threatened with $250K fines.” Sounds like some serious spinning and twisting of the actual proposal there. Probably a talking point from O’Reilly or Hannity or some other little whore who calls himself a journalist.
No healthcare overhaul happened in the Clinton administration because, quite simply, the Republicans running Congress would rather us all have died from smallpox or ebola before they willingly allowed Clinton a positive legacy. As it is, they dug up every piece of lint they could find, for years and years, at great taxpayer expense, even after Starr wanted to quit, and after digging through every check he every wrote for a loaf of bread even, all they could ever pin on him was… well, you all know. Heh. That’s IT? That’s all you got? Ha! Only losers with no love for America would vote to impeach a sitting President for THAT! Losers.
By TramadoL95486
January 4, 2007 10:51 PM | 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 TramadoL3413
January 4, 2007 11:56 PM | Link to this
I’ve more or less been doing nothing worth mentioning, but eh. My life’s been really bland today. I don’t care. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me these days. That’s how it is.
By Sten90899
January 5, 2007 05:47 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 Sten41441
January 5, 2007 06:24 AM | 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 2D
January 5, 2007 08:03 AM | Link to this
Kimberly… Not sure why you think Lieberman is a whore. He has stayed very consistent in his views throughout, even in the face of party opposition. Bucking the party on a couple of points is not being a whore, it’s standing on your own convictions and principals. That’s exactly what I want our leaders to do.
Also… Both of the Clintons were/are whores. Bill governed through the polls and Hillary will say whatever she needs to say for a nomination. While I don’t totally agree with many of the Clinton positions, I do believe Bill got a seriously raw deal from Congress. They pursued him relentlessly for things that were issues and faults and mistakes, but not worthy of the responses. Unfortunately, Bill, like President Bush, was unable to simply fess up, admit mistakes and move on at least not until it was too late.
One other item to remember… The Lewinsky impeachment scandal broke while the Clintons were being investigated for other indescretions (Whitewater I think???). It’s not as though Bill was a revered saint, then suddenly and vicsouly attacked. He had a litany of shady dealings (Whitewater, FBI Gate, countless charges of sexual harassment and infidelity) that had finally caught up to him.
By candide
January 5, 2007 08:05 AM | Link to this
Tahere is only one truly outstanding woman in politica and she will be our next president: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
By Chilao
January 5, 2007 09:17 AM | Link to this
In searching for jokes for JokeDay, I realized I could simply do a Law&Order, that is, RippedFromTheHeadlines:
The Congressional GOP, now a minority, presented the new majority party the exact same Minority(Party) Bill of Rights that the same GOP denied the last Congress minority party. Hopefully the new majority party laughed with a Yeah, right, FY2.
Blame it on the Generals(since new generals apparently will solve everything, deflecting any responsibilty from the actual Commander-in-Chief).
takes care of JokeDay for me.. LOL
By Jack
January 5, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this
A little Friday humor:
A Senior Moment - A Note to a Bank
> >
A 98 year old woman wrote this to her bank. The bank manager thought it
amusing enough to have it published in the New York Times.
Dear Sir:
I am writing to thank you for bouncing my check with which I endeavored to pay my plumber last month.
By my calculations, three ‘nanoseconds’ must have elapsed between his presenting the check and the arrival in my account of the funds needed to honor it. I refer, of course, to the automatic monthly deposit of my Social Security check, an arrangement which, I admit, has been in place for only eight years.
You are to be commended for seizing that brief window of opportunity, and also for debiting my account $30 by way of penalty for the inconvenience caused to your bank.
My thankfulness springs from the manner in which this incident has caused me to rethink my errant financial ways.
I noticed that, whereas I personally attend to your telephone calls and
letters, when I try to contact you, I am confronted by the impersonal, overcharging, pre-recorded, faceless entity which your bank has become.
From now on, I, like you, choose only to deal with a flesh-and-blood person. My mortgage and loan payments will therefore and hereafter no longer be automatic, but will arrive at your bank by check, addressed personally and confidentially to an employee at your bank whom you must nominate.
Be aware that it is an offense under the Postal Act for any other person to open such an envelope. Please find attached an Application Contact Status which I require your chosen employee to complete.
I am sorry it runs to eight pages, but in order that I know as much about him or her as your bank knows about me, there is no alternative.
Please note that all copies of his or her medical history must be countersigned by a Notary Public, and the mandatory details of his/her financial situation (income, debts, assets and liabilities) must be accompanied by documented proof.
In due course, I will issue your employee with a PIN number which he/she must quote in dealings with me.
I regret that it cannot be shorter than 28 digits but, again, I have modeled it on the number of button presses required of me to access my account balance on your phone bank service. As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Let me level the playing field even further. When you call me, press buttons as follows:
1— To make an appointment to see me.
2— To query a missing payment.
3— To transfer the call to my living room in case I am there.
