AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2007 > May > 23 > Entry
Should the solemnity of death temporarily suspend the right to criticize the legacy of controversial (or notable) public figures?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
No good can come from muffling public opinion, even in death. Respectful dirges should be reserved for private funerals not public airwaves, and public figures are fair game even after they die.
Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell preached from his media pulpit that the Sept. 11 terrorist attack was divine retribution for the machinations of feminists and abortionists. He believed that AIDS was God’s punishment for homosexuality. And, he griped about whether a public television character named Tinky-Winky was part of a secret plot to promote homosexuality.
There is no compelling reason to show respect for a man in his death if in life he showed so little respect for others.
The passing of notorious public figures is the very time when we should figure out the reasons for their notoriety and examine the lessons they can teach us.
One lesson we learned during Ronald Reagan’s lengthy homage was that respect need not translate into obsequious compliance. Nearly no one uttered a disparaging word against Reagan. The fake sentiment for his “legacy” soon made the media airwaves, and Democratic pundits received a public hand slap for their mute pandering.
Thomas Kunkel, president of the American Journalism Review, wrote: “The initial burst of news coverage would have you believe that Reagan was a cross between Abe Lincoln and Mother Teresa with an overlay of Mister Rogers.”
For a large segment of the population, Falwell’s constant and ridiculous diatribes were not only disruptive but divisive. Not to mention silly. I’m sure that we can all rest easy now that Tinky-Winky has been outed and American children everywhere are spared homosexual enculturation.
Falwell’s net effect on culture is the same as other self-destructive world leaders: His life was a cautionary tale, reminding us all about the importance of acceptance, simply because he couldn’t muster it himself.
It would be a shame to lose track of the real reason to remember Jerry Falwell after his death. As civilized as we pretend to be, he demonstrated how very easy it is to cloak your prejudice in piety and find a following for intolerance.
Rebuttal
Since so many people see only what they want to see, it seems inevitable that Jerry Falwell would be as misunderstood in death as in life. But his opponents’ close-mindedness does not excuse them from basic civility. Just hours after Falwell’s passing, I was appalled to watch respected television networks provide a platform for some of the most sickening, ad hominem attacks I’ve ever seen.
I watched in disbelief, for example, as CNN gave uninterrupted airtime to atheist and Vanity Fair editor Christopher Hitchens, who started by describing Falwell as an “ugly little charlatan” and a “little toad” — and went on from there.
Criticism is one thing, but if Diane is right, shouldn’t it be constructive criticism? And shouldn’t pundits at least consider that millions have a completely different view, and are mourning a man they greatly admired?
I didn’t always agree with Jerry Falwell, but I did admire his courage and willingness to speak out in some important but unpopular areas.
And it’s telling that he earned the respect and affection of critics who knew him personally. Al Sharpton told Larry King that Falwell truly cared for those he disagreed with, saying, “Even though I was against all of what he organized for, he really showed an iconic level of putting people together in this country.”
By contrast, so many disparaging remarks came from complete strangers who so disliked his opinions that they chose to ignore anything positive. I wonder whether most gay activists even know that he actually tried to reach out to gays, holding a 1999 forum — to reduce violence against gays and Christians — and sharing the pulpit with a homosexual pastor.
As Exodus International president Alan Chambers pointed out in an interview: “Unlike the majority of humanity, every time Jerry Falwell stepped outside the door, he had a microphone shoved in his face.
“Anytime someone is asked to comment on everything all the time, you are bound to say something wrong eventually. But his heart was pure, and he was a good man. And whenever he made those mistakes, he owned up to them.”
After his death, it would be a shame to keep silent about that message.
Comments
By propecia
May 27, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this
propecia http://pills.hostuju.cz/propecia/propecia.html > propecia
By propecia
May 27, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this
propecia http://pills.hostuju.cz/propecia/propecia.html > propecia
By Cherri B
May 27, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this
The answer for both women is this: free speech. Free speech entails some guidelines, guidelines that come about for various reasons. The current guideline for free speech in our country appears to originate and revolve around money, plain and simple. Public personalities, alive or dead, are fair game within whatever boundaries or guidelines are either mandated or generally accepted. But who makes those guidelines? Who draws the boundaries? What drives the reasoning behind both?
Reasoning aside, let’s get back to the money; what fuels free speech in the media is apparently readership, viewership, and listenership that translates to ad dollars and media viability.
The bottom line is really about individual or parental choice and public feedback. You like something? Let companies know. Don’t like something? Let companies know. When enough voices chime in with the same tune, media and advertisers listen because good listening means profit stability.
Finally, there is a place for every opinion in life and after that; what gets heard in the media usually reflects and is the result of well researched concepts and ideas that offer a highly statistically significant degree of making money.
By Conny
May 27, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this
carisoprodol pill , [url=http://urlcut.com/carisoprodolpill]carisoprodol pill[/url]
By Pavlos
May 27, 2007 7:27 PM | Link to this
Cool design, great info!
By Pavlos
May 27, 2007 7:28 PM | Link to this
Cool design, great info!
By Larry
May 28, 2007 8:13 AM | Link to this
Saddam Hussein was a public figure loved by many in Iraq, whose ability to keep militant religious extremists (who were clearly not “his own people”) under control was ignored by complete strangers who disliked him.
Everyone still hold the same opinion?
By sohohum
May 28, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this
Isn’t there something in the Bible about sowing and reaping?
One imagines an Islamic Fundamentalist version of Shaunti writing a similar column about Osama bin Laden, or some Ugandan saying the same of Idi Amin, or – and I realize that playing this card is often the sign of an hysterical argument – some aging Nazi loyalist writing the same article in praise of Adolph Hitler.
A man is remembered by both those who loved him and those who reviled him, and Jerry Falwell was a man reviled by many. He is owed no free pass by those whom he offended. He is guaranteed no eulogy but that which he created for himself by his life’s work.
Falwell was a man who devoted the aforementioned life’s work to discrimination, hatred, bigotry and religious persecution. I’m sure that there are many small-minded folk who found comfort in his superstition, dogma, and theocratic yearnings. I’m equally sure that there were many who were repulsed by it. Even religious conservatives found reason to distance themselves from his ravings, from his attribution of God’s wrath to simple natural causes, from his inability to distinguish man’s inhumanity to man from Divine retribution.
There was nothing redeemable in his character. Just as there is nothing redemptive in the Wahabist who spews out hatred against the West, as there is nothing redemptive in those fundamentalist Islamics who exhort their fellows to murder and mayhem in the pursuit of what they deem absolute truth, there is nothing redemptive in the life of Jerry Falwell.
He preached hatred with every sermon. He encouraged violence and discrimination with every ill-framed thought, every ill-intentioned deed. He was a man of superstition, an anti-rationalist, a bigot, a rabble-rouser, and, frankly, a monster.
He is reaping what he sowed. His memory is rightfully tainted with every vile thought, every ugly remark, every hate-filled rant.
I don’t believe in Hell. But if it exists, I am certain that Jerry Falwell now has his own special extra-hot spot.
By Billy
May 28, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this
“Even though I was against all of what he organized for, he really showed an iconic level of putting people together in this country.”
That’s not praise, Shaunti. That’s basically like saying, “You know, although I deplore everything he did, Hitler was quite the public speaker who was able to rally his countrymen.”
…to reduce violence against gays and Christians…
Yeah, because the frequency of homosexuals beating up and sometimes killing Christians just for being themselves was nearing epidemic proportions. Oh, for the love of your bipolar god…
By Stelios
May 28, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
The site’s very professional penis enlargement pills [url=http://cheville.okstate.edu/Blog/_blog/000006d4.htm] penis enlargement pill [/url]
By Lily Toad
May 28, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this
“A Little Toad?” How disparaging to Toads to be compared to Falwell!! I don’t get why when someone can be praised or scorned a week before dying, then they are off limits immediately after death. Falwell was a hateful man — why cover the fact?
By Lily Toad
May 28, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this
“A Little Toad?” How disparaging to Toads to be compared to Falwell!! I don’t get why when someone can be praised or scorned a week before dying, then they are off limits immediately after death. Falwell was a hateful man — why cover the fact?
By free midi ringtones
May 28, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this
free midi ringtones http://boole.cs.iastate.edu/semanticweb/attachment.cgi?forum=49&topic=5&postno=9&type=.htm mtv ringtones boole.cs.iastate.edu/semanticweb/attachment.cgi?forum=49&topic=5&postno=9&type=.htm mtv ringtones mtv ringtones mtv ringtones http://dsublimemilbusb.blogspot.com free midi ringtones dsublimemilbusb.blogspot.com free midi ringtones free midi ringtones free midi ringtones
By free midi ringtones
May 28, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this
free midi ringtones http://boole.cs.iastate.edu/semanticweb/attachment.cgi?forum=49&topic=5&postno=9&type=.htm mtv ringtones boole.cs.iastate.edu/semanticweb/attachment.cgi?forum=49&topic=5&postno=9&type=.htm mtv ringtones mtv ringtones mtv ringtones http://dsublimemilbusb.blogspot.com free midi ringtones dsublimemilbusb.blogspot.com free midi ringtones free midi ringtones free midi ringtones
By free midi ringtones
May 28, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
free midi ringtones http://boole.cs.iastate.edu/semanticweb/attachment.cgi?forum=49&topic=5&postno=9&type=.htm mtv ringtones boole.cs.iastate.edu/semanticweb/attachment.cgi?forum=49&topic=5&postno=9&type=.htm mtv ringtones mtv ringtones mtv ringtones http://dsublimemilbusb.blogspot.com free midi ringtones dsublimemilbusb.blogspot.com free midi ringtones free midi ringtones free midi ringtones
By free midi ringtones
May 28, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
free midi ringtones http://boole.cs.iastate.edu/semanticweb/attachment.cgi?forum=49&topic=5&postno=9&type=.htm mtv ringtones boole.cs.iastate.edu/semanticweb/attachment.cgi?forum=49&topic=5&postno=9&type=.htm mtv ringtones mtv ringtones mtv ringtones http://dsublimemilbusb.blogspot.com free midi ringtones dsublimemilbusb.blogspot.com free midi ringtones free midi ringtones free midi ringtones
By ativan online
May 28, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this
ativan online http://www.csuchico.edu/psu/wwwboard/messages/9215.html buy xenical www.csuchico.edu/psu/wwwboard/messages/9215.html xenical cheap xenical cheap xenical http://wc1.worldcrossing.com/WebX/.1de60705 ativan online wc1.worldcrossing.com/WebX/.1de60705 ativan buy ativan ativan online
By ativan online
May 28, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this
ativan online http://www.csuchico.edu/psu/wwwboard/messages/9215.html buy xenical www.csuchico.edu/psu/wwwboard/messages/9215.html xenical cheap xenical cheap xenical http://wc1.worldcrossing.com/WebX/.1de60705 ativan online wc1.worldcrossing.com/WebX/.1de60705 ativan buy ativan ativan online
By ativan online
May 28, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this
ativan online http://www.csuchico.edu/psu/wwwboard/messages/9215.html buy xenical www.csuchico.edu/psu/wwwboard/messages/9215.html xenical cheap xenical cheap xenical http://wc1.worldcrossing.com/WebX/.1de60705 ativan online wc1.worldcrossing.com/WebX/.1de60705 ativan buy ativan ativan online
By chuck
May 28, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this
sohodog,
You want to talk about a hateful bigot let’s talk about…I don’t know…YOU? Look at what you wrote:
Falwell was a man who devoted the aforementioned life’s work to discrimination, hatred, bigotry and religious persecution.
