Woman to Woman

By Gale

January 16, 2009 9:36 AM | Link to this

I think of this like many other topics or images that some group wants to censor or legislate. If you don’t want to see it, don’t look. Is anyone really concerned? Will some youngster be forever damaged by seeing the function of breasts? My experience of seeing my cousin breast feed was YUK! The breasts are swollen and not very pretty when applied to the intended function.

Breastfeeding is an intimate time between mother and child and one I am sure most mothers treasure. There are likely many women who view the pictures and remember their own experience lovingly. Don’t censor the photos. They are not obscene just because the breast is visable. But I will pass on checking out the photo, thanks.

By American Woman

January 16, 2009 9:42 AM | Link to this

Oh, fer cryin’ out loud! We’re bombarded with sexy pictures (and sounds that invoke such images in the mind) in EVERY single medium. The young, firm, sexy, naked or nearly-naked female body is not only flung at us from every direction, but it is held as the standard by which we are encouraged to measure our own self worth — as women, how do WE look, and as men, can you hit that? CALL THE PLASTIC SURGEON, QUICK! (Yes, he can even give you a much-needed nip-tuck down there, ladies…)

And still, the indecency of daring to nurse one’s baby where the eyeball of another might happen across a glimpse of mammory still causes people to gasp in indignant shock and begin their moral duty of pronouncing unsolicited judgement.

SO WHAT if people take and post pictures of naked breasts only barely covered by some small object, be it the hungry mouth of a baby, a couple of fingers, or a flimsy slip of material? What’s the difference? That’s one activity that’s never going away, no matter how you feel about it. Personally, I don’t poke around facebook looking for or at such images, so it’s not a problem for me. But if I catch you harassing a mother who’s feeding her baby, you’ll wish you’d kept your mouth shut. Count on it.

By Sick & Tired

January 16, 2009 10:29 AM | Link to this

Shaunti’s view is the reason I never breastfed my babies. I can’t believe I denied my children and me something so beautiful based on the prying eyes and invalid opinions of others.I worried whether the blanket might slip or someone would be offened. How much skin was too much? I would have been so embarrased if I had been asked to leave a public place for feeding my child. What a dope I was! Of course, when I was younger I thought nothing of going out in public in a miniskirt and a skinny v-neck tank top with the sole intention of attracting men!

Our societies’ purtainical, double standard views must change. Until we can see breasts as the God given feeding machines they are instead of the man-toys America has made them to be women will always be objects in this country!

By Mara

January 16, 2009 10:40 AM | Link to this

uh, don’t you have to actually GO to an individual page, or accept a ‘friend’ invitation to be exposed to said pictures? If it grosses you out, don’t go to the FB page of the new mother (or father, parent, etc). Sheesh.

It’s not like it’s showing up on billboards accross the country, or being broadcast LIVE at the Superbowl Half-time show. It’s a CHOICE to join FB in the first place, and another CHOICE to go to a specific page where you CAN look at some woman allowing a kid to feed on her bodily fluids. (gag)

I concur with Gale. Just because I don’t want to see it doesn’t mean it should be censored.

By RealityKing

January 16, 2009 10:59 AM | Link to this

I have no problem with breastfeeding Mothers…, but pictures!?

By Sunshine

January 16, 2009 11:08 AM | Link to this

OK, I will admit, I have only read the headline, but OMG! REALLY, THIS IS THE TOPIC?!?!?! You have GOT be kidding!

::stepping down off soap box and blood presure is returning to normal::

I may just have to ban myself this week, come on, this is stupid.

By Frustrated

January 16, 2009 11:09 AM | Link to this

I am not trying to disagree…I have a child and I was able to breastfeed (which is special,IMO)….and in addition, I am a HUGE fan of Anne Geddes’ work (such as her book ‘Pure’)…….

BUT…why would mothers intentionally post the pictures? I can understand it is a precious bond, etc etc… But that bond is between you and your baby…. what is the purpose of posting a picture of you nursing your child? Is it to show off your child? Show the world that you have bloated jugs? To show other mothers you can feed your baby with what God gave you??? Or are they considering the picture a work of “art” (Anne Geddes style)

I have nothing against breastfeeding in public and what not, but I just don’t see why that would be the photo you choose to show the world via facebook… I would much rather see the little angel in a close up with a goofy smirk while he is sleeping.

By Mara

January 16, 2009 11:15 AM | Link to this

interesting. Evidently the bold works fine but the italics are still on the fritz…

what’s everyone think of ol’ Dubya’s farewell speech? I almost threw a shoe at the television when he said, “around the world, America is promoting human liberty, human rights, and human dignity.”

I guess he forgot all about extraordinary rendition, CIA kidnappings, secret detention facilities where torture is de rigueur, the use of Nazi-developed Verschärfte Vernehmung, the renunciation of those “quaint” Geneva Convention rules against prisoner abuse, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, John Yoo’s torture memo and his Congressional testimony indicating that the use of sexual abuse on a female relative or the crushing of a child’s testicles to pressure a third party would be completely legitimate if the President wanted to do it.

I’m sure the he believes that “promoting human liberty and human rights” includes compiling dossiers on ‘enemies’ like Code Pink, the Quakers, Democrats, PETA, assorted peace groups and other domestic political activists. I suppose he also believes that trashing the 4th Amendment and habeus corpus protections ‘promote human dignity’. I have to assume that the same holds true with his program to data mine the telecom activity of all American citizens…just in case. And to coerce American citizens into spying on each other, as allowed by the so-called “Patriot Act”.

I’m sure that HE honestly, and completely believes that what he has done has led to a better, freer world. And that is what is most appalling about the whole thing.

By American Woman

January 16, 2009 11:32 AM | Link to this

Mara, I couldn’t watch the whole thing. I did notice the trait described by impersonator Frank Caliendo that he did indeed smile and look very pleased with himself every time he got through a sentence without screwing it up. One has to appreciate the childlike joy of taking such pride in each little accomplishment. The content of his speech was pure fantasy, however, and I too had to turn away. If he’d been President of my neighborhood association (those ba$tard$!), his drinking, stammering, dishonesty, corruption, incompetence, absence of morals, and complete lack of compunction might have been tolerable and perhaps even amusing. But I still love and believe in what this country allegedly stands for, so I can’t say that I was amused.

By Sunshine

January 16, 2009 11:37 AM | Link to this

a sliver of skin about as erotic as a pair of maternity pants.——LOL!!! I must show hubby! I am much too intimately familiar with this right now!

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2009 11:43 AM | Link to this

Speaking of MySpace.. this is the MySpace page for the thug that was shot in East Atlanta. (Take out the spaces)

http: // tinyurl. com/98xfcs

The AJC, in their incompetent, pro-criminal way claimed that he didn’t have a criminal record. After five minutes of checking the state crime records, my neighbor turned this up:

Jamarcus spent Feb 1997 through September 2006 at Central State Prison on an armed robbery conviction out of DeKalb County in 1996. (He was 17 or 18 at the time he was arrested for this crime).

He was also arrested in January 2007 (4 months out of prison) in DeKalb and charged with cocaine possession with intent to distribute, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The judge in DeKalb who sentenced him (who is now retired) gave him time served and two year s probation.

Way to go AJC. Promote those criminals, while you set on your lazy a^s, too incompetent to write a true story. Maybe you could throw an honor banquet for the judge that let the convicted felon go for carrying a concealed weapon and dealing cocaine.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2009 11:47 AM | Link to this

I’m sure the he believes that “promoting human liberty and human rights” includes compiling dossiers on ‘enemies’ like Code Pink

Why would he investigate the KKK and not code pink? Are you just mad that he was not as biased as the media?

By Gale

January 16, 2009 11:47 AM | Link to this

While I am open to comments on the week’s topic, I second the opinion that we return to real concerns. Yes, this is a “women’s” issue. But who really wants to discuss this for a week?

By Gale

January 16, 2009 11:51 AM | Link to this

TOJ, I guess he got to three strikes and out.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2009 12:03 PM | Link to this

Gale

LOL

Someone on i-nieghbors said that he obviously lost his job, considering that he had listed it as “staying alive”. In reality, it is tragic. He had a kid who I fear will also become a ward of the state.

This area is getting very, very bad. 62 home break-in’s within a 30 block area in October. The area around the graveyard has always been safe. We had someone go through our cars in the parking lot one night and we were raising hell. Now that seems like nothing.

By Mara

January 16, 2009 12:17 PM | Link to this

TOJ - “Why would he investigate the KKK and not code pink”

maybe because no member of Code Pink has ever murdered anyone, condoned the murder of anyone, advocated the murder of anyone, participated in any criminal conspiracy of intimidation, nor attempted to circumvent anyone elses civil rights. IOW, They have no history of violent criminal activity nor have they EVER advocated violence. THAT’S why.

on a lighter note…Madam Tussaud’s Wax Museaum has constructed a statue of the departing President (complete with bulging suitcases) and set it up on the sidewalk outside their museum. They’re also waiving the $18 enterance fee for all Americans. And the Crispy Creme stores in England are giving away free Cafe Americanos to anyone who comes in and says Obama’s catchphrase “Yes we can.”

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2009 12:54 PM | Link to this

Mara

You are talking about Code Pink, the people that were standing and screaming at Sarah Palin during her acceptance speech at the RNC? The pinko radicals that had to be forcefully removed from the building by security? No intimidation? No criminal history even though at most of their demonstrations, they are all arrested for either violence and/or intimidation? That code pink?

Bush is a classy guy, but you will never realize it. It’s not what you are taught. USinUk summed it up when she said that his voice made her crazy. The hate is so indoctrinated and so intense that some liberals can’t get past their embedded hate for anything that doesn’t agree with what they have been taught.

Do you think that anyone who is so filled with hate could ever have an open mind about what someone says that they hate so deeply? Indoctrination is a horrible thing.

As far as Obama making all those changes to the way we deal with terrorists, I’ll say it again:

I’m just glad we now have a president that wants to arrest the terrorists, try them and put them in jail. They will be questioned like the gentlemen they are. And I’m sure if Obama’s family is in dire jeopardy, and a person is being questioned that has information that can save his family, he will still stick to his guns and allow the sacrifice of his wife and children for the principals of treating our enemies with respect. After all that’s what he is asking us to do and being the humble public servant, i’m sure that he would be glad to see his wife and children die for those principles.

Can you imagine? A group of men hold Obama’s family. One guy knows where they are. That man is held by the CIA. I can just see Obama bursting through the doors and screaming, DON’T DARE TOUCH THAT MAN! IF HE DOESN”T WANT TO TELL US WHERE MY FAMILY IS, THEN IT IS HIS RIGHT!!!! LET THEM DIE!!!

He would insist that man be skinned alive if it meant the safety of his own family and you know it.

By Jack

January 16, 2009 12:57 PM | Link to this

Funny how it’s ok to watch men, women & children murdered, beaten and raped but god forbid we see a women’s breast.

What a topic. Now I’m going to have to get some special stew and a side of baby wraps to cheer up.

By Bruno

January 16, 2009 1:03 PM | Link to this

“But who really wants to discuss this for a week”?

I do! I do! I never get tired of discussing t**! ; > }

Mara—You might want to check out another blog on AJC today in which people talk about the coldest they’ve ever been. For me, it was Christmas Day, 1980, while pumping gas in Buena, New Jersey. The temperature was around -20, with the wind chill dipping below -60. Because we were the only gas station open, I had to stand by the pump for 8 straight hours with no break. I made about $18 in tips that day, which I appreciated. In retrospect, I think the customers were being cheap, however, considering the circumstances.

By Bruno

January 16, 2009 1:21 PM | Link to this

Following up from last week regarding gay “marriage”: Many of you here speak of marriage as a “right”, but it isn’t a “right” at all. It is a voluntary contract entered into by two people which then confers to them certain legal benefits. In this way, it is more accurately described as a “privilege”, much like driving is a “privilege” and not a “right”. Similarly to driving laws, each state has a list of requirements that must be met before a license is issued. Among the list of requirements/restrictions on individuals who seek the benefits of marriage are age restrictions, health restrictions (at least until recently), and restrictions on the relationship between the two individuals seeking a marriage license. Brothers and sisters cannot marry, nor can first cousins in every state that I know of. In addition, states limit the number of people who can enter into a marriage (i.e. 2), and restrict marriage to those of opposite sexes.

By Mara

January 16, 2009 1:23 PM | Link to this

Bruno - the coldest I’ve ever experienced was in the -40’s without the windchill. This was back in the ’80s also. It was so cold that branches on trees were popping from the expansion of frozen sap. I remember my father having to go set a spaceheater up under his truck to thaw out the steering column so he could drive us to school. (unlike Georgia our schools didn’t close just because it was a tad chilly). Brrrrr.