4— To transfer the call to my bedroom in case I am sleeping.
5— To transfer the call to my toilet in case I am attending to nature.
6— To transfer the call to my mobile phone if I am not at home.
7— To leave a message on my computer (a password to access my computer is required. A password will be communicated to you at a later date to the
Authorized Contact.)
8— To return to the main menu and to listen to options 1 through 7.
9— To make a general complaint or inquiry, the contact will then be put on hold, pending the attention of my automated answering service.
While this may, on occasion, involve a lengthy wait uplifting music will play for the duration of the call.
Regrettably, but again following your example, I must also levy an establishment fee to cover the setting up of this new arrangement.
May I wish you a happy, if ever so slightly less prosperous, New Year.
Your Humble Client
By JK
January 5, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this
2D, I guess one’s perception of what constitutes a “whore” is subjective. For example, women who hold it for ransome under the guise of virtuous marriage, and with the intent of achieving material wealth and putting their man on a short leash, are, in my perception, just really expensive whores. But that’s just me. Many refer to such women as “Yes Dear.”
As to the Clintons and their “shady dealings,” I’m sorry, but are you trying to say they were guilty of financial crimes, but the Republican witch hunters, I mean justice seekers, just let it SLIDE? Heh… Yes, he lost money on a real estate deal. Congress must spend millions investigating THAT! Ha! I just love all the non-specific slams people place on them: “slick, conniving, can’t be trusted, shady, manipulative…” All that tells me is YOU GOT NOTHING on them. If you had proof, or even evidence of SPECIFIC crimes, then you’d be trotting that out. Since the Clinton haters have nothing, they stick with gossip, speculation, and character assassination. Oh yeah, you have ONE thing: he denied having sex with that woman, and chose to keep his first and only wife instead of hopping around. Post-white house, BC has worked tirelessly trying to save others, acquiring only a modicum of wealth for himself compared to your GOP past presidents. Oooooooooo… what horrible people the Clintons are! Ooooooo….. Puh-leaze. You got nothin’.
By Lily Toad
January 5, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this
Good morning, all. Amusing joke, Jack, but why is it entitled “A Senior Moment”? Senior moments are when folks can’t remember things (usually nouns). This lady sounds sharp!
By Chilao
January 5, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this
Seniors also get rather obstinate; curmudgeon also comes to mind. LOL
By Jack
January 5, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this
JK needs to take a chill pill. All politicians are whores.
Lily I guess it should have been called a “Great senior moment” LOL
By Lyrazel
January 5, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this
Ever notice when people get busted they tend to have: better houses, cars, yards and clothes than people who work daily? I ask you how those women busted for the call-girl ring got a bank loan for a million dollar home? Was it their charming personality or assets already published? I have a great set of knockers (abit old now) and never once did they get me a credit line or a bank loan…or even a seat on MARTA…
Try and tell me pornography modeling is not a woman’s choice now.
And lets see some johns arrested in this: ring of prostitution….want to bet none are?
By Jack
January 5, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel. At those prices they probably paid for the house in cash.
By blablabla
January 5, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this
No healthcare overhaul happened in the Clinton administration because, quite simply, the Republicans running Congress would rather us all have died from smallpox or ebola before they willingly allowed Clinton a positive legacy.
ha! there’s clearly not enough hyperbole in kimberly’s life. the juxtaposition of that sentence and her previous one containing a barb thrown at somebody else for using a politico talking point is classic. pot, meet kettle.
2D is correct, hillary will say and do whatever to get what she wants. look at her history and behavior.
By Jack
January 5, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
How’s that baby?
By blablabla
January 5, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this
she’s great, jack. thx for asking. three months almost to the day. she’s just discovered her hands and feet - she likes to bat things around and then gets all excited and laughs about it. it’s the cutest thing i’ve ever seen. she sleeps thru the nite most of the time, except, of course, last nite.
By Lily Toad
January 5, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
OK, Jack, all’s forgiven — Great Senior Moment! Ha!
Hillary’s too conservative and too much of a hawk. She has no more power than any of the other rank and file senators, just more press.
By lozen
January 5, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
Hey Renee, I was wondering about your trip too.) Netbanker, how’d ya get to be so smart?
Okay. So women who are menopausal should not be trusted to run the country, BUT every woman should be forced to have children (and take care of them when she’s menstruating!) whether she wants them or not!!! Women who want a good financial situation for their future children and themselves are whores because they want to marry successful men. BUT men who marry women because they have big boobs or because they’re 20 years younger or men who do the “Donald Trump” and marry, divorce, marry, divorce, marry, divorce are not whores! Hilary Clinton is not to be trusted (due to her long association with politics) but Lieberman or McCain (how long have they been around?)are good candidates! Some of you people are wacked!
By Jack
January 5, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
I’m envious. I always wanted a little girl but after 2 boys I couldn’t talk the Mrs. into trying again. I’ll just have to wait on a grand-daughter.