He preached hatred with every sermon. He encouraged violence and discrimination with every ill-framed thought, every ill-intentioned deed. He was a man of superstition, an anti-rationalist, a bigot, a rabble-rouser, and, frankly, a monster.
Hey, why not add that he ate little children and puppy dogs? It wouldn’t have made your statement any more ludicrous. There is nobody more hateful and bigoted than a liberal, nor more selfish.
Jerry Falwell was a husband, a dad, a granddad, an accomplished and beloved Pastor and preacher. He was a University FOUNDER and President and his graduates have gone on to countless accomplishments. He was 100% devoted to his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is a man who did more good in a typical week in his life than you have done in your entire MISERABLE one. How many homeless alcoholics have you helped? Falwell helped THOUSANDS. He gave them food, shelter, helped them to give up liquor, and most importantly, he gave them dignity. How many abortions have YOU prevented? How many children have you helped to find adoptive homes? Falwell helped THOUSANDS. How many broke kids have you given scholarships to? Falwell has seen to it that thousands of young men and women have had the opportunity to get a college education. Falwell genuinely cared for others and proved it in his daily life.
NONE of your liberal ideas are for others, but for yourself. Only for YOUR concerns, not the concerns of the Nation or the world. You should crawl back into your fetid little cesspool of a life and leave decent people alone.
By chuck
May 28, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this
Lily, didn’t your mama teach you better than that? I’m disappointed in you.
By chuck
May 28, 2007 4:09 PM | Link to this
BTW, soho, just how many of Dr. Falwell’s sermons did you listen to. I can tell you that the Old Time Gospel Hour was on tv for decades and I heard probably over a couple of hundred of his sermons. I can tell you for a fact that not ONCE did I ever hear a hateful word come out of his mouth.
The problem with you libbies is that you just don’t know how to respond when your fantasies are confronted with rational, intelligent reality. It isn’t possible for you to hear the truth. It’s just too uncomfortable for you. Since you cannot combat the truth, since after all it is the truth, you have to create a horrible image of those who speak it. It isn’t enough for you to rationally make your arguments because you know that won’t work. Instead what you have to do is create an alternative image of your OPPONENTS. Instead of argument, you turn to demonization, not of the message, but the messenger. What was it you called Dr. Falwell?…oh yes, a MONSTER. If you can get people to believe that about your opponents, maybe they won’t listen to the TRUTH they are speaking.
Ultimately, the selflessness of conservatives who want what is best for ALL of America, is always going to win the day unless you can successfully create this false image about them.
By sohohum
May 28, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this
Sadly, the life and work of Falwell seems to be well-represented in you, Chuck. Religious fundamentalists always confuse hatred and bigotry with “the truth”.
You know nothing about me, yet you condemn me and call me all manner of names, simply because I found the life and work of someone you repected to be intolerant.
Which of us is the bigot?
By Archie
May 29, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this
My response to the topic question is no. I think a person should be respectful of the people the deceased has left behind but still retain the right to criticize the deceased. Falwell said some crazy stuff and Diane’s last paragraph captured what Falwell was about in my opinion.
By Mara
May 29, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this
Chuck - just because YOU found Mr. Falwell inspiring does not eliminate the stupidity and insensitivity that some of his remarks exhibited. Many people believe that fundamentalists of any stripe must be in-bred idiots who’ve been brain-washed into believing anything their charismatic preacherman tells them to believe. Just because they believe it doesn’t make it any more true than Mr. Falwells religious hyperbole about devine retribution, the deviance of homosexuality, or the malign influence of strong, independant women. YOU (seem to) believe that Mr. Falwell was a good, decent man who merely spoke what he believed. Others just as adamantly believe that he was small minded, judgemental, unbalanced, and a hypocrite.
IMO the solemnity of a funeral or memorial should be respected not because of who the deceased was but simply because they were beloved by someone, if only a parent or sibling. That doesn’t mean the person should be deified though. Especially a public figure of such devisive opinion and obvious influence. No mans’ opinions and statements should be beyond criticism and, if deserved, vilification and condemnation.
By Chilao
May 29, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this
There is no compelling reason to show respect for a man in his death if in life he showed so little respect for others.
Thank you, Diane. Sums up my views on the subject.
By 2D
May 29, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this
The respect shown at the time of death is not necessarily for the person who has died (although it may be), it is always for the people who are still living.
I also believe there are ways to battle the ideas sent forth by a person without persecuting the individual. We have unfortunately devolved into a society that would rather attack individual than debate ideas.
By JokesOn
May 29, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this
He was a sick man plain and simple.
It is a shame he was allowed to breed.
By 2D
May 29, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this
JokesOn… Taking a hardline position on something does not make one “sick”. Stubborn perhaps, but not sick. “Breeding” as you so crudely put it, doesn’t ensure the propagation of political views. While 80% show the same religious affiliation as their parents it doesn’t mean they will adopt the same viewpoints.
My parents were flower child hippies and I’m about as polar opposite to them as humanly possible.
Ronald Reagan’s biological children often opposed his politics while his adoptive son has taken up the conservative banner.
I hope you were speaking in hyperbole. this post was just in case you weren’t.
By Mara
May 29, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this
Ultimately, the selflessness of conservatives who want what is best for ALL of America, is always going to win the day unless you can successfully create this false image about them
and here I thought that it was conservatives who were all for the “every man for himself” my-way-or-the-highway individualism. I was under the impression that conservatives advocated for descrimination in education and religion (tax-payer funded prayer to the state sanctioned Christian god). I was under the impression that conservatives prefered exclusion to inclusion (anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-conservation, anti-poor). I always thought that conservatives equated “common good” with “socialist” and “communist”…IOW, with evil librul social policies.
I suppose that if you believe that the “common” in “common good” means the mythical exclusively white, apple-pie and Old Glory days of the Ingalls, the Waltons, Father Knows Best, and Aunt Bea and Andy…well, I suppose you do work for the common good.
It was interesting that in my Google search on “conservatives” and “common good” I didn’t come up with very many positive connections. Most that connected the two pretty much reiterated this Ayn Rand quote -
“America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices for ‘the common good,’ but by the productive genius of free men …” Socialism reaches into our pocketbooks and lives incrementally, always cloaked in some “common good” guise exhorting us to make America better, fairer, more equal. Life is not fair and equal. Socialism takes from producers what it cannot and will not produce itself.
No THAT’S “conservatism”
By JokesOn
May 29, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
2D,
I find it sick when someone is in a position like he was, influencing MANY, and does not provide at least a decent example.
People railed against sport figures when they say something stupid and they are not even a “real” role models or spokespersons.
Here we have a man that perpetuated and justified hate in many people that were already confused and all in the name of christ. The bible even warns of these people and he fits the criteria nearly perfect.
By DebbieDoRight
May 29, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
Here’s some lowlights of Mr. Falwell’s career.
Falwell is forced to pay gay activist Jerry Sloan $5,000 after losing a court battle. During a TV debate in Sacramento, Falwell denied calling the gay-oriented Metropolitan Community Churches “brute beasts” and “a vile and Satanic system” that will “one day be utterly annihilated and there will be a celebration in heaven.” When Sloan insisted he had a tape, Falwell promised $5,000 if he could produce it. Sloan did so, Falwell refused to pay and Sloan successfully sued. Falwell appealed, with his attorney charging that the Jewish judge in the case was prejudiced. He lost again and was forced to pay an additional $2,875 in sanctions and court fees.
February 1993: The Internal Revenue Service determines that funds from Falwell’s “Old Time Gospel Hour” program were illegally funneled to a political action committee. The IRS forced Falwell to pay $50,000 and retroactively revoked the Old Time Gospel Hour’s tax-exempt status for 1986-87.
1994-1995: Falwell is criticized for using his “Old Time Gospel Hour” to hawk a scurrilous video called “The Clinton Chronicles” that makes a number of unsubstantiated charges against President Bill Clinton — among them that he is a drug addict and that he arranged the murders of political enemies in Arkansas. Despite claims he had no ties to the project, evidence surfaced that Falwell helped bankroll the venture with $200,000 paid to a group called Citizens for Honest Government (CHG). CHG’s Pat Matrisciana later admitted that Falwell and he staged an infomercial interview promoting the video in which a silhouetted reporter said his life was in danger for investigating Clinton. (Matrisciana himself posed as the reporter.) “That was Jerry’s idea to do that,” Matrisciana recalled. “He thought that would be dramatic.”
Yep. This guy Falwell, was a real good christian. If he is an example of Christianity in America, I’ve suddenly become an atheist sympathizer.
By Lily Toad
May 29, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this
Well, Chuck, actually, my southern mother did say “don’t speak ill of the dead,” but like a lot of southern manners, this is a cover-up. Southerner customs often hide real feelings behind a lot of smooth talk. I can’t forget Falwell blaming me, a lesbian feminist, for the attack on the world trade towers. And his remarks were not at all respectful of the agony our nation felt at the time.