Hi Jack! Ah yes. There’s nothing like a nice hearty stew to warm you up on a cold day. :^)

By Lyrazel

January 16, 2009 1:32 PM | Link to this

Jack, you took my words away. Was thinking on how many TV shows are murder-based or deviant expressive and have come to the conclusion that we must show equal said hours of women breast feeding just so society can get over it like we have for murder, rape, victimization reenactments. I must also mention that most of the people in control now of what is broadcast are more likely to have been bottle-fed.

By Jack

January 16, 2009 1:35 PM | Link to this

My coldest day was when I was in elementary school. It was -60 degrees below, the wind was blowing 35 mph. I had to walk to school that day, up hill both ways, in the dark with a sore foot.

By Sunshine

January 16, 2009 1:42 PM | Link to this

Frustrated—“what is the purpose of posting a picture of you nursing your child? Is it to show off your child? Show the world that you have bloated jugs? To show other mothers you can feed your baby with what God gave you???”—I have seen a lot of “first” pictures, right after the birth where the Mommy is BFing. It isn’t to show off, or whatever. Now I don’t think the new Mom’s are always looking their best but it is a moment to be captured because its when you are sometimes first holding your baby, but as Mara pointed out on FB you have to be ALLOWED to view someone’s picture because they gave you PERMISSION by adding you as a friend.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2009 1:43 PM | Link to this

Mara

The Sioux Indian name for the month of December is called Moon of Popping Trees referring to exactly what you are talking about. That is also the name of a great book on Wounded Knee. (The incident at Wounded Knee happened in a very cold December. The worst thing the soldiers did was to allow the bodies to freeze overnight. When they went back out to bury them in a mass grave, they broke bones in order to bury them because the bodies were frozen solid. To the Sioux, this means that their souls would have broken bones)

Coldest for me was -62 in Mandan, North Dakota in 1976. That was not the wind chill. It was the temperature. I was told that this was a record for the lower 48 that was actually broken a few years ago.

You can have it all. Cold weather sux.

By Gale

January 16, 2009 1:45 PM | Link to this

I didn’t have to go out in the cold where I grew up. But I remember my dad having to go out after ice storms to repair electrical service. I don’t even like to think how cold he was handling tools on a utility pole where everything is icey and the wind is blowing.

By Bruno

January 16, 2009 1:51 PM | Link to this

Personally, I have no problem with the benefits of marriage (or a civil union) being extended to gay people. However, at the same time, I understand and respect the opinion of those who feel that the benefits of marriage should only be available to those of opposite sexes.

In response to some of the objections raised by JokesOn and USinUK:

“If you mean the dogma of “equal under the law” and not having governmental policies influenced by any religious agenda, yes I follow the dogma of the spirit/letter of the constitution”.

To begin with, I never mentioned religion as a reason to restrict marriage to those of opposite sexes. Certainly many people use religious edicts as their basis for such a restriction, but ultimately it is essentially for biological reasons, not for religious reasons. Furthermore, the US Constitution never mentions marriage, even once, so I’m not sure that the “spirit/letter of the constitution” applies here. Finally, as I pointed out to JokesOn, if we are all to be “equal” under the law, then single people should be able to enjoy all the benefits that married people enjoy as well, including tax benefits, etc.

“You speak as though lefties want everyone to state that they agree with the behavior, and that is untrue. We could care less if everyone agrees on the morality of behaviors, as long as the behavior does not infringe on the rights of others. You keep misrepresenting this fact, even though we correct you each time. Marriage is a legal item where government is involved, not a religious one”.

I never said that “lefties want everyone to state that they agree with the behavior”, or even implied it. As for the behavior not infringing on the rights of others”, please refer to my above statement that marriage is a benefit, not a “right”. While many of you might feel that it is unfair that certain people enjoy benefits that others don’t, it is not an infringement of rights to deny those benefits to gay people any more than it is an infringement of rights to deny the benefits of marriage to brothers and sisters.

“We can marry cousins and siblings We cannot (unless second or third cousins in certain states) because of birth defects which would be cruel and inhuman. That is medical fact, not conjecture; where-as your position against homosexual unions/marriages are based on religious laws that have no cause/effect rational that can be measured or proven”.

There is no reason to presume that cousins who wish to marry desire having chidren—Like gay people, they may simply want the benefits of marriage. In fact, providing a stable home for children is one of tha main reasons cited for providing the benefits of marriage in the first place. As such, gay couples, who biologically can’t procreate, shouldn’t be eligible for those benefits in the first place in most people’s opinion.

“There can be two views, but when filtered through the realm of government/law, they are not necessarily both valid. Religious belief is not a valid premise when it comes to the law”.

Restricting marriage ot those of different sexes for biological reason makes sense to the vast majority of Americans, and not necessarily for religious reasons. The fact that California, likely the most liberal state in the union, passed Prop 8 is proof of that. IMO, this should command some respect.

“I stated that i, and many on here, could care less about converting people to the same mindset. They are entitled to their belief, but cannot impose it on others”.

Again, most people believe that biological restrictions are reasonable along with age restrictions, etc.

“What I do care about is when you try to limit the rights of others. You don’t believe in gay marriage? fine. don’t marry another man - but to impose that belief on other people, limiting their civil liberties - well, you’re right in one thing - I won’t put up with it”.

USinUK’s argument might make sense if getting married was a “right”. The fact is that it isn’t a right, nor is it a civil liberty. It is a voluntary contract available to only selected individuals which confers benefits. Framing the argument as one of “civil liberties” is pure rubbish, plain and simple.

By Gale

January 16, 2009 2:01 PM | Link to this

Bruno, if marriage is a voluntary contract, what possible compelling interest does the state have in restricting it to persons of opposite sex?

By Bruno

January 16, 2009 2:02 PM | Link to this

Finally, on to the insults:

“That simply makes no sense and you know it”.

“Some days you make some sense, and then there are days like this where you cannot even volley while staying on topic”.

“You seem here just to pick a fight”.

“All in all, none of these stawmen establish a counter point to the topic”.

“take off the hair shirt, my friend, it doesn’t suit you”.

“many others have done to try to illuminate the facts and destroy the myths you and Bruno like to believe in”

“So here we have examples of Projection, Denial, Megalomania, Paranoia, Inferiority Complex (which actually gives rise to the Megalomania since that is a defense)…what else besides general nastiness”?

So, rather than addressing the points made, JokesOn, Sunshine, and USinUK fell back on nasty, condescending, personal attacks all designed to discredit the argument by discrediting the speaker (ad hominem attacks).

Certainly, gay marriage is an issue which raises passions on both sides of the aisle. And although I have chosen my side (similarly to abortion), I see no reason to disrespect views that are different from mine, even when such views lead to laws which I disagree with.

I challenged the left-leaners on board to show some respect for other’s opinions which are based on different premises, and all I ended up with are insults from JokesOn, Sunshine, and USinUK—as predicted.

By Bruno

January 16, 2009 2:07 PM | Link to this

Certainly, TOJ has dished out his share of insults along the way, which I disagree with, but I understand his frustration. He makes many good points, which are never acknowledged. Though I like USinUK and appreciate her kindnesses along the way, her debating style allows no room for more than one opinion.

Special compliments to Mara and Gale, who (usually) are able to present their cases without spitting on those who disagree.

Gotta run, hope everyone is having a nice day.

By Frustrated

January 16, 2009 2:07 PM | Link to this

on FB you have to be ALLOWED to view someone’s picture because they gave you PERMISSION by adding you as a friend

Not if it is their profile picture. Everyone can see the profile picture whether you are friends or not….but to me, that isn’t the point…I just don’t see why anyone would pick a BF picture to post over other “first” pictures…maybe a close up of the baby screaming, that always make you say “awww”..hehe..

People would puke if they saw one of my baby’s “first” photos…..at the bottom of the picture you can see all the junk that came out with her….sitting in a wash pan… ICK! But I decided to pick the one of her in her cute little hat when she was all cleaned up and busy looking around to show everyone…out of respect for those with weak stomachs.

And you are right….the newborn pictures with me in them are going to my grave…. sheesh;)

By Bruno

January 16, 2009 2:10 PM | Link to this

“Bruno, if marriage is a voluntary contract, what possible compelling interest does the state have in restricting it to persons of opposite sex”?

Gale—I have to run, but here’s a good website to give some insight into your great, respectful question. Thank you again for your all-around good cheer and respect for those you disagree with.

www. usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html#govt

By American Woman

January 16, 2009 2:19 PM | Link to this

Quoted part: “USinUK’s argument might make sense if getting married was a “right”. The fact is that it isn’t a right, nor is it a civil liberty. It is a voluntary contract available to only selected individuals which confers benefits.”

My part: Good point. It’s not a right. It’s a privilege that comes with falling in love with someone who loves you back (or a willingness to make the necessary compromises), being willing to commit, finding a preacher who is willing to perform the religious rite, if that’s what a couple needs, and in the respect that is pertinent here: being able to secure a license from the state granting you and your partner a pre-defined, transferrable, legal set of RIGHTS as a couple.

Therefore, saying two men or two women cannot or should not marry is actually NOT a violation of their rights. The state conferring (for a fee) said civil licenses to hetero couples while refusing to do it for same-sex couples is a violation of the RIGHT of citizens to be treated equally by their government, IMO.

As such, I have no problem whatsoever with abolishing the states’ role in selling marriage licenses to anyone! Let straight couples marry in churches or whereever they like, then lawyer up for the kinds of contracts, and the associated expenses and headaches, that gay couples do now.

Quoted part: “Framing the argument as one of “civil liberties” is pure rubbish, plain and simple.” My part: I think somebody just wanted to say “RUBBISH!” to somebody today.

By Sunshine

January 16, 2009 3:04 PM | Link to this

Bruno, hate to do it, but least you forget:

“All liberals=hypocrites in my book”

You can complain all you want about the insults but you name call with the best of them.

By Jack

January 16, 2009 3:08 PM | Link to this

“at the bottom of the picture you can see all the junk that came out with her….sitting in a wash pan…”

Wow Mara. That may be a good condiment to go with our wraps!

By Bruno

January 16, 2009 3:17 PM | Link to this

“The state conferring (for a fee) said civil licenses to hetero couples while refusing to do it for same-sex couples is a violation of the RIGHT of citizens to be treated equally by their government, IMO”.

AW—your argument would make more sense if the sexes of the “couple” were the only restrictions in place. Homosexual couples are no more “discriminated” against than brothers/sisters, first cousins, or even single people who can’t find a willing partner. ?Comprende?

“You can complain all you want about the insults but you name call with the best of them”.

I do occasionally throw out an insult, Sunshine, but not as a substitute for addressing the argument at hand. The bottom line is that the “left-leaners” regularly insult conservatives/Republicans with impunity on this board, with plenty of “high-fives” all around. From my POV, this lack of respect indicates that, in the end, you’re really not open to hearing/considering/discussing alternate points of view.

By Sunshine

January 16, 2009 3:24 PM | Link to this

Frustrated—Don’t take this personally, I am just using your quote to ask a larger question:

“People would puke if they saw one of my baby’s “first” photos…..at the bottom of the picture you can see all the junk that came out with her….sitting in a wash pan… ICK!”

This is what I don’t understand, a woman, who recently had a baby made this comment. In my mind it seems to perpetuate the myth that there is something wrong or “gross” about our bodies, our births, our babies, ect. Just like the breast feeding thing. I have been at a live birth, I know there is a lot of afterbirth and other things but it isn’t “Ick-y” or “gross” unless you are unable to understand the reason for it being there. Even Hubby in our birthing class was shocked at how immature the other Dad’s where about the video’s they showed. He was like “um, you did know where babies come from before today right?”

It seems the longer we allow this childish notion that are bodies are “dirty, gross, disgusting” ect. the longer it takes us to evolve as a culture. I am not saying we have to post it on billboards but we should be able to SPEAK about it, or see it, without all the freak outs!

By Sunshine

January 16, 2009 3:30 PM | Link to this

And Bruno, I feel EXACTLY the same: “From my POV, this lack of respect indicates that, in the end, you’re really not open to hearing/considering/discussing alternate points of view.” I have not seen you show one ounce of “hearing/considering/discussing” other’s POV. So it seems it is a stalemate?

So it is a left-leaning blog, so what? If that is so terrible, then maybe you should post more often or oscillate between this one and a right-leaning blog.

My dad gave me a great piece of advice the other day to help with some of the stress I have been having about others around me: SW-SW-SW-N!