By lozen
January 5, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this
It is JOKE Day!!!
“Our parents were of Midwestern stock and very strict. They didn’t want us to grow up to be spoiled and rich. If we left our tennis racquets in the rain, we were punished.” —Nancy Ellis, George Bush’s sister
By lozen
January 5, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this
Hey Jack you’ll like this one. A virile, young Italian sailor was relaxing at his favorite bar, when he managed to attract a spectacular young blonde. Things progressed to the point where he invited her back to his apartment, and after some small talk, they retired to his bedroom where he rattled her senseless. After a pleasant interlude, he asked with a smile, “So…yousa finish?” She paused for a second, frowned, and replied, “No-oh.” Surprised, the young man reached for her and they resumed. This time she thrashed about wildly and there were screams of passion. This ends, and again, the young man smiles, and again he asks, “Yousa finish?” And again, after a short pause, she returns his smile, cuddles closer to him, and softly says, “No-oh.” Stunned, but damned if this woman is going to outlast him, the young man reaches for the woman yet again using the last of his strength, he barely manages it, but they end together, screaming, bucking, clawing, and ripping the bed sheets. The exhausted man falls onto his back, gasping. Barely able to turn his head, he looks into her eyes, smiles proudly, and asks again, “Yousa finish?” Barely able to speak, she whispers in his ear, “Oh no, I Norwegian.”
By lozen
January 5, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this
A Greek and Italian were arguing over who had the superior culture. The Greek says, “We have the Parthenon.” Arching his eyebrows, the Italian replies, “We have the Coliseum.” The Greek retorts, “We Greeks gave birth to advanced mathematics” The Italian, nodding agreement, says, “But we built the Roman Empire.” And so on and so on until the Greek comes up with what he thinks will end the discussion. With a flourish of finality he says, “We invented sex!” The Italian replies, “That is true, but it was the Italians who introduced it to women.”
By blablabla
January 5, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
hopefully we’ll just have one of each and be done. but since the almighty certainly has a sense of humor, i’m sure i’ll someday spend a lot of time worrying about older teenage boys trying to get their paws on my numerous, sure to be beautiful daughters.
By Pat Benatar
January 5, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this
kimberly—I hope you will do a little more research next time before putting a BS call on Mongrel. I can’t locate the original 1300+ page Health Security Act of 1993 at this point, but I know for a fact that under this plan, doctors faced a $250,000 fine along with jail time if they contracted privately with a patient who was willing to pay cash to be seen. In fact, patients faced similar fined and jail sentences if they offered to pay privately to be seen more quickly. Here’s a link which explains what Clintoncare was all about:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29398.html
Also, it’s kind of funny you blamed the defeat of this bill on a heartless Republican Congress, when, in fact, the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in 1993-1994, as they did for 20 years prior. In fact, it is widely believed that the Health Security Act was one of the biggest reasons the Republicans won the 1994 midterm elections in a landslide.
By 2D
January 5, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this
JK… I agree with you on your whore example.
I also criticized the “witch hunt” you referred to. I do not believe the response from the GOP warranted what the Clintons (allegedly) did.
As for the Clintons… I did not use broad generalizations when referring to “shady dealings”, in fact I cited three distinct examples of actions they were investigated for. Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter to me if the Clintons lost money on the Whitewater deal. If there was substantial reason to believe that the dealings were illegal, they warrant investigation.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this
More importantly, it is crazy to me that seemingly otherwise intelligent people like yourself continue to call for socialized medicine when it has been proven to be a failure over and over again. Socialized medicine is nothing more than one more “free-lunch” scheme for losers.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this
Did anyone watch American Pie: The Naked Mile? I rented it last night and laughed my tush off. It was a little on the sophisticated side for a movie-goer like myself, but I guess a little high-brow humor never hurt anyone.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this
Do any of you believe that the recently arrested prostitutes really collected $25,000 for a date with one of them??? Puh-leeeze. I mean, Heidi Fleiss was getting 1/10 of that for dates with hot, young girls out in California. You can fly to Costa Rica and have a beautiful Columbian girl for $60.
By Lily Toad
January 5, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this
Anyone on the blog from Canada or England or any other country with national health insurance? If so, I’d love your input.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this
As for Clinton’s legacy: All the good legislation which was passed during the Clinton years came straight from the pen of Newt Gingrich (welfare reform, etc.) The only thing Clinton can claim credit for is HIPAA, which has turned out to be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed.
By Chilao
January 5, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this
from Encarta’s 10 Things our pets would tell us if they could
Item 1: LOL. this one is good. 1. Dogs and cats are not furry people in disguise. They are wolves and North African wildcats in disguise.
If you care to take the WaterTest there(Encarta) at CoffeeTime, check it out. I got 9 out of 10 without even trying.