By buy fioricet with codeine
May 29, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
I really find this site very interesting, and it gives people a pleasure time! I really appreciate the creators of this website! fioricet http://fioricetbuyfior.blog.ijijiji.com
By buy fioricet with codeine
May 29, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this
I really find this site very interesting, and it gives people a pleasure time! I really appreciate the creators of this website! fioricet http://fioricetbuyfior.blog.ijijiji.com
By Scalia
May 29, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this
I agree somewhat to what Chuck said last week. There were things that Falwell did that were good, and there were things that he said that everybody agreed with. I personally don’t think that Falwell’s career should be smeared by the comments that he made.
He is entitled to his opinion, and opinions are like a-$-$-h-o-l-e-s, everybody has one.
By Jack
May 29, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this
He was a public figure and fair game in death as in life.
By lozen
May 29, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
Of course Chuck jumps to defend Falwell. Lily Toad, I too cannot forget his incredible slurs about feminists, gays, etc. causing the 9/11 attack. He encouraged those who are prejudiced against gay people, who hate strong women. He aided and abetted those who base their lives on supernatural, superstitious beliefs. So of course Chuck jumps……
By Randy
May 29, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this
The problem with what Jerry Falwell stood for is simple, the truth hurts. People who live a “weak” lifestyle(gays etc) don’t want to hear it. Mr. Falwell told the truth!
By kimberly
May 29, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this
Yeah, I was SOOOO impressed with Mr. Falwell’s character assasination on an animated kid-show puppet that doesn’t even speak. snerk! Good thing all those widows refinanced their homes to send the good reverend money every month! He certainly had good, honorable, “Christian” uses for it, didn’t he! GLOW-REE!
By Mara
May 29, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this
Scalia - I’m confused. Falwell made the comments. He meant the comments. How, then, is it “smearing his career” by publicizing his words after he’s gone? How is it “smearing” to comment on the attitude and views that these words espoused? If he was still alive he’d defend every word he’d said.
By lozen
May 29, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this
Sohohum and Mara have summed it up very well. Since there were no jokes on Friday here’s one for today:
Two 90 year old men, Moe and Joe, have been friends all of their lives. When it’s clear that Joe is dying, Moe visits him every day. One day Moe says, “Joe, we both loved baseball all our lives, and we played minor league ball together for so many years. Please do me one favor, when you get to Heaven, somehow you must let me know if there’s baseball up there.” Joe looks up at Moe from his death bed,” Moe, you’ve been my best friend for many years. If it’s at all possible, I’ll do this favor for you. Shortly after that, Joe passes on. At midnight a couple of nights later, Moe is awakened from a sound sleep by a blinding flash of white light and a voice calling out to him, ” Moe—Moe.” “Who is it?, asks Moe sitting up suddenly. “Who is it?” “Moe—it’s me, Joe.” “You’re not Joe. Joe just died.” “I’m telling you, it’s me, Joe,” insists the voice. “Joe! Where are you?” “In heaven”, replies Joe. “I have some really good news and a little bad news.” “Tell me the good news first,” says Moe. “The good news,” Joe says,” is that there’s baseball in heaven. Better yet, all of our old buddies who died before us are here, too. Better than that, we’re all young again. Better still, it’s always spring time and it never rains or snows. And best of all, we can play baseball all we want, and we never get tired.” “That’s fantastic,” says Moe. “It’s beyond my wildest dreams! So what could possibly be the bad news?” “You’re pitching Tuesday.”
By JokesOn
May 29, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
Mr. Falwell told the truth!
You freaks have no problem manufacturing/defining “the truth” yourself and mandating to to all under christs name.
What could be more evil than that?
BTW - he did eat puppies. I saw it.
By Lily Toad
May 29, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this
It takes much strength to live as a gay person in a hostile world.
By Scalia
May 29, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this
what I am saying is that good he did will be overshadowed by the comments he made. It is like the teacher that remembers the bad students, and not the good ones. Yes, he helped alcoholics. Yes, he sent people to school. But it won’t be remembered. And the sad thing is: most of the bad stuff is reported and the good stuff is left to the side.
By kimberly
May 29, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this
Can we talk about this topic for a minute? “Should the solemnity of death temporarily suspend the right to criticize the legacy of controversial (or notable) public figures?”
Not that we aren’t aghast every week by the new levels of lameness perpetrated by Shaunti and Diane under the guise of a “column…”
But seriously: CAN WE (please tell me who “we” is, and who decides who comprises “we”) SUSPEND (eliminate for an unspecified period of time decided by “we”) THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF AMERICANS (come on, y’all weren’t using them anyway, were you?) TO AVOID HURTING THE FEELINGS OF A PUBLIC FIGURE (as defined by “we”) OR THE FAMILY THEREOF (who would really be protected by this is a subjective decision of “we”) WHO HAS DIED, EVEN IF THAT FIGURE SPENT AN ENTIRE LIFE AND CAREER HURTING THE FEELINGS OF OTHERS (which might be okay, according to the subjective decisions of “we…”)
Seriously, WTF? Just having this discussion is assinine. Those of you who aren’t interested in your first amendment rights, please sign up for the military today, and they’ll be happy to put them in storage for you.
By Jack
May 29, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this
If he ate puppies I’m sure he would have loved Jack & Mara’s famous stew. LOL
By DebbieDoRight
May 29, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this
What about the good that Jim Jones did? Will that be “overshadowed” by the last comments he made before he made his people drink that Kool-Aide?
By JokesOn
May 29, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
Scalia,
What that means to me is we have a bunch of sober bigots instead of drunk ones.
I do not buy it (all the good he did). The people who followed him were/are narrow minded bigots and he galvanized that type of thought.
To assist your followers in being healthy in order to wage war on freedom is not my idea of being a good person.
He SHOULD be likened to hitler because if he had his way he would have assassinated those in his way (as he stated), created concentration camps for the gays and the jews (as he stated), created a religious government (as he stated) and etc.
By JokesOn
May 29, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this
Example statements:
My favorite: I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!
(Jimmy Carter’s) message of peace and reconciliation under almost all circumstances is simply incompatible with Christian teachings as I interpret them. This ‘turn the other cheek’ business is all well and good but it’s not what Jesus fought and died for. What we need to do is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us.
The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this (the destruction of 9/11) because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”
AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh’s charioteers … AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”
If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision [Brown v. Board of Education] would never have been made…. The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.
By Renee
May 29, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this
Diane has hit the nail on the head.
Hi all!! Mara good comment as usual!!
By Mara
May 29, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this
Jack - LOL @ the stew…but don’t forget the “baby wraps”. I saw someone mention that he ate babies, too. Methinks he raided our recipe box LOL!!!!
kimberly - it isn’t so much the “hurt feelings” that bother me as it is his tireless efforts to demonize and devalue my fellow Americans whose life-choices he disagreed with. Those who didn’t live the way he thought they should were portrayed as evil, un-American, God-hating and/or enemies of decency. And those that supported him…even at their worst they were portrayed only as poor sinners who needed understanding and forgiveness…
By Scalia
May 29, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this
As a gay, black male, I find that comment about the Brown vs. Board of Education extremely offensive.
I am not defending him, but am offering another opinion. I would hate to be labeled for the rest of my life, for example, the drug-addict junkie. Or the guy that did this, or the thief. I would hope that people would mention the good that I did.
By 2D
May 29, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this
JokesOn… Jerry Falwell was a narrow minded individual that had a large level of influence. Our society is full of them (insert extremist politicians, media figures, etc.). I think what bothers most of his opponents is that he was able to wield his influence in a way that few of his opponents could.
Here’s a couple of responses to your quotes.
Jimmy Carter’s message of peace and reconciliation under almost all circumstances is ridiculous. I won’t say its incompatible with Christian teachings b/c I can see the position from both sides.
Do you believe that God has had nothing to do with the formation and relative stability that we have seen in this country? Even Washington, an avowed Deist, recognized the role of divine providence, when speaking of his small Army’s narrow escape from Long Island early in the war. Go throughout our history and you’ll see far too many “accidents”, “miracles” and “coincidences” that have helped this country survive, especially in times of war. Unless you are an atheist, I find it hard to dispute this fact.
What percentage of people who get AIDS or any other STD for that matter get it through blood transfusion or some other inoccuous contact? AIDS and STDs are transmitted almost exclusively through irresponsible sexual behavior. One person responsible person may get it from an equally irresponsible person (i.e. a man infecting his wife after having sex with a prostitute), but it was still irresponsible that caused the issue.
Can’t say anything about BVB decision. That was a load of hogwash, however, considering that my spouse and I were both part of “busing” experiments in the 1970s, That is equally a load of hogwash.
By Mara
May 29, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this
Hi ya, Renee!! Long time no hear and thanks for the compliment.
Next time you talk to her would you please say “Hi” to JBM for me? The forum hasn’t been the same since you all quit posting regularly.
By JohnF
May 29, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this
Falwell does not deserve to escape criticism just because he died. There are plenty of devout Christians who have done greater works than he but we’ve never heard of them…Falwell was only known because of his close minded bigotry. But I can’t really blame him, or Pat Robinson, or the rest of the evengelical superstars. It’s the sheep that have listened to them that I blame. Those that bought into the garbage that Falwell spewed are the real people that should be demonized.
By GOB
May 29, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this
Do you believe that God has had nothing to do with the formation and relative stability that we have seen in this country?
I think “God” deserves as much credit for the “formation and relative stability” of this country as Zeus does for the “formation and relative stabilty” that the Greeks enjoyed.
By JohnF
May 29, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this
2D,
Are you saying that Falwell’s statement about AIDS is justified?
I’ve watched three friends die from AIDS…if that is the wrath of God then that’s one supreme being I wouldn’t want to spend the rest of enternity with.
We all know that venereal disease is usually a result of promiscuity…so what?
At one time there was no cure for syphilis among heterosexuals…was that the wrath of God also?
Do you believe that God has had nothing to do with the formation and relative stability that we have seen in this country? …Go throughout our history and you’ll see far too many “accidents”, “miracles” and “coincidences” that have helped this country survive, especially in times of war. Unless you are an atheist, I find it hard to dispute this fact.