SW-SW-SW-N= Some will, Some won’t, So What, NEXT!

By American Woman

January 16, 2009 3:55 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bruno, a good lawyer might be able to argue and overturn the incest restrictions to marriage laws, were he or she so inclined. I’m not entirely sure they aren’t discrimination either, or that there’s merit to the fears about mutant offspring. Age limits are not discrimantory, since there is the presumption that most everyone will survive long enough to reach legal age. We do not have differing requirements for boys and girls who apply for driver’s licenses, nor for gay or straights seeking real estate licenses. (Um…. Are people who can’t find a willing partner applying for marriage licenses? If you cannot afford one, will the state appoint one for you?) I’m not sure whom the tax laws favor, but I’m sure there are differences in how married and unmarried people are taxed, hence, not treated equally by the government. Hmmm….

I’m sorry, but I’m totally not seeing where you’re trying to go with the “who’s the bigger, meaner, ayyhole on the playground” ramble.

Sunshine: I agree. Reproducing is messy and gross, but it’s all beautiful! People need to grow up already. I like your Dad’s advice!!

By Gale

January 16, 2009 4:22 PM | Link to this

AW, “(Um…. Are people who can’t find a willing partner applying for marriage licenses? If you cannot afford one, will the state appoint one for you?)”

That is the best line I’ve read today.

By USinUK

January 16, 2009 5:09 PM | Link to this

Brunoooooooooooooo -

you know? I was going to get into it, but I won’t.

you think we’re being mean? then, fine. we’re being mean. we’re all awful, horrible left-leaning lefties who only see things from a leftist perspective. now, you don’t have to take ANYthing we say seriously and can disregard any facts (complete with citations) that we present to you. Book of TOJ, chapter 1, verse 1.

or you could (yes, I’ll say it again) take off TOJ’s hair shirt (really, you’re a great guy and we like you here - martyrdom and whinging really doesn’t become you)

okay, so - extrapolating from what you were saying earlier, if something is regulated by the state, it isn’t a “right.” I’ll walk with you on this one - driving, drinking, fishing, hunting - they would definitely all fall under that category. however, are you saying the state would then be within their rights to deny gays the right to drive, but not heterosexuals? what about drinking - straight kids could go out and legally buy beer at 21, but gays have to wait until they’re 35?

what you’re talking about is the state telling a certain type of person that he can’t have the same legal status as another person because of his sexual orientation. that’s like the state telling a person who has red hair that “nope. gingers aren’t allowed to fish.” or telling someone under 5’5” that the vertically challenged can’t get a liquor license and own a bar.

the reason the Supreme Court upheld GA’s sodomy law back in the 1990s (gawd … remember Michael Bowers??? eeesh) was because the law applied to BOTH hetero- and homosexuals. Had the law only applied to homosexuals, the Supremes would have decided against it.

so, why should anything less than equality apply to marriage?

By Bruno

January 16, 2009 5:14 PM | Link to this

“Mr. Bruno, a good lawyer might be able to argue and overturn the incest restrictions to marriage laws, were he or she so inclined. I’m not entirely sure they aren’t discrimination either, or that there’s merit to the fears about mutant offspring”.

Don’t forget, Ms AW, that the word discrimination in and of itself is not a negative term. It simply means making distinctions. In terms of suitability for marriage, most people feel that discrimination in the case of brother/sister or male/male or female/female is a sensible discrimination. I completely understand that you personally don’t agree with those “distinctions”, but that’s how the majority of people believe. That doesn’t make it right, of course. I’m not asking you or anyone here to agree with such “discrimination”, but simply try to understand why other people might feel that such distinctions make sense and have respect for their position. It doesn’t mean that you should work any less hard to overturn laws you feel are unfair, just have respect for those who don’t agree with you. Which is (supposedly) a hallmark of liberal thought.

“Age limits are not discrimantory, since there is the presumption that most everyone will survive long enough to reach legal age. We do not have differing requirements for boys and girls who apply for driver’s licenses, nor for gay or straights seeking real estate licenses”.

Considering that the age requirements vary from state to state for both driving and getting married, a case could be made that such arbitrary “distinctions” are in fact discriminatory.

(“Um…. Are people who can’t find a willing partner applying for marriage licenses? If you cannot afford one, will the state appoint one for you?”)

Quite a clever thought, but I’d rather take my chances on picking my own partner. ; > } Having said that, single people are still nevertheless discrimnated against by not being eligible for the benefits afforded to married folks.

“I’m not sure whom the tax laws favor, but I’m sure there are differences in how married and unmarried people are taxed, hence, not treated equally by the government. Hmmm”….

The tax laws favor married people, in most cases. Occasionally it is beneficial to NOT file jointly, but most of the time, married people are given a tax break by filing as a marital unit.

“I’m sorry, but I’m totally not seeing where you’re trying to go with the “who’s the bigger, meaner, ayyhole on the playground” ramble”.

My point is the same one that chuck complained about: The left-leaners here claim to be more tolerant than the conservatives, yet regularly make hateful statements to those who have a different, but valid point of view. If you guys don’t want any conservative posters here, just say so.

By Bruno

January 16, 2009 5:32 PM | Link to this

“you think we’re being mean? then, fine. we’re being mean. we’re all awful, horrible left-leaning lefties who only see things from a leftist perspective. now, you don’t have to take ANYthing we say seriously and can disregard any facts (complete with citations) that we present to you. Book of TOJ, chapter 1, verse 1”.

USinUK—my concern isn’t that anyone is being “mean”, but that all of your ad hominem attacks and refusal to give any respect to viewpoints other than your own has all but shut down any intelligent discussion here. In regards to the gay marriage “issue”, I support civil unions for gay people. At the same time, I have respect for those who feel differently. Based on your reframing of the issue as one of “civil liberties”, you are effectively shutting down anyone who thinks that same-sex marriages should not be permitted on biological grounds, in the same way that they beleive that brother/sister unions are invalid.

“or you could (yes, I’ll say it again) take off TOJ’s hair shirt (really, you’re a great guy and we like you here - martyrdom and whinging really doesn’t become you”)

If you like, USinUK, I could launch into an insulting psychological analysis of you in return. But, what would it accomplish other than turning you against me, closing off any further meaningful discussion?? TOJ has said some nasty, unwarranted things here, but I fully understand where he is coming from. For all of your good points, you have the annoying quality of always believing you are right and never acknowledging when conservatives make a good point. I’ll try to take some time in the following days to address some of your one-sided beliefs.

“okay, so - extrapolating from what you were saying earlier, if something is regulated by the state, it isn’t a “right.” I’ll walk with you on this one - driving, drinking, fishing, hunting - they would definitely all fall under that category. however, are you saying the state would then be within their rights to deny gays the right to drive, but not heterosexuals? what about drinking - straight kids could go out and legally buy beer at 21, but gays have to wait until they’re 35”

Sorry, but that’s an invalid comparison, because driving, fishing, hunting, etc. are activities undertaken by individuals. Marriage is dependent on two people. And as stated above, the state already has restrictions on exactly what type of couples can qualify for a marriage license. By your line of reasoning, brothers/sisters are being discrimnated against, as are people of certain ages and health status. Where is your outcry for the brothers/sisters of the world who want the benefits of marriage??

“the reason the Supreme Court upheld GA’s sodomy law back in the 1990s (gawd … remember Michael Bowers??? eeesh) was because the law applied to BOTH hetero- and homosexuals. Had the law only applied to homosexuals, the Supremes would have decided against it. so, why should anything less than equality apply to marriage”

Good point, but once again it is not a completely valid comparison.

By Bruno

January 16, 2009 7:00 PM | Link to this

“And Bruno, I feel EXACTLY the same: “From my POV, this lack of respect indicates that, in the end, you’re really not open to hearing/considering/discussing alternate points of view.” I have not seen you show one ounce of “hearing/considering/discussing” other’s POV. So it seems it is a stalemate”?

You’re certainly entitled to your own opinion, Sunshine, but I feel that I’ve made a great effort this past year on the blog to be polite to everyone (excluding Billy), to acknowledge when others make a good point, and to not make obviously inflammatory statements about politicians with whom I don’t agree. If you look through the posts week after week, the “left-leaners” regularly make inflammatory comments about Bush based on nothing but pure hatred. I understand that all of you (like me) are disappointed with Bush’s leadership. At the same time, I don’t see the value in making hateful comments at every opportunity.

By USinUK

January 18, 2009 9:01 AM | Link to this

Brunoooooooooooo -

my concern isn’t that anyone is being “mean”, but that all of your ad hominem attacks and refusal to give any respect to viewpoints other than your own has all but shut down any intelligent discussion here.

wow, and saying all liberals are hypocrites is keeping the discussion civil??

I’m sorry, Bruno, but I went back and re-read all of Jokes’s comments to you before your “I’ve done my best to provide alternative points of view, but usually get insulted in return” post last week. debating with you - and saying that an argument comparing gay marriage to bestiality is a BS argument - isn’t an insult. Even saying that you seem to be here to pick a fight isn’t an attack, but an observation of your actions.

Just like my looking you in the metaphorical eye and saying “dude. martyrdom doesn’t suit you” isn’t an attack on you. it’s being honest with you. you are SO above this.

2 last points on this issue: 1) I have stated my loathing of the soon-to-be-former President Bush (48 hours and counting) - I don’t hide it - and can give you a dozen reasons for it, not the least of which is that, unlike everyone else on this board, I live in a foreign country and see first-hand what W has done to the country’s reputation. so what? I’ve heard a helluva lot worse said about Carter and Clinton.

2) I argue with you based on the facts - which I try to always cite (the exception being below, where we’re both talking hypotheticals). I have no problem with your opinions (you may want to think W is a great guy or that all liberals actually are hypocrites - that’s your biz). However, you’re not entitled to your own facts - and, when you say things like “the infrastructure work we’re doing in Iraq is going swimmingly”, I do feel the need to show you the FACTS (in that case, I should you the report) which outlined that it is NOT, in fact, going well at all.

showing you that fact is not a personal attack and I’m sorry if you think that it is, because that isn’t the intent.

Based on your reframing of the issue as one of “civil liberties”, you are effectively shutting down anyone who thinks that same-sex marriages should not be permitted on biological grounds, in the same way that they beleive that brother/sister unions are invalid

I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that gay marriage shouldn’t be permitted due to biological issues. What I have seen are people who cite religious issues.

If you are citing a biological reason, I’d be interested to hear it. Because, if it has to do with “cuz they can’t have kids” - well, the Mr. and I aren’t going to have kids, either - does that mean WE shouldn’t be married? or what about seniors - if the woman has gone through The Change, does that mean she shouldn’t be able to marry after her ovaries dry up?? so, I am interested in hearing what you mean by biological reasons.

Sorry, but that’s an invalid comparison, because driving, fishing, hunting, etc. are activities undertaken by individuals. Marriage is dependent on two people.

Well, driving and having an alcohol license may be done BY an individual, but those activities AFFECT hundreds/thousands of others, which, if anything, is more the purpose of the license to begin with. If any random 2 people get married and things don’t work out (for whatever reason), then the damage is fairly limited to immediate family and friends. Why is that a bigger deal than the guy who gets an alcohol permit, who has criminal ties and runs drugs/gambling/guns, etc through his bar - god knows, that would affect a lot more than just a handful of people. And, I think we can all acknowledge the devastation that the wrong person behind the wheel of a car can do.

anyhoo, them’s my thoughts. and, yes, I AM open to hear your opinion -

By USinUK

January 18, 2009 3:25 PM | Link to this

… feeling a bit homesick today … am so wishing I was there for the Inauguration - not just because of the who, but because of the what. this is a momentous occasion - one that (I would like to hope) will begin to heal rifts. I think we’ve all had enough - 8 years of rancor during Clinton, 8 more years of rancor during Bush. I think we’re all tired and, while the bruises are still tender, we’d ALL like to find a way to look forward together.

at any rate, I have been reading one of my all-time fa-fa-FAVorite American poets today, Carl Sandberg. Even though he wrote this about his hometown of Chicago, it really is about America as a whole. anyway … enjoy … this is probably in my top 5 poems of all time:

Chicago

Hog Butcher for the World, / Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, / Player with Railroads and the Nation’s Freight Handler; / Stormy, husky, brawling, / City of the Big Shoulders:

They tell me you are wicked and I believe them, for I / have seen your painted women under the gas lamps / luring the farm boys. / And they tell me you are crooked and I answer: Yes, it / is true I have seen the gunman kill and go free to / kill again. / And they tell me you are brutal and my reply is: On the / faces of women and children I have seen the marks / of wanton hunger. / And having answered so I turn once more to those who / sneer at this my city, and I give them back the sneer / and say to them: / Come and show me another city with lifted head singing / so proud to be alive and coarse and strong and cunning. / Flinging magnetic curses amid the toil of piling job on / job, here is a tall bold slugger set vivid against the / little soft cities;

Fierce as a dog with tongue lapping for action, cunning / as a savage pitted against the wilderness,

Bareheaded, / Shoveling, / Wrecking, / Planning, / Building, / breaking, / rebuilding,

Under the smoke, dust all over his mouth, laughing with / white teeth, / Under the terrible burden of destiny laughing as a young man laughs, / Laughing even as an ignorant fighter laughs who has never lost a battle, / Bragging and laughing that under his wrist is the pulse, / and under his ribs the heart of the people,

Laughing!