I think at least 10 states are now starting something related to state-health-care, since it seems the Feds are basically dropping the ball, California being the latest I heard about. Kinda like cutting Federal funding for the COPS program, with the additional Homeland Security duties for local law enforcement, and then the crime rate goes up, another DUH.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
Lily—The problem with every “free-lunch” scheme like socialized medicine, is that if it’s “free”, then people wants lots of it. In no time flat, demand will exceed supply, and the health care will have to be “rationed”. That means, if you need a hip operation, you have to get on a waiting list of 9 months to a year duration. The fact is, wealthy Canadians receive their health care in the US. They would rather pay out of pocket than wait their “turn”.
By Jack
January 5, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this
Great ones Lozen. (sounds like my kind of woman LOL)
Good bait you cast out there Sweet Thing!
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this
Chilao, are you familiar with California’s Workers Comp program?? They cover stress . It’s a wonder to me that any employers remain in that state.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 01:09 PM | Link to this
Jack, I gotta agree with you that red snapper makes great bait. Pink snapper also.
By lozen
January 5, 2007 01:18 PM | Link to this
“If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you give a man religion, he starves to death praying for a fish.”
By lozen
January 5, 2007 01:21 PM | Link to this
One day my housework-challenged husband decided to wash his Sweatshirt. Seconds after he stepped into the laundry room, he shouted to me, “What setting do I use on the washing machine?” “It depends,” I replied. “What does it say on your shirt?” He yelled back, “University of Oklahoma.” And they say blondes are dumb…
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 01:21 PM | Link to this
What really drives socialism is envy , pure and simple. Some folks can’t stand the fact that someone else has more than they do. Rather than trying to pull themselves up , they are just as satisfied to pull everyone else down* .
A classic example of this occurred several years back when some promoter tried to reunite the original Supremes for a summer tour. Mary was offered $2 million, which she was ecstatic to receive for a summer’s worth of touring until she found out that Diana Ross was receiving $17 million. In a fit of jealousy, she turned down the offer and tried to tour on her own, making no money.
By lozen
January 5, 2007 01:22 PM | Link to this
This may have been posted on here before but it’s funny enough for a second go-round!
An American, an Englishman and an Irishman walk into a bar. They all three grab a barstool and each orders a beer. The American picks up his mug of beer, looks in it and sees a fly. He shouts “There’s a fly in my beer-that’s disgusting! I can’t drink that!” And he hands it back to the bartender. So the bartender pours him another mug. The Englishman picks up his mug of beer, looks in it and also sees a fly. He shouts “There’s a fly in my beer-that’s disgusting!” He reaches into the mug, pulls out the fly and lays him on the bar and takes a sip of beer. The Irishman picks up his mug of beer, looks in it and also see a fly. He reaches into the mug, pulls out the fly and lays him on the bar. Then he leans down and shouts “Spit it out ‘ya B-A-S-T-A-R-D!!!”
By lozen
January 5, 2007 01:24 PM | Link to this
Dear Lord, I pray for Wisdom to understand my man; Love to forgive him; And Patience for his moods. Because, Lord, if I pray for Strength, I’ll beat him to death. AMEN
By 2D
January 5, 2007 01:25 PM | Link to this
Lil John… Don’t you think calling socialized medicine a “free lunch scheme” for losers is just a bit harsh?
We have an issue he in the US where millions of people, including children do not have any healthcare. For that to occur in a nation as wealthy as the US is a travesty. Where I do not believe that socialized medicine is the answer, I do believe it is simply a possible solution to this issue. Calling it a scheme implies underhanded intentions and I do not believe that to be the case.
By 2D
January 5, 2007 01:30 PM | Link to this
“If a man accepts God’s call, he’ll have enough fish to feed himself and the less fortunate around him.”
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 01:34 PM | Link to this
One final example of a well-intended social program gone bad is the “free” breakfast and lunch program offered by the state. In many schools, 100% of the students get both free breakfast and lunch. Does anyone wonder where this maddening sense of entitlement many people have begins?? Look no further than the free breakfast and lunch programs.
Before I start hearing cries of heartlessness, I should point out that these same kids show up to school wearing $150 sneakers. But then again, why pay your own way wehn some sucker will pony it up for you. P.S. Beginning in 7th grade, I paid for my own lunch at school.
By NetBanker
January 5, 2007 01:35 PM | Link to this
Lozen…thanks for the compliment, but I don’t know that I’m a whole lot smarter than most. I did grow up in a very well read household that encouraged the kids to read also. I recall many days laying on the living room floor waiting for my Dad to get home from work reading the paper and trading sections with my brother and mother. The only magazine subscription I recall coming into the house was National Geographic. Loved your jokes this week! Especially the one about the Greek and Italian.