A completely asinine statement. There is nothing “factual” about it. Until you can produce “God”, everything you cite is coincidental.
The only reason I would believe in God would be the joy in knowing he sent Falwell packing to hell.
By JokesOn
May 29, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this
Do you believe that God has had nothing to do with the formation and relative stability that we have seen in this country?
Nope. I think he is way to above that kind of meddling.
And your position on AIDS is irresponsible. Would you put the same weight on breast cancer? Cervical? Prostate?
These are just types of lifeforms that fill niches to procreate. They do not discriminate.
Just because you can create a correlation between to things, does not mean a correlation exists. Check out freak-o-nomics for numerous examples.
By kimberly
May 29, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this
Those that bought into the garbage that Falwell spewed are the real people that should be demonized.
JohnF, stick around, Dude. You can help! {;->
Caught a few minutes of the Pat Robertson Political Commentary Hour the other morning when I was running late. It comes on after the morning “news.” TOOOO funny! First item: High gas prices have people complaining, but ease up, everybody! Refineries are taking a hit because so many people are interested in bio-diesel (said with a sneer) and switchgrass (sweartogod he said “switchgrass”). Be patient with the oil companies who are trying so hard to refine the oil we need. Pay up and stop complaining. (No mention of recent profit levels or stock prices…)
Next item: Gonzales is a great guy, being unfairly persecuted by partisan heathens. Then they talked about that Goodling chick from Pat R’s own law school: “They thought hey had something on her, and they were so eager to get her into a hearing, but they had nothing!” (victorious glee…) Next item: How the current Congress is ruining the country. (No mention of the glorious, godly previous Congresses or their “Contract with America” which they failed to honor in 12 years of total control.)
After 12 and a half minutes of the Religio-GOP talking points and no actual Jesus Christ in sight, I sighed heavily, tore up the $10K check I was about to send them for doing God’s work, and split.
By Diana Prince
May 29, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this
Of course cervical cancer is from promiscuity. One of the causes is having intercourse at a young age. You are not supposed to have your cervix banged on.
By JokesOn
May 29, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this
Of course cervical cancer is from promiscuity. One of the causes is having intercourse at a young age. You are not supposed to have your cervix banged on.
Please tell me that was tongue in cheek, no pun intended.
I guess since poverty only kills the poor that is also a punishment?
By Chilao
May 29, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this
At one time there was no cure for syphilis among heterosexuals…was that the wrath of God also?
that actually was the wrath of colonized people of the New World, as they inflicted their colonizers/oppressors from the Old World.
syphilis being a disease unknown in Europe until Columbus’ crew members brought it back from their explorations of willing young Caribbean maidens, among other explorations.
Aztec Wrath perhaps?
By Jack
May 29, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this
VD is nothing to clap about.
By Lyrazel
May 29, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this
With TV having a 24 hour format now people become irrelevant two weeks after they were news and Falwell will be no exception. What I remember is he was always apologizing for the stupidity that fluttered off his unchecked tongue—and in true form he said he made mistakes. Public foot-in-mouth disease was just one of the reasons he became famous with generations of Americans. It is hard for anyone to be in a spotlight for so many years without wishing to edit 3/4 of what one says AFTER it comes out. The biggest names in humanitarian efforts, civil rights, politics and religion have all suffered the caught-in-headlights-foot-in-mouth proving that they are human even after being elevated by celebrity spotlight. He was just a man. He held himself up to very high standards and believed in his God.
As far as the topic: Having the opposing pundit being dead is a good way to get opinions broadcast on TV without loosing the debate. Pathetic, what people do to get on TV isn’t it?
By JohnF
May 29, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this
Kimberly,
I love this Pat Robertson quote from your post:
Be patient with the oil companies who are trying so hard to refine the oil we need. Pay up and stop complaining.
The thing is, the people that are so taken in by this charletan are probably the ones that are the hardest hit by high gas prices.
By Rectilinear Propagation
May 29, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this
Correct me if I’m wrong but nobody seemed too worried about whether their comments were disrespectful when Anna Nicole Smith died. Why should Falwell, or anyone else for that matter, get different treatment? Because he had power? Please, give me a break!
When a person dies the only place it is inappropriate to critique them is at the funeral (wake, etc.).
We don’t expect the media to suddenly act as though death row inmates were really nice guys after their execution. The Darwin Awards even make fun of people for getting killed/hurt in dumb ways. Why should public figures be exempt?
By 2D
May 29, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this
JohnF… You’ll notice I never justified any of Falwell’s statements. I merely asked my own question, a question to which noone has given an answer to.
By 2D
May 29, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this
JohnF…
I qualified my statement about my belief on how I believe God has shown favor to this country with the statement excluding atheists from the point. Since you fall into that group, of course the statement would fall on deaf ears.
By Rectilinear Propagation
May 29, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this
You’ll notice I never justified any of Falwell’s statements.
We all noticed that you didn’t justify his statements. JohnF took issue with the fact that you even tried to do so. You can’t back pedal just because your attempt failed.
No one’s answered your question because it is irrelevant to the discussion.
By 2D
May 29, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this
Puh-leeze. The last thing I ever do is backpeddle.
From the CDC website:
Number of AIDS case through 2005 by category: Male-to-male sexual contact: 454,106 (48%) Injection Drug Use: 242,006 (26%) Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use: 66,081 (7%) High-risk heterosexual contact: 164,850 (17%) Blood Transfusion/Perinatal: 20,542 (2%)
The CDC is hardly a bastion of right wing religious or political propaganda. Only two percent of recorded cases result from blood transfusions or perinatal exposure. I would also suspect (here is my two cents) that those “innocent” 2% are infected because blood supplies or the mother has been infected due to reasons outlined in the other 98% percent.
So, while I may not say this is God’s wrath on the homosexual community, I will say that this is a disease greatly tends to infect either male homosexuals or others who take part in highly irresponsible behavior.
By kimberly
May 29, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this
Hey 2D, in order to persue your line of thought here (I’m not an athiest), can you give us more info on why you think God has favored us as a nation? For example, because the European settlers befriended the natives before eradicating them, or because they DID eradicate them, or because they eradicated them, but let half a dozen or so actually live on a couple patches of not-so-fertile land? Was it because our ancestors (some of them) fought to end slavery, or because they built an agrarian economy on the backs of kidnapped Africans and their decendents? And how do you relate this with other great civilizations, like Rome, for example, where pagan worshippers thrived for many more centuries than we have before falling, as many historians argue, due to their own greed? I mean, aside from the John Phillip Souza-type propaganda, what exactly makes us so special? Just curious.
By JohnF
May 29, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this
2D,
You responded to another post of Falwells “AIDS is punishment from God” by stating the obvious..that people who engage in sexual relations irresponsibly are more at risk for HIV infection…
Did I read too much into that by asserting that you are suggesting that people that have died from AIDS got what they deserved?
Lots of people suffer from irresponsible behavior, but there’s a big difference in pointing out people’s weakness vs saying God set out to make them suffer.
Also, if you qualified your statement about the influence of God on this country, you use the word “fact” a bit too loosely.
By Rectilinear Propagation
May 29, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this
2D: If you aren’t attempting to justify Falwell’s statements then your entire post is irrelevant. It’d be like me randomly posting statistics on grand theft auto. It has as much to do with the “God’s wrath” statements as anything you said.
IS there a reason you decided to post that?
By Archie
May 29, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this
I want to switch from Falwell to JFK. As well-known as Kennedy was for his great leadership he was also known for chasing women…while being married. As Lyrazel said earlier just about every leader in civil rights, politics, and religion has done something that speaks to a character flaw. MLK was a skirt-chaser, as was Strom Thurmond. Yes we have to criticize the legacy of controversial figures where it’s warranted even when they die and I think it’s time we stop telling athletes,entertainers, and politicians that they are role models. They are human beings and human beings do good things and they do bad things throughout life. If you are a preacher I do think you should strive to be a role model because that’s the nature of your job. I mean if you believe in God and you preach you know sex outside of marriage is a violation whether you’re straight or gay so I don’t know how you get around that. I wish JBM would post on that because she was honest and she straightened me out on that. What do we say about James Brown? Elvis? Jimi Hendrix? Rock Hudson? Anna Nicole? I struggle to know what some of the aforementioned did that was good but I do know they were entertainers. Point is, we can criticize anyone’s legacy, but we had better be prepared when someone criticize’s our favorite politician, athlete, or entertainer.
By RoundemUP&OUT
May 29, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this
Relgious folks are insane & should all be rounded up & sent to Utah. Keep them all inside an electrical fence away from the rest of us.
By lozen
May 29, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this
Hey Renee. JohnF, you’re a smart guy; please hang around!
Yes really. Why would someone think the USA has been favored more than Greece, Rome, Turkey, India, China, or any other non-christian super power of the past? Well, because they believed what some preacher said one Sunday, that’s all. Listening to what you’re told in church and accepting it unquestioningly isn’t great training for real thinking about the world is it? As a matter of fact, it seems to do just the opposite.
By lozen
May 29, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this
HIV/AIDS is a disease caused by a virus. Just like any other disease. It is not a punishment for having sex, but of course the totalitarians in our puritan culture think it is. And you have a cancer because you did something god didn’t like. And you have viral pneumonia because god doesn’t like what you did! And New Orleans was flooded because ppl there have gay parades. Well, why not Atlanta? We have one too. There’s a disease killing off many bee hives in this country. I wonder what those bees did to p*ss off the big quy in the sky?
By Lily Toad
May 29, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this
Well, lozen, as the songs says “Birds do it, bees do it…”
By Mara
May 29, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this
Archie - Do you think that those who hold themselves up as models of decency/morality should expect to be criticized more harshly when their foibles are revealed than those who never claimed to be “holier” than anyone else?
By Archie
May 29, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this
As a left-leaning person that goes to church every Sunday I will say that I have never heard any preacher say that America has been favored by God except the preachers that are mentioned here. I am going to come right out and say that it’s the superiority complex that makes preachers like Falwell,Robertson say that God favors America. Americans seem to ignore studies that say our healthcare is the most expensive and not quite the best for what we pay. Superiority complex again, but back to the topic everyone is open to criticism at the appropiate time and place.