Laughing the stormy, husky, brawling laughter of / Youth, half-naked, sweating, proud to be Hog / Butcher, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, Player with / Railroads and Freight Handler to the Nation.

may the god (or nature) of your choice bless us all this week and shine upon us as we enter into a new time.

By Gale

January 19, 2009 8:28 AM | Link to this

USinUK, with the stories of the thousands flooding DC, are you still yearning to be there? It sounds like a nightmare to me unless you happen to be one of the few with front row seats and a close in hotel.

By USinUK

January 19, 2009 8:44 AM | Link to this

Gale -

USinUK, with the stories of the thousands flooding DC, are you still yearning to be there? It sounds like a nightmare to me unless you happen to be one of the few with front row seats and a close in hotel.

I lived in DC for 8.5 fantastic years (5.5 in a house about a block behind the Supreme Court - you could see it from our bathroom window - and the rest of the time outside of Old Town) —- if I hadn’t met the Mr, I’d still be there, I love that city so.

I generally hate crowds but I used to love the 4th of July on the Mall - it’s just a different sort of crowd. And, I went to Clinton’s second inaugural (was lucky enough to know someone who got me 2 tickets to the inaugural and tickets to 2 balls) - while I absolutely froze my patooties off, it was an amazing experience. The marine corp band, the dignitaries, the speeches - it just makes you proud, you know?

(seriously … you want to talk about cold? … I felt like I had every item of clothing on that I owned, but I was still frozen - my friend and I stayed through the swearing-in and Clinton’s speech, then walked home and watched the parade from under a blanket on my sofa, eating tomato soup and grilled cheese)

By Gandalf, the White!

January 19, 2009 8:52 AM | Link to this

Tomorrow will be remembered as one of the lowests days in the history of America, the day democracy ended.

By Gale

January 19, 2009 8:56 AM | Link to this

I would like a good view of the parade. I know the TV clips will be like clips of any other big parade. That has to be the best parade with the military bands and all. I love marches. However, I would prefer a warmer day for it. I hate to think what it must be like to play a trumpet in 40 degree weather.

What makes me most proud is that we can have a peaceful power transition in this country, (court challenges aside.)

By Gale

January 19, 2009 9:08 AM | Link to this

Yikes. I just looked at the weather forecast for DC tomorrow. Temps below 30 at noon. At least there is little precipitation chance. The crowds will need one another to stay warm.

By USinUK

January 19, 2009 9:09 AM | Link to this

Gale -

I’m with ya on a good parade - love the bands and color guard - love to see the mounted whatevers (military or police) - love the Irish and Scottish bagpipes - it’s the only time I can tolerate John Phillips Sousa.

The only thing I hate about watching the festivities on the teevee - all the flippin’ talking heads! It’s even worse here because they’ll have to explain everything - what’s going on, who everyone is, blahblahblah. (that was why I watched the election on CNN - I didn’t want to have to listen to the BBC folks explaining the concept of the electoral college).

24 hours from now!!!! woooooohoooooooooooooooooooo!!!

By Gandalf, the White!

January 19, 2009 9:17 AM | Link to this

Keep pics of feeding teets off facebook, unless you allow topless pics of other girls. Duh! That is a no brainer. Give me strippers topless or no milking moms. Andi doesn’t think too much, does she?

By Yowser

January 19, 2009 9:28 AM | Link to this

Even saying that you seem to be here to pick a fight isn’t an attack, but an observation of your actions.

Go USinUK, GO!

By USinUK

January 19, 2009 9:32 AM | Link to this

Gale -

“Yikes. I just looked at the weather forecast for DC tomorrow. Temps below 30 at noon. At least there is little precipitation chance. The crowds will need one another to stay warm.”

if I remember correctly, I think they had to cancel Reagan’s 2nd inaugural ceremony - the temps were even colder than tomorrow’s forecast (temps around 0 overnight or something godawful)

before I left Atlanta for DC, a friend told me that he had never been as cold or as hot as the years he lived in DC - I can attest that’s true. And, let me tell you, you think Atlanta has humidity? honey, it’s practically arid compared to DC …

By Gale

January 19, 2009 9:34 AM | Link to this

Can’t tolerate John Phillips Sousa. ?? Heathen!!

By USinUK

January 19, 2009 9:40 AM | Link to this

Gale -

“Can’t tolerate John Phillips Sousa. ?? Heathen!!”

I was a band nerd for 3 years … I did my time.

By Gale

January 19, 2009 9:48 AM | Link to this

As I remember my history about DC in the summer being a disease ridden city, maybe the dead of witer was considered the safest time to bring a lot of people together.

By Gale

January 19, 2009 9:56 AM | Link to this

winter, that is… not witer.

By Gale

January 19, 2009 10:00 AM | Link to this

Y’know, I’m beginning to think the W2W irregulars are not the readership/commentorship that Andrea and Shaunti are looking for. They seem to have had cold reception to many of the recent topics.

By The Other Jack

January 19, 2009 10:19 AM | Link to this

Bruno

<>

How are you going to argue with the judge and the jury? She decides how relevant your ideas are and then she decides that you have not been unfairly treated by one of the most low class posters i have ever encountered. She has the final word on every issue and every post and according to her, she has never been wrong.

And they expect civil treatment and for people to actually offer points of views. LOL!!!

And they are soooo insulted when i say that this is a hen house. LOL!!

By Gale

January 19, 2009 10:45 AM | Link to this

TOJ, When USinUK or anyone else posts a link to a site with verifiable facts, I don’t consider it to be subjective opinion. If you do not like those facts because they do not support your position, point us to a site with facts —verifiable facts— that do support your position. Point of view is subjective. If someone chooses to not change their POV in the face of contrary facts, that person may expect others to discount their opinion.

By JokesOn

January 19, 2009 10:47 AM | Link to this

Hey all.

I see that the discussion with bruno got all tied up in the side issues again.

Bruno,

For the record, if I say you are stupid, that is an insult. Saying that I think your premise is stupid or not well thought out is simply an observation of that one statement. Huge difference.

For example, comparing drivers licenses to gay marriage is stupid. First they are apples/oranges. Second, the general premise of a license is that you cannot have absolute freedom, for that means that freedom can veto mine; so a compromise of freedoms must be made. And so we have rise to drivers licenses, age limits, etc. None of the freedom of gay marriage effects others in this way.

Each of your points follows the same general premise as above: metering out freedom (power) because it is finite. Helmet laws, for example, are based on if you give a person the freedom to wreck himself badly by not wearing a helmet, we all pay through insurance costs. Not that I necessarily buy this notion, but it is still based on rights.

You know what I find really weird? Just about 6 months ago you were slamming TOJ and many other conservatives for being narrow minded while commending liberals for being kinder and more accepting. Not an insult, but your attitude and positions are very unreliable - you have a real boom/bust emotional swing that seems self destructive. I hope it is not as sever as the blog makes it out to be. You still seem like a generally good guy.

By USinUK

January 19, 2009 11:01 AM | Link to this

Jokes -

“For example, comparing drivers licenses to gay marriage is stupid. First they are apples/oranges.”

for the record, I was the one who brought drivers licenses (as well as fishing, and alcohol licenses to the table) - Bruno made the point that marriage, itself, isn’t a “right” - which I can see his point, since it is regulated by the State. So, that was the basis of my comparison - that, as a licensed activity that is regulated by the state, you can compare marriage licenses with driving, etc.

By Gale

January 19, 2009 11:18 AM | Link to this

I am compelled to return with a varient of a question I asked last week. What is the compelling reason for the state to regulate/license marriage? I initially meant that in context of gay marriage. However, when considered as a contract between two people so that everyone else can consider contracts entered into with the couple jointly are binding, what is the interest of the state in limiting who can form that particular contract? Even, throwing out the potential of sibling marriages. Is it the responsibility of the state to make sure their children are not genetically defective, assuming they want children? There are certainly other reasons people may wish to marry.

By JokesOn

January 19, 2009 11:20 AM | Link to this

for the record, I was the one who brought drivers licenses (as well as fishing, and alcohol licenses to the table) - Bruno made the point that marriage, itself, isn’t a “right” - which I can see his point, since it is regulated by the State. So, that was the basis of my comparison - that, as a licensed activity that is regulated by the state, you can compare marriage licenses with driving, etc.

Getting hung up on “rights” is related to the point, but not the point itself. Equality is the point, regardless of whether we are talking about privileges or rights. That is the point I was making. I could swear that he brought up licenses in a general list he posted…sry if not; but the point is the same and applies to the examples he did raise.

(just did a search. Bruno:In this way, it is more accurately described as a “privilege”, much like driving is a “privilege” and not a “right”. Similarly to driving laws, each state has a list of requirements that must be met before a license is issued.)

And they are soooo insulted when i say that this is a hen house. LOL!!

Did anyone ever even acknowledge this comment? I do not recall anyone paying any mind, much less being “soooo insulted.”

By USinUK

January 19, 2009 11:27 AM | Link to this

Gale -

interesting answers in a point/counterpoint article from LA Times:

http://articles. latimes.com/ 2008/may/22/ opinion/oew-davidson-lavy22

“We need civil marriage so the legal system has a way of answering such questions as who inherits in the absence of a will, who gets to make medical decisions for someone who is incapacitated, which communications get to be kept confidential, who must file their taxes jointly and who has an obligation of financial support.”

and a variation on the same theme:

“What justifies state regulation of a private, consensual adult relationship? The answer to that question involves the biological reality that when men and women of childbearing age have sexual relations, children are the natural result. A marriage license is not a “license to reproduce,” but it is the primary way of funneling the inevitable reproduction of children into families consisting of their own biological parents – that is, it is the mechanism the state uses to encourage the best possible environment for children.”

“The core issue that marriage regulation seeks to address is sexual reproduction. Sure, the legal system benefits by having default rules for inheritance without a will, as you point out, Jon. But in the absence of children, the remaining interpersonal benefits and obligations could just as easily be regulated by contract. And they often are.”

By JokesOn

January 19, 2009 11:33 AM | Link to this

However, when considered as a contract between two people so that everyone else can consider contracts entered into with the couple jointly are binding, what is the interest of the state in limiting who can form that particular contract? Even, throwing out the potential of sibling marriages. Is it the responsibility of the state to make sure their children are not genetically defective, assuming they want children? There are certainly other reasons people may wish to marry.

I find it similar to seat belt laws. The state/fed bases their laws on whether the activity negatively effects the rest of the population resulting in inequality; people pay more for insurance to cover the accidents. With siblings having offspring, it is fact that the offspring will probably have extreme defects, which effect the child directly, and the population in cost of care. There are not, relatively (no pun intended), a lot of moral beliefs that have such direct cause/effect, and this is one of them. That is why 2nd or 3rd cousin marriages are legal - the threat of inequality resulting from offspring no longer exists.

By American Woman

January 19, 2009 11:36 AM | Link to this

Hi, JokesOn! Um… “hen house” is among the least insulting things here comes here to say. For some, POV = point of vitriol. The more caustic, the better. FRY those chickens if they won’t lay an egg! Haha!

Gurrrrlfriends, don’t forget to wear the waterproof mascara tomorrow! It sure does feel good to shed a few out of joy for a change!

By USinUK

January 19, 2009 11:36 AM | Link to this

Jokes -

“Equality is the point, regardless of whether we are talking about privileges or rights.”

and that was exactly the point I was trying to make - that, even if you wanted to say that marriage isn’t a right because it’s regulated by the state, other licensed activities such as driving / hunting / fishing / alcohol licenses aren’t limited by sexual orientation the same way marriage is.

as for your last comment: don’t feed it.