Lily Toad…we were just discussing this over the New Year’s weekend with a friend from England. The way he described their national plan it sounded like a national HMO that provided physician choice. One can also purchase very inexpensive supplementary insurance (Peter said his policy was $100 monthly for one of the best plans available and since we’ve discussed these types of things in the past I know he takes his health care seriously) to provide additional services or better options.
All this talk about whores reminds me of channel surfing last week and pausing on a Best of Jerry Springer segment where one trailer trash chick is screaming at another “You’re nothing but a whore! Just a big ol’ H-O-R-E, whore!” A laughing Jerry pops in between the two to correct the woman’s spelling.
Chilao..lol about dogs being wolves in disguise. I just can’t picture my lil Westie as a diguised wolf instead of a furry little person when she loves her comfort so darn much. Wolf does not come to mind when she’s bouncing at the side of the bed and when you pick her up she snuggles her back up against your chest and gives a great big sigh before dropping off to sleep.
By Chilao
January 5, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this
Actually many California firms have left CA. on the flip of that though, many employees of CA firms left since the CA firm’s concept of “pay in the form of MrSunshine, MrBeach, and MrMts” did not go over well, since MrSunshine, MrBeach, and MrMountains did not pay the bills. But CA used to be the 14th largest world economy. And I think the number is closer to 7th-or-8th now.
On the Brits in the pub joke, I think I posted this way back:
Harold comes home from the pub and remarks to his wife “Mildred, I think our good friend Charles is turning into an alcoholic”.
Mildred asks “Why Harold, why would you think that?”.
Harold replies “Well, everytime I am down at the pub, he’s there”.
hahahahahah
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 01:42 PM | Link to this
2D, Not only did I spend 20 years as a doctor, I am an actuary as well, so I understand health care funding from both sides of the fence. In addition, my family was very poor growing up. It is likely that we may have qualified for some type of government assistance, but we were too proud to apply. As a result, me and all my sisters climbed out of poverty through hard work. All the families I knew that took government assistance are all still bums.
There is an inherent evil contained in any third-party payor system. People are honest only when spending their own money.
By Chilao
January 5, 2007 01:44 PM | Link to this
LOL @ NetB - but does she run around in circles when you leave the house, as she attempts to create a full-pack to keep herself company while you are gone?
By NetBanker
January 5, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this
some type of nationalized health care will happen and I’ll bet that the drivers behind it will be business. Almost all of the other countries against which we compete in the global ecomony have some type of guaranteed government health care. It is only in the U.S. that our businesses are burdened with this cost. As outsourcing has occurred to save costs so too will businesses eventually either push for a plan that is gov’t sponsored so that workers can have access to health care, but it won’t be a burden on businesses. Just look at how costs for health care are rising under private insurance, but not so much for Medicare. And before we cast a bunch of stones at Medicare their administrative overhead is 3-9% lower than most private insurance plans.
And from Today’s Vent that falls in to the amusing category: “In the last 4,000 years, no new animals have been domesticated, but millions of new husbands have been” and “If God is really as close to Pat Robertson as Robertson claims, I must say God’s judgment has become somewhat circumspect of late.”
By Chilao
January 5, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this
And I think everytime I pick a cat up, they have to wonder to themselves When is he going to eat me? since if the situation, size-wise, was reversed, and being the ultimate predators that they are…LOL
Also reminds me of a cartoon I scanned way back, guy is in the yard raking leaves, over to the side are two dogs, one says to the other Tell me, what kind of best friend cuts your balls off?.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this
NetB—I’m not a banker, nor an economist, but I fail to see how socialized medicine will help our economy. Have you ever checked the unemployment rates throughout Europe and other socialistic countries? Those rates are no mystery to me.
Frankly, I think every last one of you here is employed by the government or some large company, and have lost touch with the real world.
By NetBanker
January 5, 2007 02:03 PM | Link to this
hehehe…no she just sits in the front window watching you drive off before she runs upstairs to the guest bedroom to jump up on the bed for a nap. She used to greet me at the door when I got home, but now I have to wait until she rouses herself even though she’s sleeping on the bed that is above the garage and the automatic door opener could wake the dead when it runs.
Wolf is not what I picture as she insists on sitting in my lap when I’m in the passenger seat so she can get a good view out of the car window or hang her head out in nice weather. About the only time I can picture wolf is when we’re on the beach and she finds a coconut husk. Then she’s all business as she stands on part of it and rips it shreds…tossing her head to let fly the last part she’s torn off before growling and ripping off the next piece. Try to take it away from her and she sounds like she might just eat your hand off…which makes me laugh because she’s all of 13 lbs of white fluff. Just don’t tell her that! We took her to a dog park while on vacation and she was quite busy playing with a 15 month old Great Dane and put a 70lb German Sheppard in it’s place when it tried to sniff her rear end.
By Jack
January 5, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this
Lions and tigers and bears. Oh my!
What is the fluid capacity of Monica Lewinski’s mouth?