By Archie
May 29, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this
Archie - Do you think that those who hold themselves up as models of decency/morality should expect to be criticized more harshly when their foibles are revealed than those who never claimed to be “holier” than anyone else?
Yes,Mara I do. I can’t expound because it’s time to go but if you’re preacher it’s part of the job to be a model of decency/morality otherwise why take on that position. That’s tough but fair..
By DebbieDoRight
May 29, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this
Hey 2D, in order to persue your line of thought here (I’m not an athiest), can you give us more info on why you think God has favored us as a nation?
God favors Israel too; and they’re bombed more than Iraq on a monthly basis.
By Monica
May 29, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this
Hi everyone! With regard to perhaps the lamest topic that has been posted on this blog (is lamest even a word?):
Free speech is free speech. Learning when to say what is a valuable lesson in life (just ask Natalie Maines), so I wouldn’t go on national television condemning someone on the day that he or she died, but everyone has that right.
Lily Toad stated that her southern mother said not to speak ill of the dead. That’s just good manners, IMO. Of course, if you use the phrase “Bless his heart” in front of the critical statements, then you’re not speaking ill of the deceased; you’re just stating factual information that all should know. :)
By Vasileios
May 29, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this
Exciting website. Thank you. penis enlargement pill
By JokesOn
May 29, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this
2D,
Your info is incorrect.
DEIST believe that god created the world and then stepped out of the picture.
There are just a lot of saying that are more of an expression.
By 2D
May 29, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this
Yo Debbie… They may go through daily terrorist bombings, but they still exist don’t they? Other nations, under such situations, very well may have faded into oblivion. Remember, that country is surrounded by one billion Arabs/Muslims that despise their very existence.
After the reestablishment of Israel, it has gone to war several times against the combined armies of mulitple Arab nations and crushed them:
(1948) War of Independence: Israel, barely a functioning country, defeated the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In addition, local Arab Palestinian forces also fought the Jewish Israelis.
(1967) the Six Days War: Israel defeated Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
(1973) Yom Kippur War: Israel defeated Egypt, Syria and Iraq.
The wars listed above are in addition to several other military coonflicts that would not be considered a declared state of war like the 1978 invasion of Lebanon that expelled the PLO in that area and then the conflict with Egypt in 1970 that ended in a cease-fire with unchanged borders.
By 2D
May 29, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this
JokesOn… What info is incorrect? What are you disputing?
That Washington was a deist?
His statement regarding his troops and divine providence?
Something else?
By funnyPicshaasdc
May 29, 2007 7:12 PM | Link to this
[url=http://www.xtopsearch.info/tramadol.htm]1[/url] [url=http://www.xtopsearch.info/tramadol.htm]Funny Pictures here[/url]
By Mara
May 30, 2007 8:19 AM | Link to this
Heads up, folks. God is talking to Tom DeLay now, and I quote…”God has spoken to me. I listen to God, and what I’ve heard is that I’m supposed to devote myself to rebuilding the conservative base of the Republican party, and I think we shouldn’t be underestimated.”
Remember. God wants a Republican majority.
oh, didn’t get around to saying “HI” to GOB and Chilao yesterday. Hi guys! :^)
By GOB
May 30, 2007 8:29 AM | Link to this
2D - Using your logic that Isreal must have some sort of divine protection since it has done so well in the conflicts it has been involved in, it makes you wonder what the Vietnamese did to get God on their side in the 60’s…or what the French and the US did to p** him off.
By lovelyliz
May 30, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this
Why should the death of a public figure such as Jerry Falwell be treated in a more solemn way than was Paul Wellstone?
By Chilao
May 30, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this
Remember. God wants a Republican majority.
well, that sort of defeats the concept of America’s greatness being a direct result of God being on our side, since the GOP was not actually formed until around the Civil War, and did not have continous political power during all that time since then. (and how do you explain that evil commie FDR beating those Nazis and Japs?—tongue in cheek.. mean no offense to our Nipponese friends.)
hmmmm.. back to the drawing board I suppose on that concept. LOL
And I choose not to go anywhere near why Israel has been successful beating its enemies, but I doubt God has anyting to do with that either. I DO have to wonder how well they would have done without American muscle.
Hi Mara.
By 2D
May 30, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this
GOB… The North Vietnamese army never defeated the United States in military operations. Small skirmishes yes, but not in major military offensives. Even the famed Tet offensive was a terrible defeat on the battlefield for the communist forces.
The failure in Vietnam was due to a home population that was unable stand solidly behind the mission. Too many people didn’t understand the reasons for our expedition and therefore could not justify the casualties our forces were taking. The civilians and politicians didn’t have the backbone to let the military do what was necessary to secure total victory. This has happened far too often post VE day and we are paying the price for it.
The Cold War with the Soviets occurred because we would not stop communist expansion into Eastern Europe post WWII.
The Korean conflict has never officially ended. MacArthur was prevented from taking the fight where it needed to go and fired when he dared to think otherwise. Now we have Kim Jung Il and there is still has a militarized border between North and South Korea.
Nixon wanted to take the fight to the North Vietnamese, on to their soil, but wasn’t given the lattitude necessary to do so. He also got in trouble for following enemy forces into Cambodia.
The First Gulf War ended far too prematurely. I believe that Saddam should have been overthrown then. If so, I believe we would have a far more stable, pro-Western government in place. We also had a much broader and committed coalition to provide resources and political clout at that time to do the hard work needed to rebuild that country. Instead, we left Saddam in power to torture and kill thousands more people and the goodwill we earned from the Shia in 1991 was lost.
The only time we got it right was in Japan and now they are a great ally.
Sherman was correct in his assessment of war. I apologize, but this is paraphrasing. He came to the conculsion that the quickest way to defeat the enemy is to destroy the will of the civilian population and its ability to support the war effort. He was exactly right. His march through Georgia broke the will of the people and ultimately destroyed the last remaining mechanism for supporting the war. When he emerged in Savannah, the war was essentially over. Our enemies do the same thing. They cannot stop our industry, but they can break the will of our people. It happened in Korea, Vietnam and currently in Iraq.
By Chilao
May 30, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this
Because it certainly seems God was not paying attention during the Jews’ 1000-plus years in Europe, since it seems to have ended quite badly for them up there.
By Mara
May 30, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this
why? Because Jerry was a man of GOD and Paul was a socialist. Because Jerry was a patriotic Republican and Paul was a godless librul. REPUBLICANS disputed Senator Wellstone’s policies…anyone who badmouths Reverend Falwell does it because they hate America.
okay, I was just joking about that one…but just think about it
By 2D
May 30, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
Chilao… What American muscle did the Israelis use? Some equipment perhaps, but we didn’t send troops to assist them. They defeated their enemies based on the blood, sweat and tears of their own people.
By lovelyliz
May 30, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this
and I forgot, since Paul Wellstone was Jewish……………..
By Cletus
May 30, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this
hi im mohan i am having problems.
[url=http://cheville.okstate.edu/Blog/_blog/000006d4.htm] penis enlargement pill [/url]
By Chilao
May 30, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this
The Americans supplied the Israelis with weaponry, tanks, aircraft, but most importantly, intelligience. The Israeli military-industrial complex did not come into its own, aside from a nuclear capability, (almost used in the 1973 war), until after the 1973 Yom Kippur war.
Though the Americans provided the Israeli military with weaponry, they also provided Israel with something far more important – intelligence. Documents relating to the American spy-plane, the ‘SR-71 Blackbird’, show that the Israelis knew where major concentrations of Arab forces were as they were supplied with this information as a result of a SR-71 flying over the war zone. With such knowledge, the Israelis knew where to deploy their forces for maximum effect
By Chilao
May 30, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this
But if the American government did not so fully support Israel, militarily, why on earth would the Arab nations have done an oil boycott against us in Fall of 1973. Known as the first oil embargo. Lines at gas pumps, etc. hmmmmm.
By 2D
May 30, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this
Mara… I remember when Paul Wellstone died in that plane crash. While I rarely agreed with his political views, I know I personally had deep respect for the man as a human being.
IMO, the difference between he and Jerry Falwell is not liberal versus conservative or Jewish versus Christian. It is the exposure of the individual. Virtually everyone in the USA has at least heard of Jerry Falwell. Very few people would be able to say anything about Paul Wellstone. In fact, I had to look him up to remember he was from Minnesota (I wasn’t sure if it was Mn, Wi, ND, SD).
Because of that exposure, everyone had/has an opinion of Falwell and isn’t afraid to say it. Very few people have an opinion on Wellstone, b/c very few people know much about him.
I don’t care if people criticise Falwell, Wellstone, or any other individual when they pass. My spouse and I always argue over celebrities and the stalkerazzi. I think that even public figures deserve to be left alone. My spouse feels that public figures belong to the public and are therefore fair game. I would simply like to see some civility and respect to the personal space so the family and friends who loved those people can mourne and grieve in peace.
By regulator
May 30, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this
I just hope Falwell was buried in his summer clothes.
By lovelyliz
May 30, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this
The Republicans in power and their cronies had plenty to say about Wellstone after his death.
By kimberly
May 30, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this
LovelyLiz, lovin’ the Wellstone shout outs! Cut down in his prime for trying to make this country a better place. (All too familiar, isn’t it?)
I also have to wonder if Shaunti will show the same indignation at the disrespect Jane Fonda will surely receive when she passes away. All that Christian forgiveness just doesn’t seem to apply to her, no matter how many times she says she’s truly sorry for something she did at a tender young age, the repercussions of which she clearly did not understand until later. Hate comes in so many shades and hues, doesn’t it?
By GOB
May 30, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this
2D - That sounds like an awful lot of excuses for a group that has God on their side. Or maybe he was out of town for those events…
And you do realize that the argument that “God is on our side” is the same one that every fanatical religous group makes, right?
By Lily Toad
May 30, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this
If God is on the US’s side, then why did God want Bush to be President?
By Chilao
May 30, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this
If God is on the US’s side, then why did God want Bush to be President?
so when he passes(no longer President) us Americans can feel truly truly Blessed? (since he will no longer be President).
just a thought…..LOL
By Giorgos
May 30, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this
Great site with alot of good information!! Keep up the good work!!!!