By Gale

January 19, 2009 11:58 AM | Link to this

USinUK, I think I remember reading that article. In fact, you probably posted the link.

re: sibling marriage. I would hazard a guess that few sibling would actually have sexual relations, whether they were of child-bearing age or not. On the other hand, I can see why older siblings may want the legal protections that a marriage contract would provide. However, sibling marriage is something of a red herring. I only mention it because they would be two adults capable of forming a contract together in a situation that would likely be convenience rather than “love”, although, undoubtably siblings do love one another. I might expect to see this in our growing population of elderly citizens

But returning to gay marriage, many marriages today do not result in progeny. And many marriages result in progeny, but not an ongoing marriage to support the children. Our marriage statutes need to be updated.

By USinUK

January 19, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this

AW -

“Gurrrrlfriends, don’t forget to wear the waterproof mascara tomorrow! It sure does feel good to shed a few out of joy for a change!”

I blubbed like such a child the night of the election, I don’t know how many tears I have left!! (although, I’m sure I’ll manage a few)

22 hours!!!

By Mara

January 19, 2009 12:16 PM | Link to this

“Equality is the point, regardless of whether we are talking about privileges or rights.”

It’s ALWAYS been about the LAW treating gays and straights equally.

“And they are soooo insulted when i say that this is a hen house. LOL!!— Did anyone ever even acknowledge this comment? I do not recall anyone paying any mind…”

Yes, I am insulted by the sneer…but I think it’s so petty and so childish that responding to it would serve no perpose. It’s a tactic that seems to have (unfortunately) become embedded in the Republican psyche. “If you can’t win the argument on merit, insult and demean the messenger.” That’s not a PERSONAL attack, btw, it’s an observation on how political discourse has evolved in the past two decades or so.

By USinUK

January 19, 2009 12:26 PM | Link to this

Mara, AW and Gale -

I thought of you guys this morning … http:// punditkitchen.com/

scroll down to Technology News (related to our Vista discussion last week)

:-)

By Mara

January 19, 2009 12:28 PM | Link to this

“perpose”?! sheesh…my spelling brain cell must have been damaged during the NFL playoff festivities.

obviously I meant “purpose”.

By Frustrated

January 19, 2009 3:13 PM | Link to this

I am not saying we have to post it on billboards but we should be able to SPEAK about it, or see it, without all the freak outs!

Sunshine- I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think it is childish for someone to say ick at the sight of after birth. I know what it is for and I still get green at the sight of a lot of blood.

I am a mother and I still say “gross” to a diaper explosion. It smells, it turns my stomach on occassion…it’s natural, sure, that is why I don’t laugh and point at people when they pass gas in public.

There is a difference in being childish vs. not being able to stomach what you see. It is natural for our bodies to decay once we are dead, but I don’t think a lot of people would look at a corpse and say “aw, how interesting…that is really neat how we recycle ourselves and feed the worms”……no, I think you would hear more gags and “ick”….. And I don’t consider that childish…I consider it a “natural” response to something you can’t stomach.

It seems the longer we allow this childish notion that are bodies are “dirty, gross, disgusting” ect. the longer it takes us to evolve as a culture.

Are you kidding me??? “evolve” as a culture???? How exactly do you see us “evolving” from everyone thinking that the body is clean? Do you think we would all walk around naked?

As long as there are diseases floating around this earth, I don’t think I would ever see the human body as being “clean”…Therefore, when a stranger spills blood in my presence, I be sure to put on gloves….not because I am childish, but because I don’t want the funk that is floating around in their blood…..do you??

By Gandalf, the White!

January 19, 2009 3:14 PM | Link to this

Tomorrow will live in infamy! Jokes On if I say your the eldest of Eighth Graders, will you take that as an insult? I mean you are an idiot by that statement, just in case there is any doubt. Minors shouldn’t drink, eighth graders shouldn’t drive to school, and people who catch trout should have a stamp. If you and your homosexual partner want to live together, setup a trust, one of you adopt the other,and be done with it. Marriage is for a man and some woman, with the purpose of raising children. Good Day

By NeverKnew

January 19, 2009 3:40 PM | Link to this

so breast-feeding = decaying bodies = afterbirth.

who knew?

By JokesOn

January 19, 2009 3:50 PM | Link to this

Jokes On if I say your the eldest of Eighth Graders, will you take that as an insult?

Nope. One has to be sane to have actual malicious intent. You are clearly insane.lol

Are you kidding me??? “evolve” as a culture???? How exactly do you see us “evolving” from everyone thinking that the body is clean? Do you think we would all walk around naked?

I concur with Sunshine. Just as honest conversation regarding sex has evolved out of the depths of “ick,” so will it continue. Heck, it was not too long ago that a sexual spot on a woman was not considered to exist - would you trade away that, because it would not have happened without honest realistic cultural maturation.

Equating crap and non-toxic biological fluids is exactly what Sunshine is referring to. Similar side issue: Even urine is mis-understood…it is mainly excess nutrients from your blood stream. Not in the same realm of crap.

I personally believe education and familiarity with the human body dissolves those knee-jerk reactions.

By Frustrated

January 19, 2009 3:56 PM | Link to this

so breast-feeding = decaying bodies = afterbirth.

That isn’t what I was trying to say….but if we view one bodily function as “adults”…then shouldn’t we view all of them that way?

So don’t say “ick” when someone throws up on you….or people will get on to you for being childish…

By Frustrated

January 19, 2009 4:10 PM | Link to this

I personally believe education and familiarity with the human body dissolves those knee-jerk reactions.

I took several anatomy classes in college, and I really enjoyed them..I have always been a fan of the subject….

I know what after birth is, I know it’s purpose during pregnancy, I know a lot of animals eat theirs for different reasons (nutrition, to trigger horomones, etc)….. But I don’t find the sight of it pleasing…I don’t want to sit and stare or touch or anything else. But that isn’t being childish. I don’t want to play with poop, pee, boogers, blood or even dandruff…. It’s all natural…but it is not pleasing to some people… It has nothing to do with being childish.

Being childish is laughing at someone when they poot….making someone feel bad because they had an accident in their pants…. Not because you say “ick” at a bloody tampon….or a turd floating beside you in the ocean (yes, I’ve seen it before!!) How can you not say that….ESPECIALLY IF IT ISN’T YOURS!!! I say ick when someone breaks their arm, it is just bone popping, but I want to faint when I hear it..

I am thankful for my placenta and all that it did… but for Pete’s sake….you can’t call me childish because I don’t like the looks of it or didn’t want to hug it and say thank you….

By Gale

January 19, 2009 4:13 PM | Link to this

I understand bodily functions and everyone has them (some depending upon gender). I don’t plan to seek them out on the internet. But I also don’t think they should be censored.

By JokesOn

January 19, 2009 4:24 PM | Link to this

So don’t say “ick” when someone throws up on you….or people will get on to you for being childish…

No one is saying we should suddenly and magically be there. What we are saying is that we should be on a path to greater adulthood and maturation.

Don’t you find it odd that, in general, if one got dog pee on their hand while cleaning an accident in the kitchen, it is no big deal; but if one had to clean up your little brothers sheets because he peed himself it causes a feeling of ick?

Devil’s Advocate here… Now a greater question: Should one actually be able to turn on/off their “turn-ons” as it pertains to the breast feeding issue? I can fully appreciate their functional use, but I will never be able to separate the sexual from the functional or switch back and forth at will.

And if the sexuality cannot/should not be parsed out, are they not sexual images (as well as functional)? And if we are comparing the sexual versus functional, the time spent as functional is quite minimal.

By JokesOn

January 19, 2009 4:32 PM | Link to this

Frustrated,

“But I don’t find the sight of it pleasing”

That is a change of subject. We are not talking about “pleasing” or “playing with poop.” And no one called you childish. The behavior, in general, could be more adult.

Yeah, no one wants to be puked on, but I do not recall my mother being grossed out while holding the bucket for me while sick as a child. Many people simply “get over it” after being familiar with such things.

“Not because you say “ick” at a bloody tampon” I bet if your daughter needed assistance, you would not say ick. Why? Maybe because of the connotations involved and you want her to know that it is perfectly normal and not gross?

By Frustrated

January 19, 2009 4:39 PM | Link to this

Don’t you find it odd that, in general, if one got dog pee on their hand while cleaning an accident in the kitchen, it is no big deal; but if one had to clean up your little brothers sheets because he peed himself it causes a feeling of ick?

Honestly, I would say ick to the dog pee before my sibling’s sheets…but to the point…. I don’t think it is a maturity problem that people find things unpleasing to them. Whether it is a type of food that you don’t like the taste of, or a particular smell that turns your stomach sour….it is what it is.

I am glad that you and Sunshine have hopes of everyone being “mature” and not letting anything bother them. But I don’t think “evolving” into a preference free, “nothing-bothers-them-human” is the answer to our problems.

By JokesOn

January 19, 2009 4:56 PM | Link to this

“I am glad that you and Sunshine have hopes of everyone being “mature” and not letting anything bother them. But I don’t think “evolving” into a preference free, “nothing-bothers-them-human” is the answer to our problems.”

Really, where is preference free, “nothing-bothers-them-human” the premise?

Example: I get grossed out by chicken easily. I know it is a me thing and not as mature as it should be. I am up front about this and honest. You will not find me trying to make a case that because of the veins and yellow fatty stuff, chicken “should” be considered gross.

“Honestly, I would say ick to the dog pee before my sibling’s sheets…” You do now, but did you when you were 14 years old? What changed?

By DANCE OF JOY!

January 19, 2009 5:00 PM | Link to this

Hey Everybody!!! It’s Bush’s LAST DAY at the helm of our nation! There’s a slight chance we might not sail right off the edge of the earth afterall! There’s no guarantee, but at least we have a CHANCE now! HALLELUJAH!!! Praise the Lord Jesus, and/or whatever deity you worship or don’t, or whatever natural forces you appreciate!

Na na na na, na na na na, HEY HEEEEYYYYYYYY, GOOD-BYE!!!!

backflip! backflip! backflip! YEAH!

By USinUK

January 20, 2009 8:15 AM | Link to this

DoJ -

• 3 backflips -

APPLAUSE (be sure to stretch - we don’t want any injuries today!)

and WHAT a kick-butt picture on the AJC splash page of ALL the fine folks who came out to watch the ceremony today (in sub-freezing temperatures) … show me what democracy looks like? THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY (and a peaceful transition) LOOKS LIKE!!!

while I can’t do backflips, I can definitely join him/her in dancing around like a teenager!

woowoo!!!!

By Frustrated

January 20, 2009 8:26 AM | Link to this

JokesOn,

When someone refers to your reaction of saying “ick” as a childish notion….I take that as being called childish…that I should be more adult about something I find disgusting…but it isn’t like I make a big deal about it and run around screaming in agony….I turn my head, say ick and move on…I don’t dwell on the thought or whatever… How is that immature?

And my mother never flinched either, I don’t flinch when my daughter gets sick…. But when I am cleaning it up off the floor and I smell it, I say “shoo” and keep cleaning. Is that immature? I don’t find my daughter disgusting or her body’s reaction abnormal…. I find the smell repulsive….

Maybe I should ask this……what am I suppose to do/say when I see something that turns my stomach.

By USinUK

January 20, 2009 8:36 AM | Link to this

As for the topic de la semaine … well, I’m somewhere in the middle - I think wimmen folk should be able to breastfeed in public without the “My God! What will the children think!” patrol swooping in on them. I, however, wish they’d just be discreet.

A bunch of friends and I took some new parents (and their sprog) to dinner one night, and the mom just popped it out at the table and let junior at it. While breastfeeding is a wonderful thing, it really wasn’t quite the accompanyment to my barbecue and coleslaw that I was hoping for.

And putting pics on the intertubes??? well, whatever blows your skirt up, but … at least give me a little warning before I get an up close and personal shot.

Me, I think Margaret and Helen pretty much have the right of it:

http:// margaretandhelen. wordpress.com/2008/11/21/got-milk/

“But putting it out there for everyone to see is like chewing with your mouth open. It’s just not polite.” right on, Helen.

By JokesOn

January 20, 2009 9:22 AM | Link to this

When someone refers to your reaction of saying “ick” as a childish notion….I take that as being called childish

Bad idea to expound such things. The action might not be as mature as it could, but it is only one action.

This started with afterbirth and such. And there were some knee jerk reactions to those less pretty bodily functions. I believe I have made my general point clear and to go on would risk frustration.

Do you understand where we are coming from at all? So far I would not suspect so from your posts.

USinUK, “As for the topic de la semaine … well, I’m somewhere in the middle - I think wimmen folk should be able to breastfeed in public without the “My God! What will the children think!” patrol swooping in on them. I, however, wish they’d just be discreet.”

How do you feel about pics on facebook though?