One US leader.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 02:14 PM | Link to this
Gotta run, so I’ll make it simple for you all: When you subsidize irresponsible behavior, you end up with more irresponsible behavior, not less.
By Chilao
January 5, 2007 02:18 PM | Link to this
NetB - I have a small/cheap($3.95) bull whip that this new kitty eagerly awaits for me to pull down every morning. (he’ll sit underneath where I keep it and cry for it) and in fact he(a CAT!) will GROWL at me when I attempt to pull it away, since he CAUGHT it as I swung it back and forth. Have never really had a cat, let alone one about 6 pounds, GROWL like a dog..LOL
By Chilao
January 5, 2007 02:21 PM | Link to this
Lozen - I had to forward some of your jokes as my Friday’s Jokes du Jour e-mails..>LOL
By NetBanker
January 5, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this
Where did I say government sponsored healthcare would help the economy? What it would do is level the playing field for American businesses in the global market as well as be a huge cost savings for businesses. I don’t use the term socialized because that boxes in people’s minds to a certain understanding that may not be wholely true. For example the ‘socialized’ medical plans of canada are not the same as they are in Britain nor the same for France. What I do know from my interactions with the French system is that my doctor made house calls.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this
Jack—Good Monica joke! My personal favorite from that era a play on Hillary’s book: “It Takes a Village….. To Satisfy Bill”.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 02:44 PM | Link to this
NetB—My objection to government administered health care is many-fold. I’m glad you had a nice personal experience in France, but the fact remains that the US health care system is unrivaled in the free world. I agree with you that it is a burden on businesses to provide health care insurance. However, the solution is not to replace one inefficient system with one that is worse. The solution is to make consumers responsible for their own health care, plain and simple.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 02:50 PM | Link to this
The fact is that the third party payor system has made crooks out of most doctors. “Upcoding” is rampant, i.e. the practice of selecting the highest paying CPT codes to describe every service. One of my clients showed me a bill she had received for having a tube pulled out of her ear. Although the procedure took less than 15 seconds, it was billed as “Outpatient Surgery” for $700. I asked the woman what she planned to do about it, and she said “Nothing”.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this
A huge percentage of health care costs in the US are due to unnecessary tests and procedures. When doctors are sued for malpractice, their only defense is that they followed “usual and customary procedures”. As such, the MDs have developed protocols for every possible situation to cover their butts. Most of these protocols don’t utilize common sense, unfortunately. As such, millions of unneeded x-rays, MRIs, CT scans, and ultrasound tests are performed, at great expense. Dishonesty is what makes our health care so expensive.
By 2D
January 5, 2007 03:01 PM | Link to this
Lil’ John… That position is all fine and good, but there are truly some people who cannot just “pull themselves up by the bootstraps” and acquire health care on their own. This is most ragically the case for children.
While I agree with you that a full blown, governmental health care system does not sound like a good idea, is it unrealistic to entrust the government to do something to ensure that all people have the ability to acquire healthcare (i.e. ensure that some form of health care is affordable for all Americans)?
While I agree that the business cost of health care may make it difficult to compete, I don’t know how much affect it actually has. First, is healthcare the factor that pushes American labor above and beyond our international counterparts or is it our fat, bloated salaries. Second, are people in other countries “healthier” due to the healthcare system or the lifestyles. Not too many overworked stressed out folks in other countries because they don’t work as much (of course they don’t have the wealth or standard of living we have either). That is a trade off that can be debated til the cows come home. Third, good healthcare is a serious incentive to acquire the best employees. I know that is something I looked at before takng my current and previous job. Had the healthcare been subpar, I would have definitely not taken the new jobs.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this
In the end, health care “insurance” is a misnomer anyway. True “insurance” can only rightly be offered to cover rare, yet catastrophic events, like a house fire. Medical expenses are essentially fixed costs, along the lines of food. Sharing these costs is immoral, and leads to dishonesty. The greatest casualty in all cost-sharing schemes is the human spirit due to the dishonesty it naturally breeds.
By lozen
January 5, 2007 03:08 PM | Link to this
Yeah, all those irresponsible children running around this country expecting to have health care when they’re sick or dying!
By 2D
January 5, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this
Lil’ John… That position is all fine and good, but there are truly some people who cannot just “pull themselves up by the bootstraps” and acquire health care on their own. This is most ragically the case for children.
While I agree with you that a full blown, governmental health care system does not sound like a good idea, is it unrealistic to entrust the government to do something to ensure that all people have the ability to acquire healthcare (i.e. ensure that some form of health care is affordable for all Americans)?