[url=http://cheville.okstate.edu/Blog/_blog/000006d4.htm] penis pills [/url]
By Prescription drug: Xenical
May 30, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
Xenical Uses, How Taken, Warnings/Precautions, Missed Dose, Possible Side Effects, Storage, Overdose, More Information, where to buy online, http://drgshm.blogspot.com
By 2D
May 30, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
Chilao… While very useful, some weaponry and intelligence is a far cry from “American muscle”. The hard work of defeating their Arab enemies came from the Israeli people.
By Anonymous
May 30, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this
2D: That’s one interpretation of Vietnam. Another is that the American people DID understand the mission, and disagreed with it. We were “unable to stand behind it” because we realized it was WRONG.
By 2D
May 30, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this
Chilao… As for your reference to the oil embargo, it very well may have to do with our political influence with Israel versus any military assistance.
By Chilao
May 30, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this
While very useful, some weaponry and intelligence is a far cry from “American muscle”. The hard work of defeating their Arab enemies came from the Israeli people.
Because God is on their side. Yes, we got it the first time around.
By 2D
May 30, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
GOB… Lots of excuses? Hardly. I merely reiterated multiple examples on the same theme/scenario. Our military has never been defeated by a battlefield enemy. Our military only loses when the resolve of the people and politicians falter.
Also…
My original statement said I believed God had a part in our country’s formation and relative stability. I never said “God was on our side” or the like. You may infer that, but it was never said. To suggest that is nothing more than twisting words.
By JokesOn
May 30, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
2D,
The info I was referring to when posting DEIST believe that god created the world and then stepped out of the picture. was that deist believe that through human reason divinity can happen.
God does not step in and alter the course of things - men/women do.
By Mara
May 30, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this
de·ism - n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
doesn’t sound much like “…that through human reason divinity can happen”
2D - I was joking, though the arguments I cited are part of the Republican attack repertoire
By JokesOn
May 30, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this
doesn’t sound much like “…that through human reason divinity can happen”
The key part of what you pasted is in bold: de·ism - n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
If you read up on deism you will find that “Deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.”
This notion of revealing applies also to morals and can easily be applied to why someone suddenly decided NOT to shoot a key person in the civil war. It can also explain how humans can be directed (what 2D would state as intervention by god) by their own thoughts, yet not be totally secular.
In short, what 2D refers to is not a “gift” from god but a decision attained by reason.
By Hans Christian Brando
May 30, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this
Wait 20 years or so until Clinton dies. We’ll probably see exactly the opposite arguments from both sides.
By JokesOn
May 30, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this
My original statement said I believed God had a part in our country’s formation and relative stability. I never said “God was on our side” or the like.
Still using deism as the basis:
It can then be said that all countries/people are influenced based on the amount of reason people apply.
Yet that makes your statement moot, no? Because it only means that Washington et al. applied reasoning - not that god stepped in and manipulated anything.
By JokesOn
May 30, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this
Mara,
Divinity was a bad choice of words. “Divine inspiration” would be more accurate.
By 2D
May 30, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this
From Wikipedia:
“Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, Deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.”
While there are similarities, it appears the descriptions of Deists believe do vary. The one constant being the tight relationship with human reason.
By JokesOn
May 30, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this
While there are similarities, it appears the descriptions of Deists believe do vary. The one constant being the tight relationship with human reason.
You (purposely?) left out that god is not an ACTIVE force who who pushes his will upon people/events.
By 2D
May 30, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this
JokesOn… Uh, no. Do you even nkow the story of how the Continental Army escaped from Long Island?
After being routed at Brooklyn Heights, the army retreated to a point on Long Island across the harbor from Manhatten. Under the cover of darkness and an unseasonable (correct word???) and unexpected dense fog, the army was able to slip away without additional casualties to fight another day.
It may have been reason to retreat versus to fight and to escape at night rather than by day, the fog that overcame the east river was nothing anyone could have predicted. Some would say that’s luck. I believe it was divine intervention. Either way it was unreasonable for Washington to expect a fog to cover his troops’ retreat.
By JokesOn
May 30, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this
Divine inspiration through reason
cut/paste got missed
By 2D
May 30, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this
JokesOn… I did not purposely leave anything out. There is nothing to hide. There is nothing I can hide. The definition I copied is from Wikipedia. Anyone can read it. The definition states that belief is founded on human reason it does not reject God’s interaction with the world.
By Lily Toad
May 30, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this
Merriam Webster on-line: deism
A movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe
By JokesOn
May 30, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this
It may have been reason to retreat versus to fight and to escape at night rather than by day, the fog that overcame the east river was nothing anyone could have predicted. Some would say that’s luck. I believe it was divine intervention. Either way it was unreasonable for Washington to expect a fog to cover his troops’ retreat.
I understand where you are coming from in that example and it is interesting. There is also one regarding a solder, during the civil war, that had a clean shot at someone which would have been sever for the north but he did not take it.
By JokesOn
May 30, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this
The definition states that belief is founded on human reason it does not reject God’s interaction with the world.
Is the statement “Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles)” not a rejection?
By GOB
May 30, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this
It may have been reason to retreat versus to fight and to escape at night rather than by day, the fog that overcame the east river was nothing anyone could have predicted. Some would say that’s luck. I believe it was divine intervention.
I think God has always hated the British, and decided that he would use a combination of air temperature and humidity to screw them over. I mean, what other possible explanation could there be???
By JokesOn
May 30, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this
2D,
After some investigation I believe the problem in our discussion is the statement “Even Washington, an avowed Deist.”
He was, at best, a quasi-deist/christian.
So to use either deist or christian definitions would be incorrect.
In the end all one can say is that he believed what he believed. Using his position on issues as proof of anything would be an error; it was just - a belief. More-over, to state that because he was a deist (incorrect) to make a point would be misleading.
By Bruce
May 30, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this
Anyone else see where Cindy Sheehan finally sat down and shut up!
By JokesOn
May 30, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this
Anyone else see where Cindy Sheehan finally sat down and shut up!
Mighty christian of you.
Now would you please follow her lead?
By kimberly
May 30, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this
Yeah, where were YOU when she needed someone to tell her how to feel, react, and live the rest of her life following the death of her only son? Guess you can’t be everywhere at once, huh?
By Monica
May 30, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this
WOW! I have learned more history today by reading the blog than I did in high school. :)
By mf_inverted
May 30, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this
Pockmark,
Summer is here. Watch the sweat, and bathe regularly, for those boils could result in another case of Anna-nicole-ism.
By lozen
May 30, 2007 5:05 PM | Link to this
I admire Cindy Sheehan for standing up and acting on her convictions. She lost a son in a military action that was based on lies. She tried to do something about it. She has now given up. That’s pretty sad.
By funnyPicshaasdc
May 30, 2007 11:28 PM | Link to this
[url=http://www.xtopsearch.info/tramadol.htm]1[/url] [url=http://www.xtopsearch.info/tramadol.htm]Funny Pictures here[/url]
By 2D
May 31, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this
JokesOn…
Fair enough. The Washington example was not meant to be the end all be all proof of anything. It was merely a single illustration of a respected individual who showed some level of trust in a power greater than his own reason.
Calling Washington an “avowed” anything is not a fair statement. To go one step further, it is probably not fair to make that statement about anyone. Chuck’s idea of Christianity is different than mine which is different than others on this board. The same can be said for other religions (Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.) or ideological beliefs (communism, capitalism, socialism, etc.).
I think your last comment rings the truest when applied on a broader scale, people believe what they believe.
By 2D
May 31, 2007 8:58 AM | Link to this
JokesOn… As I continue to ponder, I again find myself thinking that we are not all that different in our thinking.
While I do believe that God has influence over the world, I also believe that God requires us to actively participate and make decisions. Those decisions, however, may lead to disastrous consquences.
There was a thread a couple of days back about AIDS and various other diseases. I believe that our bodies are the greatest gift God can give to us. It is our portal to the great and wonderful world. I do not believe that God sends his wrath down upon people for engaging in certains acts, but I also do not believe in your previous post on the subject that correlations do not exist.
For example, take smoking. There are certainly people who smoke and live long, healthy, productive lives. However, those people are few and far between. When a person choses to smoke they incur the risk of all of the potential health issues. Smoking kills more people than anything else.
Another example is obesity. Yes, there are people with genetic issues, but that number compared to the over eating, under exercising number is miniscule. Obesity related deaths are on the rise.
I believe all STDs simply consitute another example. Statistics show that by not engaging in a very narrow group of activities (certain sexual activites, IV drug use), one can essentially eliminate the contraction of these diseases. I do not believe that is a wrath sent to the Earth by God, but simply a choice that we as humans need to make.
By Dave
May 31, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this
What a nice site this is http://www.penis-enlargement-page.com http://www.penis-enlargement-4you.com
By Archie
May 31, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this
Where has journalism gone? I mean there is a story in the New York Post about A-Rod and his visits to strip clubs. I mean the story even has quotes from strippers about what the man does in such clubs. There are pictures of him hanging out with a woman not his wife and accompanying speculation as to his relationship to said woman and it’s all in a newspaper where his wife can read this and yet the press is evaluating if this man is a good husband. What about privacy???? I find it an incredible violation of privacy and I tie that story to this topic by saying the way journalism is going your legacy in death and any criticism you receive will depend on who is doing the writing and how much class they have. It doesn’t appear that having class and avoiding character assassination is important in journalism anymore.
By JokesOn
May 31, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
I can agree with what you say in general.
I believe one has to be VERY careful when making correlations though. The existence of a correlation does not constitute an actual relationship in all cases.
I appreciate our discussions and the restraint, shown on both sides, applied to not letting it degrade into slander.
By JokesOn
May 31, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this
2D,
What concerns me is the statement: “Statistics show that by not engaging in a very narrow group of activities (certain sexual activites, IV drug use), one can essentially eliminate the contraction of these diseases.”
Where does one stop?
That rationale can be applied to driving too fast, then not driving at all, and finally resulting in staying home like a hermit.
One must take chances in this world. We would agree that one must also take responsibility for TAKING chances.