By Gale

January 20, 2009 9:24 AM | Link to this

Good analogy, USinUK. I’d be inclined to leave the table quickly if my friend did that to me. Great, you breastfeed. I don’t want to watch and paticularly not while I am dining with other adults, thanks.

By JokesOn

January 20, 2009 9:31 AM | Link to this

People would puke if they saw one of my baby’s “first” photos…..at the bottom of the picture you can see all the junk that came out with her…

Maybe this is what started it. Kind of harsh way of putting it…”all the junk?” Which triggered SS’s observation of people at class having a disgusted feeling towards the normal birthing process.

And I did not find anyone calling you or YOUR reaction childish.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 20, 2009 9:34 AM | Link to this

We shall look back on today with great shame as a nation. The day we let the socialist have the keys to the cupboard. The day the poor ignorant masses who couldn’t tell you if Barry was proLife or prodeath, the stupid voters who didn’t know if Barry’s running mate was Sarah Palin, the ignorant who believed the bussword Change. Change is coming, hold the red star proudly high in hand. Oh and Jokes On, Screw you!

By JokesOn

January 20, 2009 9:46 AM | Link to this

“We shall look back on today with great shame as a nation. The day we let the socialist have the keys to the cupboard.”

What was it they said 4 and 8 years ago? Oh yea: god chose him. So go blame god.

“Oh and Jokes On, Screw you!” That hurts sooo much. Ohhh my feelings, whatever shall I do. Gandalf doesn’t like me! hehe

You are either one good actor, or a total crackpot. Every court needs a jester though and we love you for your service and comedy relief.

By USinUK

January 20, 2009 9:50 AM | Link to this

Jokes -

“How do you feel about pics on facebook though?”

as I said above - if it blows your skirt up, fine - just give me a little warning

same goes for the birth photos with the train wreck of blood, placenta, etc - some days I’m good with gore, some days I’m not. I’d just like to know beforehand.

as for the folks who want to load all that stuff on facebook or their own personal pages - may I suggest they look up the word “oversharing” … I’m happy for you, your SO and the little one who just went through the Play-Doh fun factory of life … but, come on - can’t you just limit the photos to the outcome, not the process unless specifically asked???

By American Woman

January 20, 2009 9:54 AM | Link to this

Gandalf, I think I speak for the majority of Americans today, when I respond to your 9:34 with the words, “S-CK IT!” Communism is sooooooooo last century, as is the imperialist fascism that’s leaving DC in a couple of hours. We’re going for some common sense for a change, and reject your pejorative doomsday predictions. Join us in the 21st Century whydoncha! Or don’t…. Stay back there putting Brill Creme in your hair, smoking Carltons, and complaining about that rock ‘n’ roll devil music. Hey, have you tried that newfangled “mexican” food? They’ve got this thing called a burrito. You’ll love it!

By Sunshine

January 20, 2009 10:18 AM | Link to this

Frustrated—“So don’t say “ick” when someone throws up on you….or people will get on to you for being childish…”

I hope that you don’t think I was calling you names, I never meant to do that in any way and was only hoping to make a broader point in general, not to insult you personally.

The point I was trying to make is this, if your Dear Child was sick with the flu and threw up all over you, would your first reaction be “OH GROSS” or “OH, HONEY I AM SORRY! I know you must feel awful!” If it was a dying parent and they wet themselves, if it was a spouse suffering through Chemotherapy who was vomiting, what would your reaction be? There might be a tinge of “ICK” but there would be a lot more compassion and understanding (I would HOPE). Then you would do what anyone would and clean it up, throw it away and move on. That is evolving, that is where it all becomes relative, that is where the “knee-jerk” reaction fades away. Its not about people walking around naked.

By NewCentury

January 20, 2009 10:21 AM | Link to this

“Communism is sooooooooo last century, as is the imperialist fascism that’s leaving DC in a couple of hours”

but then what would you expect from a “so last century kinda guy”?

By Frustrated

January 20, 2009 10:23 AM | Link to this

Us-

What a childish notion for calling the natural birthing process a train wreck and referring to it as the “Play-Doh fun factory of life”

But I laughed out loud! I am totally in agreement with your view on the topic!

And as far as your friend, you should have ordered a glass of milk to go with your dinner when she popped out the teet! Maybe she would have gotten a hint:)

By USinUK

January 20, 2009 10:34 AM | Link to this

Frustrated -

“What a childish notion for calling the natural birthing process a train wreck and referring to it as the “Play-Doh fun factory of life””

look, by way of a disclaimer: I’ve never gone through childbirth and have no plans to do so, so that is where I’m coming from. However, having said that, my closest friends who HAVE had children all say that the blood, placenta and other detritus all looks like a train wreck, so, since that’s their words and they’ve been there, I’ll quote them.

as for the Play-Doh fun factory of life, what ELSE would you call taking something that is fairly rounded, and squeezing it through someone that is a LOT narrower to the extent where it winds up all pointy?? (and, god knows, the sprout is usually all shades of blue, red and purple when it finally comes out). my nephew looked like a football, bless his cotton socks. or an alien.

like I said - to me, it all comes down to oversharing. if you’re not going to share pics of the conception (and I’d rather you didn’t), please don’t share pics of the birth.

By Sunshine

January 20, 2009 10:36 AM | Link to this

USin—Question, (And dear you KNOW I love you, and am just playing devil’s advocate here!) If your friend and her sprog, were at said table and she feed him something messy and not so visually pleasing (say stewed peas or strong smelling squash) and he proceeded to eat it in an unpleasant way (as children are know to do!) was wearing it from ear to ear, would you have been equally as offended? Or was it simply the food of choice he was given. I ask because, the mother was, for all intents and purposes, feeding her child. While we would readily expect a child to eat at the table with adults if it was any other food source (especially at what sounds to be an informal BBQ), the breast is somehow considered “impolite”. This I don’t really understand.

By Frustrated

January 20, 2009 10:38 AM | Link to this

Sunshine-

I am just having a spat with Jokes…like I said in my first reply, I understand where you are coming from.

My comment on my first picture had nothing to do with what I felt about the human body or the natural process of child birth. I said “junk” because I didn’t think everyone needed to know the bloody details…maybe someone is munching on a snack… And I said Ick because I don’t like the sight of blood, not because I don’t appreciate the function of what the placenta does.

You totally tore my post up and made it sound like you were offended by the fact that I didn’t use “grown-up” words to describe what was in the picture. In my mind, I was being polite and sparing people the mental image in detail.

But..no harm done….

By sd

January 20, 2009 10:40 AM | Link to this

The world NEEDS more exposed boobs. If you have a nice rack, you should show it as often as possible. A glimpse at your boobs might be just the pick-me-up another person needs to improve his day. Give something back to the society that has given you so much and show your boobs daily.

Thanks,

Men

By Mara

January 20, 2009 10:46 AM | Link to this

Sunshine - “The point I was trying to make is this, if your Dear Child was sick with the flu and threw up all over you, would your first reaction be “OH GROSS” or “OH, HONEY I AM SORRY! I know you must feel awful!” If it was a dying parent and they wet themselves, if it was a spouse suffering through Chemotherapy who was vomiting, what would your reaction be? There might be a tinge of “ICK” but there would be a lot more compassion and understanding (I would HOPE).”

not to answer for anyone else, but…one of the biggest reasons I personally have chosen not to breed is because my reaction WOULD be “Oh, GROSS!” and would never quite make it to the “oh, I’m sorry you threw up on me” stage. Call me callous, but IMHO gross is gross no matter how much you might love someone.

Never had that nurturing gene, never really wanted it.

By USinUK

January 20, 2009 10:53 AM | Link to this

Sunshine -

before I answer your question - I keep hoping that I WON’T see you on the board (for all the right reasons) … hope you’re feeling good and getting as much rest as you can.

okay. now. your question. and I’m going to be really blunt, so pardon what I’m about to say, all you who are fainthearted:

While I like my friend, that doesn’t mean I want to see her flap-jack size of a nearly black rhymes-with-tipple (for the AJC censors) staring back at me while she was trying to get the little man to latch on. If she had had a blanket tossed jauntily over her shoulder while she was feeding him, that would have been fine - but pulled pork barbecue, cole slaw and bare breasticles was a bit much.

Like I said - I’m all for letting women breast-feed in public - all I ask is a little discretion.

(as for seeing little kids covered in food - I don’t think that’s a valid comparison. my husband dropping his drawers in the middle of a restaurant to adjust his junk might be a better comparison)

By USinUK

January 20, 2009 10:56 AM | Link to this

Sunshine -

(just so you know) - it wasn’t at an informal bbq - it was in the middle of a restaurant

By Sunshine

January 20, 2009 10:56 AM | Link to this

Frustrated—“You totally tore my post up and made it sound like you were offended by the fact that I didn’t use “grown-up” words to describe what was in the picture.”

I am sorry but I need to politely disagree with you, this is the exact post I made:

“Frustrated—Don’t take this personally, I am just using your quote to ask a larger question:”

“This is what I don’t understand, a woman, who recently had a baby made this comment. In my mind it seems to perpetuate the myth that there is something wrong or “gross” about our bodies, our births, our babies, ect. Just like the breast feeding thing. I have been at a live birth, I know there is a lot of afterbirth and other things but it isn’t “Ick-y” or “gross” unless you are unable to understand the reason for it being there. Even Hubby in our birthing class was shocked at how immature the other Dad’s where about the video’s they showed. He was like “um, you did know where babies come from before today right?”

“It seems the longer we allow this childish notion that are bodies are “dirty, gross, disgusting” ect. the longer it takes us to evolve as a culture. I am not saying we have to post it on billboards but we should be able to SPEAK about it, or see it, without all the freak outs!”

This isn’t “tearing your post up” this isn’t even really a comment to you personally, it is a statement of my opinion. I tried to preface it by saying I was making a larger point, and did that again today, you still feel I did something to you personally? I don’t get it. Are we not allowed to say anything here on a DISCUSSION board without someone taking offense? How many more niceties must a frame a post with in order for someone not to take it grossly out of context?

By JokesOn

January 20, 2009 11:07 AM | Link to this

Frustrated,

The topic was general and not about you. You kept bringing it back to you personally. That was your doing and not ours.

As for your little side comment to USinUK, that was childish.

By Mara

January 20, 2009 11:10 AM | Link to this

Sunshine - “Or was it simply the food of choice he was given. I ask because, the mother was, for all intents and purposes, feeding her child.”

the way I look at it, we’ve developed agriculture and animal husbandry for a reason…so that we don’t have to eat each of others bodies - LOL!!

By JokesOn

January 20, 2009 11:11 AM | Link to this

“Like I said - I’m all for letting women breast-feed in public - all I ask is a little discretion.”

Not unlike standing close to the urinal while peeing. It is less than polite to stand 3 feet back peeing in figure eights in a public bathroom. Discretion is to show respect for those around you, not done out of shame.

By Sunshine

January 20, 2009 11:15 AM | Link to this

Usin—“before I answer your question - I keep hoping that I WON’T see you on the board (for all the right reasons) … hope you’re feeling good and getting as much rest as you can.” Thank you :-) keep sending those vibes my way, keep wishing me away!! I need all the help I can get, I have had it so easy I shouldn’t complain but I will say these last few weeks are TOUGH! AGGGHHH! I am so uncomfortable, and feel so NOT good! I want the little guy to get all the way “done” but with 16 days to go, I am sorry, but it can’t come fast enough!

By USinUK

January 20, 2009 11:16 AM | Link to this

hey-hey-hey …

… let’s all take a deep breath … we’re talking about breast-feeding, fercryingoutloud! not the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

on the count of three, let’s all yell POOP! and then resume the conversation in a calm demeaner …

one … two … three …. POOP!!!

everyone better?

By The Other Jack

January 20, 2009 11:16 AM | Link to this

I was doing some network surfing when the motorcade started from the White House to the Capital. Every network had commentators running their mouths during the whole motorcade, but FOX used the live music of the Marine Band and Shep Smith (FOX) said nothing. Probably the best military band in the world and those scenes from Washington of the Mall and all those people. The shots were incredible and with the music, it was just a great few moments. I cranked up the sound like crazy. It was one of the most inspiring moments I have had in ages. The band ended with “America” as Obama and Bush entered the Capital. I was having a hard time holding it together.

God Bless America.

A really nice moment and for once the commentator SHUT UP!!!

Kudos to the FOX guys for once again thinking out of the box.

By USinUK

January 20, 2009 11:25 AM | Link to this

Jokes -

“Discretion is to show respect for those around you, not done out of shame.”

WELL SAID!!! (polite golf clap)

By The Other Jack

January 20, 2009 11:34 AM | Link to this

BTW.