While I agree that the business cost of health care may make it difficult to compete, I don’t know how much affect it actually has. First, is healthcare the factor that pushes American labor above and beyond our international counterparts or is it our fat, bloated salaries. Second, are people in other countries “healthier” due to the healthcare system or the lifestyles. Not too many overworked stressed out folks in other countries because they don’t work as much (of course they don’t have the wealth or standard of living we have either). That is a trade off that can be debated til the cows come home. Third, good healthcare is a serious incentive in the effort to acquire the best employees. I know that is something I looked at before takng my current and previous job. Had the healthcare been subpar, I would have definitely not taken the new jobs.
By lozen
January 5, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this
Yada, yada, yada, yada, yada. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I thought it said it had to go about six hours ago!
By Brian Curtis
January 5, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this
Bruno’s really banging the drum for attention today, isn’t he?
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this
2D—You keep confusing “healthcare” with “healthcare insurance”. They are two, very different things. I have never carried healthcare insurance for myself, but have preferred to pay as I go at great savings.
lozen—Show me one child in the US who could not go to a county clinic for their healthcare. By law, an emergency room can’t turn anyone away.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 03:21 PM | Link to this
lozen—What is your basis for believing that other people should pay your expenses for you?
By Brian Curtis
January 5, 2007 03:23 PM | Link to this
Lozen: Bruno’s a proven liar, remember? He always tosses out that line when he’s not getting enough attention. Like any Bushdrone, he only runs away when confronted with facts; they’re his Kryptonite.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 03:23 PM | Link to this
lozen—What is your basis for believing that other people should pay your expenses for you?
BC—If you think you can debate me, jump on in. Otherwise go back to jerking off in your lab, which my tax dollars are paying for as well.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this
Again, BC, I fully understand your support for dishonest, money-sharing schemes. You’ve made a fine penny in your life time that way. My buck says you couldn’t make it in the real world, in which you had to offer a service people were actually willing to pay for out of their pockets.
By 2D
January 5, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this
Lil’ John… I am not confusing the two, I may perhaps be lumping them together. There is a difference between going to doctor for a yearly physical and accidentally falling down the stairs which could incur large medical costs.
One is “healthcare”, the other is “healthcare insurance”. At least I think so based on your comments.
In any event, I do not see a “sharing” the cost of healthcare as immoral, but it can lead to dishonesty. How can society not be better off if we are all at the peak of our health potential? I will agree that in any scenario individuals should pay more based on the number of people in their families as well as their personal lifestyles (smokers, drinkers, etc.)
By Chilao
January 5, 2007 03:41 PM | Link to this
Don’t the more primitive cultures operate as cash-and-carry and barter systems? Yes, I think they do.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 03:48 PM | Link to this
2D—The truth is that a small percentage of people suck up a huge, disproportionate share of all the healthcare dollars spent. These folks do nothing to help themselves, but absolutely loooove going to the doctor. They brag about how many tests and procedures are performed on them. I know, because I treated many thousands of people just like that.
The problem with healthcare insurance is that there is little incentive to stay healthy. I don’t carry insurance, so you can bet your bottom dollar that I am careful to stay healthy.
By etc.
January 5, 2007 03:53 PM | Link to this
Hey NetB, it is totally unlike you to be intellectually dishonest so I will assume that you just forgot. I answered your questions about how gay marriage could and likely will affect society as a whole several months ago. Part of the answer I gave you included this list:
Your income taxes may be increased to make up for the marriage tax benefits given to homosexual couples and to pay for the social costs resulting from the increase in illegitimacy.(We provide financial benefits to married couples because they produce and care for children. Providing financial incentives for homosexual unions would be doubly counterproductive. First,taxpayers would be subsidizing, and thus encouraging, destructive behavior. Second, we would be paying for the results of that behavior in the form of increased medical and social costs.) • Your social security taxes may be increased (or benefits decreased) in order to pay survivor support benefits to homosexual “widows” and “widowers.” • Your medical insurance premiums may rise to offset the higher health‐care costs associated with homosexual behavior, which will likely become more prevalent. Medical premiums would rise further if insurance companies are mandated to cover fertility treatments for lesbian couples. (There’s sure to be some judge somewhere who would order this.) • Your employee benefits may be reduced if employers are mandated to spread their limited benefit dollars to homosexual partners. (Limited benefit dollars given to homosexuals must come from somewhere; indeed, they would be taken away from everyone else, including married couples who are raising children.) • Your ability to adopt children may be hindered if homosexual couples are given legal preference to adopt due to their inability to procreate. • Your children will be indoctrinated, with or without your consent, to accept homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage as the moral and social equivalent of heterosexual behavior and marriage. (We are already seeing this in our public schools.) • Your workplace will attempt to indoctrinate you to the same ends, and if you refuse, you will either lose your job or not be considered a “team player.” (This is already happening through “diversity” training in many companies; it will become universal if homosexual marriage becomes law.) • Your place of worship may lose tax‐exempt status if it refuses to hire homosexuals. • Your free speech rights may be curtailed as any opposition to homosexuality is declared to be illegal “hate speech” (as it is now in Canada).