By lozen
May 31, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
GOB, you are hilarious! “I think God has always hated the British, and decided that he would use a combination of air temperature and humidity to screw them over. I mean, what other possible explanation could there be???”
By kimberly
May 31, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
Hello Archie, I discussed this very thing with an old Journalism professor not long ago. Shaking his head, he said it’s all entertainment these days. The number of actual journalists, dedicated to the principles of the profession and the role of “the fourth estate” in our democratic process, has dwindled to near extinction. In all fairness, the job opportunities for jm grads are mostly limited to entering a corporate media entity, the mission of which is to make money for shareholders via ratings-based advertising revenue, and to promote public policy that favors corporate tax breaks. One way they accomplish this is to bypass the boring ol’ news & information, and instead give us the glitter and sensationalism of celebrity gossip — something modern, dumbed-down Americans seem to prefer to uncomfortable truths. Throw in a healthy doses of fearmongering per each half hour, minus clear factual supporting data, and what you have is: Mission Accomplished!
By 2D
May 31, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this
JokesOn… Perhaps it’s just semantics, but, I don’t take issue with correlations. Those are quantitative and measureable. I have a problem with the conclusions drawn from stated correlations.
Take the previous AIDS example. The statistics are clear and trustworthy and unbiased. A clear correlation between behavior and cases can be drawn. However, the reasoning behind these statistics and the conclusions drawn are what can be hurtful and dangerous.
If I make the conclusion that not engaging in the behaviors listed will not immune me from but virtually assure I do not contract the AIDS virus, I am making a true statement. It is not inflammatory nor insensitive. It is simply fact.
Mr. Falwell’s conclusions surrounding this issue were inflammatory, insensitive but most importantly, they were incorrect.
By Billy
May 31, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this
2D — We all know that you can, through your behavior, greatly reduce and even eliminate altogether your risk of contracting STDs. That does not lend any support to Falwell’s claims that AIDS was God’s wrath toward gays and a society that accepts homosexuality.
And your “narrow” range of behaviors, including “certain” sexual acts, is not as narrow as you would like to believe. ANY sex act carries SOME risk of catching an STD. Sure, unprotected anal sex is the riskiest of them all, but if HIV-positive man A has anal sex with clean man B and clean woman C, B is no more likely to become HIV positive than is woman C.
Anyway, when you consider that 25-30% of the population has herpes, 25-30% has HPV, god-know-how-many have had one (or more) of the various curable STDs, and almost evryone on the face of the planet has at SOME point had unprotected sex with SOMEONE, very few people have any room to criticize.
Yes, smoking often leads to cancer, but that does not mean cancer is God’s punishment for smoking.
Overeating leads to obesity and health problems, but these are not God’s way of spanking you.
Certain behaviors, some of which are more prevalent in the gay community, lead to increased chance of contracting HIV, but AIDS is not God’s wrath toward homosexuals and the society that tolerates their existence. The fact that you made any effort at all to defend such a statement really leads me to question…well…your motives, I suppose. Falwell was a superstitious fool, but he wasn’t satisfied to live peaceably in his own delusions; he wouldn’t rest until the entire country, both the populace AND the government, were unified in what his ideals dictated they should be: a theocracy, First Amendment be damned.
THAT is why I can tolerate the man only slighlty more in death than in life, and THAT is why I feel no qualms when, upon hearing people talk about what a great man the pompous jackass was, someone else, myself included, comes out and call them on that BS.
By Archie
May 31, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this
Hello Kimberly, I was taught to give within the 25 words of a story the the who,what,when,and where, not an opinion of the facts. Now, Vick has been tried and convicted in the press and not a charge has been filed. The topic needs to be should the solemnity of life and expectation of privacy temporarily suspend the right to criticize a person for being a human being? I don’t if Vick is guilty or if A-Rod is cheating on his wife but I know A-Rod can’t lie about being at those places with that woman and that is a shame because it’s none of my business if he has a chick on the side or how much he spends at a strip club. People ought to have the right to sin or be holy without someone editorializing about it in a public newspaper. Nobody defended Britney Spear’s right to privacy when a camera was zoomed in under her dress and that amazed me that women’s groups weren’t marching and threatening just based on principle but we’re really concerned about criticizing a dead preacher. Someone actually has to tell the public when it’s proper to criticize a man in death. Where has common respect gone in journalism?
By 2D
May 31, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this
Billy… See my post from 10:41. We must have been typing at the same time.
If you have any issue with the statistical information or the behavior classifications please visit the CDC site. I apologize if I misrepresented anything in my posts and would ask that let us know.
By lozen
May 31, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this
Archie, sorry but I just can’t follow you train of thought sometimes. The Britney thing: I never even heard of that because I do not follow celebrity news. If I had heard of it, I wouldn’t have thought about protest. We all have limited time and resources and there are so many other things so much more important than Britney Spears. Why would you even expect women’s groups to pay any attention to that? “People ought to have the right to sin or be holy without someone editorializing about it in a public newspaper.” We do, unless we’re famous for something.
By Mara
May 31, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this
lozen & Archie - “People ought to have the right to sin or be holy without someone editorializing about it in a public newspaper.” We do, unless we’re famous for something
like pontificating about other peoples’ sin and their own holiness? LOL!
As for Brittney, A-Rod or Vick…as the saying goes, “that’s why they make the big bucks”. They get paid darn good money to put up with the pop of the flashbulbs, the stalkerazzi, and the National Enquirer.
What I find objectionable it that this personality worship has been repackaged as “news”.
By lozen
May 31, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this
What I find objectionable it that this personality worship has been repackaged as “news”. Amen, Mara.
By Archie
May 31, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this
Thanks Mara and Lozen, Lozen I apologize for rambling but as a feminist don’t you have a problem when a camera is focused up a woman’s dress and she didn’t ask for that camera to be focused there? As a man I think that’s wrong to do that unless the woman consents to such action. I would have thought the principle not Britney Spears warranted more outrage than occurred. I am not, I am not a Spears fan but when I saw the picture I thought it had nothing to do with celebrity and I feel the same way about A-Rod and Vick. Is it ok for a man or woman to use a cellphone to take a picture under a woman’s dress without her consent then put it all over the internet?
What I find objectionable it that this personality worship has been repackaged as “news”.
I agree with you Mara but it will continue to happen unless the public tells media what’s inappropiate regardless as to how much money a person makes. Also Lozen I read several other newspapers and that’s how I found out about Spears.
By Lyrazel
May 31, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this
One of the biggest myths is that celebrities want privacy. Nope, they don’t. ALL celebrities have paid publicists who keep the celebs name IN THE PUBLIC either with exploits or with factoids to keep the buzz going…and going…and going even in the miserable hours because once a name is out of the loop its harder to get back in the lights—and so dog kicked celebs can garner sympathy from fans…So consider all the broads going to rehab now—and realize they PAID someone to put out the buzz they are in rehab… now they dont pay for police mugshots getting spread across the news… As for the crotch shots I guess that if people make the effort to peek at such then there will always be a market for sleeze. Its up to readers NOT to look and not to buy. I never saw Pam Anderson’s or Paris’ sex tape, nor Janet’s nipple or John Lennon at the mortuary or any of that because it does not interest me.
All news comes from JUST 2 sources AP or Reuters plus any articles local town-gossip-news they might get from local coverage. When People Magazine has a higher circulation than the NYT then the NYT starts printing gossip…$$$$ talks
By Mara
May 31, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this
Archie - we have two different issues here. First, the issue with Brittney sans panties. What was the big deal? That she prefers to go commando? So? The pictures themselves, I thought, were tasteless and crude. But how was it any different from catching a snap of her sunbathing topless on the beach (as more than one starlet has been)? Unlike you, I think that it had everything to do with her fame. Remember the situation she was in at the time, with her personal and legal problems? Even the tabloids were getting a bit bored with it. So what’s a girl to do to get ‘em talking about her again? It’s just a theory, but she’s been at the game long enough to know that, for a celebrity, there is no personal privacy when you are out in public. What I really didn’t get was the collective “GASP!” of “shock”…
The second issue is “peeping cellphones”. Now THAT is something that I find outrageous. For one, it’s against the law in many parts of the country. Second, the women are not looking for publicity or notoriety. These are private citizens going about their private affairs. It’s no different than if these perv’s peeked under the bathroom stall and took a picture, or snapped a pic in the gym’s shower area. An invasion and a personal assault, IMO.
I guess the difference is that Brittney et al do, in a sense, make a choice to be smack in the middle of the spotlight. If they embarrass themselves, well…they knew the world was watching.
By JokesOn
May 31, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this
For one, it’s against the law in many parts of the country.
FYI - Not if in public.
There was a case not long ago of a guy that had numerous upskirt cell-phone photos of young girls.
Since they were in public and not considered porn (had panties on), all charges were dropped.
Not that I agree with the laws stance, but just a fyi.
By free ringtones
June 1, 2007 2:14 AM | Link to this
free ringtones
By free ringtones
June 1, 2007 2:14 AM | Link to this
free ringtones
By Mara
June 1, 2007 8:18 AM | Link to this
FYI right back atcha… ;^)
There is no federal law, but there are 28 states with statutes on “video voyeurism”. And no, Georgia isn’t one of them…
http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=37716
By JokesOn
June 1, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the info.
I was wondering if things had changed since I was going on 1.5yo info.
By Archie
June 1, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this
Hello, Mara I don’t have a problem with Spears without panties. I just think when you’re sitting down in a car you should not have a camera lens focused up your crotch and I don’t care who the female is. We may just disagree on this. * It’s no different than if these perv’s peeked under the bathroom stall and took a picture, or snapped a pic in the gym’s shower area. An invasion and a personal assault, IMO.*
I felt the pictures were an invasion and a personal assault of Spears,IMO. Keep in mind I am guy that has visited strip clubs so I am no prude but everything has its place. Also people sunbath at the park near my workplace and they are topless but they lay on their stomach. If they were lying on their backs then I would not have a problem with someone taking a cellphone picture because they are in a public park. I have women in my life and I think all of them celebrity or non-celebrity deserve respect. Mara I appreciate the link as it was relevant and informative.