Are you guys really spending this day of all days to argue about breast-feeding on the internet?

Jeeze guys. I expected a blow-by-blow on here.

By American Woman

January 20, 2009 11:35 AM | Link to this

TOJ, I’m a big fan of C-SPAN for their standard “shut up” format as well. Conventions, debates, speeches, etc., are all so much better when I can watch and listen without all the “analysts” yammering & telling me what to think & feel. It’s nice to hear that the folks at Fox are backing off for a change.

Time for the single malt!!!

By USinUK

January 20, 2009 11:39 AM | Link to this

“A really nice moment and for once the commentator SHUT UP!!!”

GAH!!! a sign of the apocolypse … I agree with TOJ!!! having been lucky enough to hear the MCB live and in person on about a half-dozen occasions, I can totally agree that they are aMAZing and definitely needed no accompanying dialogue from the talking heads.

(I so can’t wait to get home and see all this!!!)

Sunshine -

“I am so uncomfortable, and feel so NOT good! I want the little guy to get all the way “done” but with 16 days to go, I am sorry, but it can’t come fast enough!”

HUGS!!!! with 16 days to go, all the sprout is working on is hair and nails, now - his cooking dime is done. what has worked for my sister-in-law and friends are long walks - it’s supposed to help the mite get into position and make a break for daylight …

GO SUNSHINE, GO!!!

By JokesOn

January 20, 2009 11:40 AM | Link to this

WELL SAID!!! (polite golf clap)

There is a modern day philosopher that I am a huge fan of who illustrates how so many topics get muddled. One of his best examples is explaining how, in the 60s peace movements, there are almost always more than one motivation for the same act. You had those that were mature and pushing for freedoms and equality, and then you had those who were really saying “your not going to tell me what to do!”

Both motivations exist, so it is imperative to parse them out when dissecting the/a topic and be clear which motivation you are talking about. Plus, one motivation does not invalidate the other.

By JokesOn

January 20, 2009 11:41 AM | Link to this

“Are you guys really spending this day of all days to argue about breast-feeding on the internet?”

Nope. It is an illusion;) We are crafty like that.

By USinUK

January 20, 2009 11:47 AM | Link to this

TOJ - for once, we’re actually on topic … who knew?

By The Other Jack

January 20, 2009 11:49 AM | Link to this

I just talked to a friend at WAGA and she said that FOX News was sending a partial feed with the opening for the local stations to add their own commentators. WAGA decided to just let the feed go and leave out the local blabber.

It has been a little weird at times, almost like listening to a news feed, but it has been so much easier to watch. And the marine band was done right. I cranked it. Great audio. I scared the dog to death and I have no idea what happened to the cat.

Upp, here’s Rick Warren.

This is not the day to argue.

This is one of “those” days in our short lives.

By Gale

January 20, 2009 11:55 AM | Link to this

“one motivation does not invalidate the other” Exactly!

I would like to watch the parade, but vid streaming is frowned on here in my office. I suspect there are many doing it anyway, and any moment I will hear that some bandwidth critical function has shutdown because of it.

By The Other Jack

January 20, 2009 11:56 AM | Link to this

Oh jesus.

Aretha is singing America.

i’m probably scaring the neighbor’s cat right now.

By USinUK

January 20, 2009 11:59 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

“This is not the day to argue. This is one of “those” days in our short lives.”

hear hear.

here’s to detente - hopefully, not too short-lived … yeah?

By Gale

January 20, 2009 12:01 PM | Link to this

I have to say, just the mention of the Marine band gave me chills and and made me want to march. I have a march running through my head and the name will come to me eventually; not Hail to the Cheif, though. It might be The Big Four.

By The Other Jack

January 20, 2009 12:02 PM | Link to this

Yo-yo-ma, Pearlman, and two others doing a John Williams piece.

Go to a live feed, guys. This music is incredible. They won’t have this stuff on the highlights.

By Mara

January 20, 2009 12:07 PM | Link to this

gah!! Everybody in the office must be trying to watch. My streaming video won’t play!!!!! oh well. Guess I’ll catch it on the replay after work.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 20, 2009 12:13 PM | Link to this

“I am an American fighting man. I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command I will never surrender my men while they still have the means to resist.
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape.
I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades.
If I am senior, I will take command. If not I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
I will never forget that I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America”

By The Other Jack

January 20, 2009 12:14 PM | Link to this

Uh oh. Barrack stumbled pretty badly, as did the guy giving the oath (Ithink it was the chief justice).

It was endearing.

I have been a little upset at the way Ms. Obama has been left to sort of find her way. Ms. Bush and she was walking through the crowds. Ms. Bush knew who to follow and Ms. Obama had allowed her to go ahead and they got separated. Ms. Obama will learn who to watch and who to follow in situations like this, but she should have been closely “handled” on a day like this.

And BTW. As of noon today (the oath really doesn’t start the presidency) Obama is President. Congrats guys. I hope he continues to lean toward the center.

By Monica

January 20, 2009 12:18 PM | Link to this

Our entire school is watching right now - history in the making. And my students are watching, not talking.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 20, 2009 12:23 PM | Link to this

Just like a commie to drink before noon, American Woman, you “SUCK the DONKEY BALLS”! Communism is so 19th century you Dum Bass, but Obama is bringing it’s little brother, socialism into Washington as we speak. Hang your head in shame for embracing the devil and bringing him into your home. Bail out! I guess FDR’s bailout worked too? DUM BASSES! Smoke and mirrors lead you down the slippery slope of self destruction. HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME/.

By Frustrated

January 20, 2009 12:27 PM | Link to this

“The topic was general and not about you. You kept bringing it back to you personally. That was your doing and not ours. As for your little side comment to USinUK, that was childish.”

If I seem like I am mad about the situation, I want to clear the air…I am not mad at anyone… Sunshine, I am sorry if I came across that way…I just don’t see your valid point about saying “ick” as being a childish notion… Ok, you didn’t mean me PERSONALLY, so I take back all the things that I said about you calling me childish….I am not trying to ruffle feathers…

Jokes- yes, it was childish…it is called being sarcastic.

By USinUK

January 20, 2009 12:32 PM | Link to this

The poor mister is going to have to watch teevee upstairs tonight so I can watch all the Beeb coverage - there’s just no way I’m going to put this off until the weekend.

thanks for the play-by-play, TOJ -

By USinUK

January 20, 2009 12:44 PM | Link to this

btw, GtG - I’m holding my head so high, I might just get a nosebleed.

By JokesOn

January 20, 2009 12:44 PM | Link to this

“Jokes- yes, it was childish…it is called being sarcastic.”

I know. It also derails a discussion and we have enough of that, no?

We are cool though. No need for drama.

You can disagree with our premise, but saying “I just don’t see your valid point” is different. We see where you are coming from and its validity - it is where we as a culture generally are “right now.” Can you extend the same and see that we are talking about a path that leads to fewer knee-jerk reactions through desensitization, familiarity and understanding?

By The Other Jack

January 20, 2009 12:51 PM | Link to this

USinUK

No problem. I hope they have Aretha and the Yo-yo-ma group on the replay. I’m sure they are being prepared for U-tube as I type this.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 20, 2009 12:52 PM | Link to this

Monica, take care of them and quit blogging! WE pay you to teach, not blog!

By USinUK

January 20, 2009 1:07 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

“No problem. I hope they have Aretha and the Yo-yo-ma group on the replay. I’m sure they are being prepared for U-tube as I type this. “

the beeb has 4 hours live coverage happening (they’re not just doing highlights) … hopefully, as you said earlier, their talking heads will shut their yap.

anyhoo … heading home for the night …

HAPPY DEMOCRACY AND PEACEFUL TRANSITION, EVERYONE!!

By Frustrated

January 20, 2009 1:17 PM | Link to this

Jokes- I said more than once that I understand what Sunshine is saying….

I just don’t think you can label a reaction to something you find repulsive as a “childish notion”…. I think of “childish notions” as laughing at someone who poops their pants… Not someone who says “yuck” as they are cleaning up the mess. We are all familiar and most of us are educated about what poop is…but we will forever have the same reaction about the foul smell.

Being educated about a natural birth is great, but seeing it in a book as the baby floats around the womb is different than seeing it in a wash pan after everything is said and done.

Here is another question for you…. What about the men who watch the birth and are no longer sexually attracted to their partner because they just watched everything come out…..and “the act” doesn’t feel quite the same as it once did?? Is that a “childish notion” on their part?

By Sunshine

January 20, 2009 1:18 PM | Link to this

Did any one catch Keith Olbermann’s special comment last night? GTW’s comment made me think of it. (“WE pay you to teach,”) Sorry for the long post but I think it is really relevant, and well written, I will shorten if I can:

“…We have tortured people. You and I.

This is the people’s democracy, we are the people, these are our elected officials. That they did not come to us and ask to act thusly in our names is unfortunate, indeed criminal, but it is also almost irrelevant. They work for us, they tortured people, and so, we have tortured people.

You and I know we have tortured Khalid Sheikh-Mohammed. We not only know about it; we have now heard it boasted about by one of the men who as of tomorrow will no longer work for us: George Walker Bush.

“…the techniques were necessary and are necessary to be used on a rare occasion to get information necessary to protect the American people,” Mr. Bush said to Fox News on January 11th. “One such person who gave us information was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed….

“And I’m in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country.

“So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him, and they give me a list of tools. And I said, are these tools deemed to be legal? And so we got legal opinions before the decision was made.”

“And I think when people study the history of this particular episode they’ll find out we gained good information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in order to protect our country. We believe that the information we gained helped save lives on American soil.”

Never mind Mr. Bush’s delusions here—never mind that all primary sources who witnessed the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said they got nothing from him until they started buddying up to him.

Never mind that Mr. Bush’s supporters’ favorite torture construction—the mythical “ticking time bomb” scenario—not only did not transpire here, but Mr. Bush hasn’t even had the imagination to pretend it, in order to just slightly cover his moral tracks.

The key, is that this statement, if it had been under oath, would be…. a confession to a war crime. Mr. Bush is proactive, “I ask what tools are available”.

Mr. Bush is aware of the legal haze into which he steps: “And I said, are these tools deemed to be legal?.” Mr. Bush realizes the tools he has chosen… have been used: “We gained good information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed”.

Since we know from previous admissions from the Pentagon that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water-boarded, we can infer that Mr. Bush knew he would be water-boarded, and knew afterwards that he had been water-boarded. Mr. Bush is guilty….

…He’s guilty as sin. Mr. President-Elect, you were first asked about all this on the 18th of April, last….”I think you are right,” you told him. “If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve. So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment.”…

“…”We tortured (Mohammed al-) Qahtani,” Judge Susan Crawford told the Washington Post a week ago. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture.” And that was why, Judge Crawford added, that as the Bush Administration official in charge of deciding whether or not to bring detainees at Guantanamo Bay to trial, she decided in Qahtani’s case, not to…

And this, Mr. President-Elect, was not the obvious water-boarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This was a more insidious combination of legally-approved procedures that still nearly killed this man Qahtani.

“The techniques they used were all authorized,” Judge Crawford continued, “but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent… This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health.”

In fact, Mr. President-Elect, the records at Gitmo show that Qahtani’s heartbeat eventually slowed to 35 beats per minute. “It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive, sympathize with the intelligence gatherers in those days after 9/11, not knowing what was coming next and trying to gain information to keep us safe. But there still has to be a line that we should not cross. And unfortunately what this has done, I think, has tainted everything going forward.”

f you are worried about the Republicans viewing any torture prosecution in the way you postulated to Will Bunch—”a partisan witch hunt”—you can remind them that the woman who said all that, Susan Crawford is a life-long Republican.

“My orientation’s going to be, to move forward.”

Finally, “What we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past.”

Sadly, as commendable as the intention here might seem, this country has never succeeded in “moving forward” without first cleansing itself of its mistaken past. In point of fact, every effort to merely ‘draw a line in the sand’ and declare the past, dead, has served only to keep the past alive—and often to strengthen it.

We compromised with slavery in the Declaration of Independence—and four score and nine years later we had buried 600-thousand of our sons and brothers in a Civil War.

After that War’s ending, we compromised with the social restructuring and protection of the rights of minorities in the South. And a century later, we had not only not resolved anything, but black leaders were still being assassinated in the cities of the South.

We compromised with Germany and the reconstruction of Europe after the First World War—nobody even arrested the German Kaiser, let alone conducted war crimes trials and 19 years later there was an indescribably more evil Germany and a more heart-rending Second World War.