These are just a few of the reasons but all I had time for today. It has been a hectic couple of weeks. Hope to get back to posting every once in awhile.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 03:55 PM | Link to this
Chilao, I’m sure you’re familiar with the Gold Standard. We need it back. All this plastic credit is going to blow up in our faces one of these days. Cash-and-carry may be primitive, but at least it is honest.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 04:03 PM | Link to this
2D—One last stab at it for you. We all have to eat. Instead of paying for our own food, suppose there was a National Food Insurance, so that food would be “free” from that point on. Well, I might be tempted to start eating lobster every day, as would many people. Then, either the Food Insurance taxes would have to be raised to an astronomical percentage, or the food would have to start being rationed.
Granted, some health conditions are truly “catastrophic”, in which case purchasing insurance makes sense. For all other healthcare, it is the wrong way to go.
By kimberly
January 5, 2007 04:15 PM | Link to this
I’m busy today, but I am compelled to comment on etc’s monstrosity of a paragraph: It is my opinion, as a heterosexual procreator and taxpayer, that you are slam full of rat poo. First of all, I HOPE your place of worship loses its tax-exempt status. Churches are corporations, and their pretense otherwise is an abomination to this nation and our massive debt. Pay up, Churches! Their free ride is bull. All your other “reasons” that one segement of Americans should be denied the same rights to marry as all other Americans are completely and utterly contrary to the principles (though not the reality) of equality upon which this country was founded. If I have the right to marry the person of my mutual choosing, then so does my neighbor, or we are living a LIE. You are a bigot, and your regurgitated, fear-tactic talking points are just great big steaming piles of moose-ca-ca. Thanks for listening.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 04:24 PM | Link to this
At the heart of insurance is “risk”—unforseen events which may or may not occur that have devastating consequences. In the face of such risk, people are usually willing to pool their monies together in order to minimize the risk to any one individual. This type of money-sharing only works when people have no special incentive to file a claim, however. That is the real reason behind deductibles and co-pays, to provide disincentive to filing a claim.
When costs are expected, such as paper supply costs for a company, insurance doesn’t apply. Neither does it apply to food, basic medical care, etc. Money sharing schemes involving these entities is socialism. Obviously, some people like socialism, but given the chance, most people are eager to flee it and come to the US where you can be free to live your life the way you choose to, not the life some bureaucrat selects for you.
By Chilao
January 5, 2007 04:29 PM | Link to this
cartoon for .etc. (previously posted here), the head-thumper whining about the infringement on his “rights”.
http://media.pixpond.com/use7k.gif
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 04:37 PM | Link to this
kimberly—I completely agree with you about the tax-exempt scam that churches hide behind.
Hope things go your way this year, you deserve a break.
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 04:42 PM | Link to this
2007 wish for all: Get away from all the materialism, it’s a ball and chain. Time is what is important. It’s very sad to me that kimberly and the other parents here have to work so late and miss spending time with their families. Of course, after a week with the kids over Christmas, work may be a nice escape!
By Chilao
January 5, 2007 04:46 PM | Link to this
maybe this will be better than pixpond:
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1861570/0/nouser1861/T0-1_1861570.gif
By Li'l John
January 5, 2007 04:57 PM | Link to this
I used to find it very depressing back in my working days to get up in the dark to go to work, than come home after dark. Whole day shot on working.
By NetBanker
January 5, 2007 05:08 PM | Link to this
I apologize for forgetting your list, Chuck, but most of what is posted in that list is conjecture and pure crap as well as having nothing to do with marriage itself or the claim that allowing gays access would ‘destroy traditional marriage.’ That was the question asked. What I still don’t recall seeing is how gay marriage would affect your personal marriage with your wife in terms of the value you both place on it.
So where did you get said copy and paste list of boogey man might happens? Focus on the Family? when it comes to the benefits and adoption items what the list states is preposterous. It has been proved by actuaries that there is no greater risk or expense to cover two males or two females under an insurance policy than it is to cover a male/female couple. In fact, there is no greater expense or risk than if two random people were selected and covered as a couple. Most companies DO offer domestic partner benefits so the proposed point in the list is meaningless.
I don’t suppose you could find any actual or real impacts in say Massachusetts could you? To date, I’m not aware of the proverbial sky having fallen on traditional marriage there in the past 2 years due to equality for gays in marriage.
I do have to touch on one point in that list about benefits being taken away from married couples raising children. Since the cost to insure a couple is NOT 2X the cost for a single person it must be that either single people are subsidizing couples and families or the studies that show people in couples tend to have better health. If the studies are correct then gays forming couples would also have better health and result in lower volume in our health care systems. Given this situation either Chuck wants to force all single people and especially gays to subsidize his marriage and family or he wants to deny gay couples the same economic benefit despite the data that would say they will use the system less when coupled. Either way he’s thinking with his Bible instead of his head, wallet, or even with his heart.