Lyrazel I understand that I should not have looked at the picture of Spears perhaps because like Mara, my attitude was so what Spears went commando, but I wondered how did they know and why were they talking so much about her and when I saw the pictures, I immediately thought it wasn’t right and it was a peeping tom situation. Y’all just have to work with me because you(women) get upset about things I don’t get but you let things go on that I think you should be outraged about.
By Lyrazel
June 1, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this
You are a good man, Archie. All the nonsense about celebrity violation of privacy is ludicrous because they have agents perpetuating a buzz…or do it themselves. Dont think for a moment Spears did not know cameras would be around when she dressed that evening to party…I always think such exposure is deliberate…now if that was an average Jane in a bathroom it would be an invasion of privacy but…come on, one can’t go pantiless in a micro mini skirt because after an hour everyone in the club will know and isn’t that WHY the lady dresses like that? To be looked at. Personal responsibility is the key. Dont fret the strip clubs, Archie. I understand many have 5-star chefs and in truth all the ladies are there because they WANT to be. Its a job and its lucrative. My grandmother used to go with ladies to the Playboy Club in Lake Geneva, WI and she said all the ladies were VERY NICE…of course she never saw shows like there are now and that was way back in early 1970s…
By Archie
June 1, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this
You are a good man, Archie. Thank you,Lyrazel.
I always think such exposure is deliberate…now if that was an average Jane in a bathroom it would be an invasion of privacy but…come on, one can’t go pantiless in a micro mini skirt because after an hour everyone in the club will know and isn’t that WHY the lady dresses like that? To be looked at. I guess you(women) know your kind way better than I do but I have seen ladies in a club sitting on a bar stool pantiless just like Spears and I did think she was personally responsible for any look she got. I appreciate you and Mara,JBM giving me an education on how some women think because even though I sometimes disagree with the thought process I have a better understanding of how some women think about things. I don’t fret the strip clubs but I am around people who would make more out of it than is necessary and that’s just life but I have plenty of fun anyway. Many people got mad at author John Grey but the last two days of blogging have made his point that men and women are just different sometimes.
By Britney
June 1, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this
Hello, nice site look this: Tramadol Buy [url=http://www.opencps.org/Members/Cheapest/buy-tramadol-online.html]Tramadol Buy[/url]
End ^) See you, ..amdestrank..
By NetBanker
June 1, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! Hope everyone had a great long weekend last week. It certainly has made my week shorter on this side of it.
Some witty comments this week!
Monica…LOL @ the invocation of the “Bless his/her heart” rule. So how happy are you that school is out?
Kimberly…some wonderful observations.
Lozen…had me laughing about the dying bees.
Using your logic that Isreal must have some sort of divine protection since it has done so well in the conflicts it has been involved in, it makes you wonder what the Vietnamese did to get God on their side in the 60’s…or what the French and the US did to p* him off.* This would seem to indicate that God is on the side of Afghanistan too since they defeated the Soviets and the Taliban is making a strong come back against us. Hmmmm…maybe God only favors people when they stay inside their own territory instead of muck about in other people’s business.
I believed God had a part in our country’s formation and relative stability. Depending on how one interprets this statement there is a fair amount of truth in it. Religious persecution motivated many people to come to this country during it’s infancy. The horrors those who fled Europe endured resulted in a level of religious tolerance would definitely have fostered relative stability. Personal opinion though is that the stability measure is more likely a result of having a government that was relatively small, made up, primarily, of well educated individuals who were focused minimizing government interference in personal matters. As the government has grown the reach of the government into personal lives has grown incredibly with a corresponding rise of instability.
By kimberly
June 1, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this
Hey Archie! I agree that men & women are different, but I tried to read one of John Grey’s books and thought it was a bunch of baloney. Men and women are different, sure, but if you generalize about either sex, you’ll be wrong at least 35% of the time, IMO. I agree with you as well on with the Britney thing, not that it matters to me what she wears or how revealing she chooses to be, but that people just HAVE to shove their cameras in there and exploit her, to make money off people who enjoy that type of exploitation, and prefer it to actually informing themselves on things that do matter. There is just nothing at all redeeming that I can see about tabloid sensationalism, and it’s far more demeaning, IMO, than strip clubs which are voluntary venues, and do make for a darn fine birthday party!! {;->
By NetBanker
June 1, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this
Is JohnF 72John? Sound quite a bit alike.
By Mara
June 1, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this
Archie - I think we had the “if you wear a short skirt…” conversation before. And I still stand by the opinion that you shouldn’t have to put up with bulls—t because of what someone else thinks your clothing says about you. About Brit, you’d think nobody had ever seen a pair of fur panties before. What are these people, like 10 years olds? LOL!
And if I helped you understand the female mind a little bit better…well…thanks. That’s quite a compliment.
By Archie
June 1, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this
Hello Kimberly! thanks. This is just for joke purposes but me and my wife would argue all the time about directions she wanted to follow landmarks and I wanted her to read a map and she just wouldn’t or couldn’t do it. Well, when we got internet service I would go to expedia.com and print the directions and the funny thing is — the trip was usually to Atlanta. You know I live in South Carolina. A lady gave me directions to her house a few weeks ago and she used landmarks to describe the entire directions and I could not say anything because I really wanted to see the Mayweather/Golden Boy fight. I found the house and had fun but I thought about John Grey because as a man I want a street address and I will look everything up on the computer and print it out. Thanks for agreeing with me on that Britney thing,Kimberly, I feel better. You are right about that 35% thing,too. Thanks to the women for working with me..
By lozen
June 1, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this
Hi Netbanker. Weekend! Weekend! There used to be a radio station here that played the song “Weekend” every Friday - anybody remember that? Kimberly, I felt the same way about Grey’s books - much too simplistic. Plus, he looks like such a little boy to me, it makes it hard to take anything he says very seriously. I’m reading a book, Why We Love which breaks all differences between women and men and our emotions down to the chemistry involved. The author notes the similarities between human and other animal courtship and attachment. Very interesting reading and it helps me accept the differences more easily. I’ve always thought if one really wants to see the differences between men and women just look at the “general” differences between lesbians and gay men. What do lesbians do on the second date? There is no second date; they’ve already hired the U-Haul and moved in together. What do gay men do on the second date? Darn. I can’t remember ..somebody help me!
By Mara
June 1, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this
evidently one of the other papers I read on-line reprints the W2W columns a week after we see ‘em. Thought that this Letter to the Editor about last week “ultrasound” issue was pretty interesting -
Harvard-educated Shaunti Feldhahn is wrong, wrong, wrong! [“Ultrasounds and abortion,” syndicated column, May 22.]
I speak from more than a decade of direct experience working at Aurora Medical Services, an abortion clinic in North Seattle that provided ultrasounds and abortions to thousands of women. All were privately counseled prior to their abortion on the risks of the surgery, and all were asked the same question: “Some women find it helpful to see the tissue afterwards, would you like to do this?” The choices were: Yes, No and Maybe.
While some were surprised by this question, others understood exactly why viewing one’s fetus was necessary to fulfill an individual’s grieving and goodbye process. We answered pointed questions, and even showed photographs of abortions equivalent to the age of their pregnancy.
And you know what? Nearly 25 percent asked to see their ultrasounds or fetal tissue afterward. And directly contrary to Feldhahn’s false assertion, hardly anyone changed their minds after seeing these ultrasounds or photographs.
We didn’t minimize the patients’ concerns or fears. We didn’t shame them or judge them. We celebrated their ability to be thoughtful toward this truly life-and-death decision.
When medical care is delivered with an anti-abortion agenda, it’s just not medicine. It’s the Feldhahns of the world deciding that women don’t know any better, and can’t be trusted to know their own minds.
Nancy Miller Herbert, Seattle
By Chilao
June 1, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this
So a verb is being formed in English, as in you’ve been Feldhahn-ed?
Somehow a conservative saying you’ve been Glass-ed just does not have the same ring to it.
a JokeDay contribution right there. LOL
By Archie
June 1, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this
you’d think nobody had ever seen a pair of fur panties before what are these people, like 10 years olds? LOL!
Mara you’re right.The comments that I read with the picture sounded unusual coming from a man. I am glad I was able to change to topic from the original topic and everybody kept it light but still informative. I still stand by my opinion of that old conversation but I would love to hear from Renee and JBM about the last two days of blogging. That article you printed is partially why I said yes to the topic question last week.
By lozen
June 1, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this
Yes Chilao, we’ve been Feldhahned many times, no? Mara, thanks for posting that. Great weekend to you all.
By nsrolexlogo
June 1, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this
New google surprise! www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url] www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url] www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url] www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url] www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url] www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
Click adsense and win new car speakers !
By NetBanker
June 1, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this
Just HAD to share this interesting little ditty:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18984762/
SANTIAGO, Chile - Scientists have discovered a potentially marketable contraceptive in the venom of Chile’s black widow spider, whose bite is fatal to many but can also cause prolonged, painful and involuntary erections in men.
The venom of the Latrodectus mactans, a variety of black widow found only in the south of Chile, has spermicidal properties not found in black widows in other regions of the world, Chilean Dr. Fernando Romero said.
By nsrolextuor
June 1, 2007 6:55 PM | Link to this
New google surprise! www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url] www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url] www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url] www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url] www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url] www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
Click adsense and win new car speakers !
By internet casino
June 3, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
Good site! internet casino, [url=http://www.quizilla.com/users/Internet-casino/journal/]Internet casino[/url].
By soma
June 3, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this
Thank you for good site! Pharmacy online soma, [url=http://www.quizilla.com/users/SOMA-online-Carisoprodol/journal/]soma[/url].
By Britney
June 3, 2007 6:12 PM | Link to this
Please help me! click this: Buy Tramadol online 180 tabs [url=http://www.opencps.org/Members/Cheapest/Tramadol-180-Tablets]Buy Tramadol online 180 tabs[/url]
End ^) Nice! Thanks!
By Frenk
June 4, 2007 7:13 AM | Link to this
viagra side effects , [url=viagrasideeffects.vdforum.ru/]viagra side effects[/url]
By dpfm evjzml
June 5, 2007 2:01 AM | Link to this
xmlhspfc bmwhr aeiplum cskg cwsz ekolx ytfus