We compromised with the Trusts of the early 1900’s, and today we have corporations too big to let fail. We compromised with The Palmer Raids and got McCarthyism, and we compromised with McCarthyism and got Watergate, and we compromised with Watergate and the junior members of the Ford Administration realized how little was ultimately at risk, and they grew up to be Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

And that means prosecuting all those involved in the Bush Administration’s torture of prisoners—and starting at the top. You’re also right that you should not “want your first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch-hunt.”

But your only other option might be to let this sit and fester, indefinitely. Because, Mr. President-Elect, some day there will be another Republican president—or even a Democrat just as blind as Mr. Bush to ethics and this country’s Moral Force—and he will look back to what you did about Mr. Bush—or what you did not do—and he will see precedent.

Or, as Cheney saw, he will see how not to get caught next time. Prosecute, Mr. President-Elect, and even if you get not one conviction, you will still have accomplished good, for generations unborn. Because merely by acting, you will deny Mr. Bush what he most wants.

Right now, without prosecutions, without this nation standing up and saying “this was wrong, we will atone”—Mr. Bush’s version of what happened goes into the historical record of this nation: Torture was legal. It worked. George Bush saved the country. The End.

We have tortured people. You and I, Mr. President-Elect.

This is the people’s democracy, we are the people, these were our elected officials. That they did not come to us and ask to act thusly in our names is unfortunate, indeed criminal, but it is also almost irrelevant. They worked for us, they tortured people, and so… we have tortured people.

Thus, beginning tomorrow, it is up to you not just to discontinue this but to prevent it.

At the end of his first year in office, Mr. Lincoln tried to contextualize the Civil War for those who still wanted to compromise with the evils of secession and slavery. “The struggle of today,” Lincoln wrote, “is not altogether for today - it is for a vast future also.”

Mr. President-Elect, you have been handed the beginning of that future. Use it—to protect our children, and our distant descendants, from anything, like this, ever happening again.

(From: www. msnbc.msn.com/id/28739674/)

By American Woman

January 20, 2009 1:57 PM | Link to this

Sunshine, good post! We must all be vigilant in holding our leaders and representatives accountable. (“The price and promise of citizenship….”)

BTW, there are grosser aspects to caring for an infant than those listed in this discussion, but I’ll spare you the details. Let’s just say you’ll need to keep that bulb syringe handy.

By Gale

January 20, 2009 2:01 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Sunshine, I don’t have time to plod through that right now. I do like the very end of it though. That is well said.

Frustrated: What about the men who watch the birth and are no longer sexually attracted to their partner because they just watched everything come out Is that what is responsible for the many single child families?

By JokesOn

January 20, 2009 2:07 PM | Link to this

Frustrated,

“Here is another question for you…. What about the men who watch the birth and are no longer sexually attracted to their partner because they just watched everything come out…..and “the act” doesn’t feel quite the same as it once did?? Is that a “childish notion” on their part?”

Yes. It is a very immature reaction.

Now, this might be the part you are missing. It is also understandable. But, the mature thing to do is work through it and find peace.

If knee-jerk reactions validated themselves, we all would have a valid excuse not to do homework in school. No one initially likes it, but moving through it and accepting it is a mature response. Some people, unfortunately, never make this peace and struggle their whole life with the “homework of life” instead of submitting (what I believe to be jesus’ message of submitting; not the usually typecasting of being subordinate).

By Gandalf, the White!

January 20, 2009 3:31 PM | Link to this

TOJ, my version reads thusly, what are you reading? I am confused…

“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

By AntiFox

January 20, 2009 4:00 PM | Link to this

if you fail to understood the bias that is FOXnews, read their account of Obama taking the oath of office, and SUPPOSEDLY Roberts had to correct him.

then read what really happened, word-for-word, when Roberts actually said the words out of order, and Obama paused to allow Roberts to correct himself, which Roberts did not do.

but somehow FOXnews reports that as Obama not saying the oath correctly.

By What did he say?

January 20, 2009 4:58 PM | Link to this

Now now, don’t be mean. The good folks over at Fox “news” are just trying to put food on their families and coexist peacefully with the fish.

By Gale

January 21, 2009 8:19 AM | Link to this

I was one that complained about Michelle’s apparently blood-spatter dress at the nomination, and I found myself disappointed by her white gown for the ablls. I guess I’m shallow. I wanted to see some color. No doubt the gown was great up close, but in white, it looked more like a wedding.

But moving on… Set the score card and reconvene in 100 days to review the results. Interim scorekeeping will likely be unproductive.

By USinUK

January 21, 2009 8:26 AM | Link to this

heavy, heavy sigh.

This is why I watched election night coverage on CNN and not the BBC.

Yesterday was bad. It was SO bad.

(how bad was it???)

well, funny you should ask …

first of all … the talking heads. OY! the talking heads. And, it wasn’t so much that they were talking, but look up “sound and fury signifying nothing” and you’ll see all 4 of the anchors. They talked over the Marine Corp Band. They talked over the first part of the YoYo Ma/Perlman(+2) quartet (!!!!!!!). They talked right up to Aretha, then added insult to injury by saying she was going to sing the national anthem (hello! you guys HAVE a program, try looking at it!!)

Then, there were the things they DIDN’T do - they didn’t point out that the Tuskeegee Airmen were present. they didn’t really talk about who Joseph Lowery was. they didn’t call attention to John Lewis.

and did I mention they talked over the Marine Corps Band???

Oy. Not only did I yell at the teevee, I actually wrote too the Beeb complaining about the coverage.

I was THAT furious.

By USinUK

January 21, 2009 8:35 AM | Link to this

Gale -

I kinda liked the white gown … the greenish/gold dress she wore during the day blew my socks off!!! I thought she looked stunning. (and Sasha and Malia was absolutely adorable!)

That reminds me - that was the other thing the Beeb screwed up - saying there were no young kids since the Kennedys … hello, Amy Carter (somewhere around 11 when Jimmy took office)! hello, Chelsea Clinton (13 when Bill took office)! Criminey, I’m getting p-o’d all over again.

Man, was anyone else shocked with how fragile Bush 41 looked? I was absolutely floored when I saw him with the cane - didn’t he just parachute last year or so for his birthday?? You’d need a tank to knock Barb off her feet, but HW looked like all he’d need is a stiff breeze - I hate seeing once hale-and-hearty people start looking that way … you just know that, inside, he’s still feeling like a young buck.

By Gale

January 21, 2009 9:06 AM | Link to this

I agree, Michelle’s day dress yesterday was stunning. As a fashion designer said in interview-land this week or last, “She has the looks, the physicality and the posture to look stunning in anything.” We have not had an attractive First Lady of that caliber since Jackie. She has all the smarts.

I just hope she can keep from saying things that invite criticism. The day of the tea and cookies First Lady are over. I will be quite surprised if we ever have one again. We should not put the First Lady’s career completely on hold and should use all her talents. Why not get two for one? We had the opportunity with the Clintons. The time was not right. Maybe now. No, she cannot speak for the country or the President. But a powerful woman in that position could be a powerful force. I will be watching with great interest.

By Billy

January 21, 2009 9:16 AM | Link to this

It’s crazy that breastfeeding causes such a stir. Facebook shouldn’t ban all such pictures. Would they have banned that one Brad Pitt took of Angelina Jolie? You know, the one that was on the cover of a major magazine? I know it makes people uncomfortable — hell, it makes me uncomfortable — but I see those sites sort of like online homes — when you enter one, you might see something you weren’t expecting to. If you see something that makes you uncomfortable, then leave. No one is forcing you to look at those pictures. Facebook is grossly overreacting to a non-issue.

That said, a lot of women are too in-your-face about breastfeeding. If your child is going to feed on the left side, there’s no need to flop the right boob out along with it. Some women could make an effort to be more discreet. I’m not bothered in the act in the least; I just don’t know how to interact with the nursing mother. I’ve never been one for staring contests, yet I find myself compelled to maintain eye contact at all costs lest I come off as a perv. At the same time, I don’t want to look like I’m trying not to look. Some women will say that men shouldn’t sexualize the breast. Well, it’s evolution. Breasts = nourishment for offspring.

I’m guessing fewer people are offended by the act of breastfeeding that we or even they might think. It’s just that there are no established rules of etiquette for those times, so people don’t know how they’re supposed to behave.

By USinUK

January 21, 2009 9:27 AM | Link to this

Gale -

for the record, I thought Laura was pretty, but in an incredibly WASP-y way. She looked pretty and polished and nicely tailored, but not necessarily stylish. Hillary is in the same mold. Pretty, but not stylish.

I think that’s also related to the difference in their ages - Michelle is only 44 (Laura is 62 and Hillary is 57).

and can I just say, I love that they have Michelle’s mom living with them, helping to look after the girls. family values in action, I think.

By Gale

January 21, 2009 9:38 AM | Link to this

OK, better word, USinUK. Stylish is more descriptive than attractive. Many First Ladys were attractive. Possibly is goes with the turf.

By The Other Jack

January 21, 2009 9:41 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I didn’t think you would get to hear all the music. Too bad you weren’t within half mile of my house. You would have heard it just fine.

As far as Ms. Obama, I got the feeling that she just wasn’t comfortable all day. The white dress was just not for her. I am certainly not a fashion expert, but I usually know what looks good and that didn’t.

Everyone is trying to say that she is the new Jackie O. Ms. Kennedy was a very feminine, petite woman. Ms. Obama is tall and almost lanky, which is also very attractive, but they need to stop trying to make her look like Jackie O. She has a stunning shape, but her shoulders are not her most attractive feature and a single strap or a strapless gown focuses on a woman’s shoulders. A lot of taller women tend to hunch their shoulders and that is not attractive. And all the frilly flowers. I kept wondering if the designer had actually ever seen Ms. Obama.

(Of course keep in mind that if it were up to me, all attractive women would be required to wear USC cheerleading outfits 24/7)

Like everything else, they will figure it out and I’m sure Ms. Obama will start to feel comfortable in her new role. Just keep those 26 year old gown designers away from her.

By USinUK

January 21, 2009 9:59 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

“I didn’t think you would get to hear all the music. Too bad you weren’t within half mile of my house. You would have heard it just fine.”

hahahaha … too bad we don’t have sound-o-vision on the board so that we could all share what we’re listening to! yeah, I was so very bummed I didn’t get to hear the MCB … grrrr

“Everyone is trying to say that she is the new Jackie O. Ms. Kennedy was a very feminine, petite woman. Ms. Obama is tall and almost lanky, which is also very attractive, but they need to stop trying to make her look like Jackie O. She has a stunning shape, but her shoulders are not her most attractive feature and a single strap or a strapless gown focuses on a woman’s shoulders. A lot of taller women tend to hunch their shoulders and that is not attractive. And all the frilly flowers. I kept wondering if the designer had actually ever seen Ms. Obama.”

very true about Jackie v. Michelle - I think Michelle’s statuesque-ness (as it were) gives her the opportunity to carry off more dramatic looks than Jackie could have done. I liked the one-shoulder - I just hated the way the skirt gathered in the middle - it seemed to cut her off - I think it should have been one long, lean line. I loved that she was pretty much eye-to-eye with her husband when they danced!

“(Of course keep in mind that if it were up to me, all attractive women would be required to wear USC cheerleading outfits 24/7)”

I think you probably would have given even the most attractive woman a pass yesterday for the freezing weather … wouldn’t you??? ;-)

“Like everything else, they will figure it out and I’m sure Ms. Obama will start to feel comfortable in her new role. Just keep those 26 year old gown designers away from her.”

I’m looking forward to seeing what she does with the role … I don’t think I so much want a 2-for-1 type of first lady (a first lady + cabinet-type role), but I would like to see whoever is in that role do something with their expertise and/or education (civil rights law, I believe, is Michelle’s expertise). Gale is right - it’s time to start moving beyond First Lady as tea-and-cookies and charity worker.

By Mara

January 21, 2009 10:14 AM | Link to this

The thing with designer clothes is that they can look FABULOUS on the runway but when translated onto the sidewalk, maybe not so much. Michelle’s red-n-black acceptance dress for example looked great at Grant Park, but then they lengthened it, widened the crossed black “sash/bodice” and added the long, black cardigan. Ooooftah, as my mom used to say. NOT attractive. I assume her ball gown suffered from the same problem. Great as a design, but not so hot in the real world. I agree with TOJ (GASP!!!) about her shoulders and whether off-the-shoulder fashions are her best choice.

I did love yesterday’s gold dress and jacket - though I would have liked it more if she had hemmed it an inch or two. I’m not suggesting she should be sporting micro-mini’s or anything, but below-the-knee skirts just look dowdy.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 21, 2009 10:19 AM | Link to this

ON MICHELLE’s GOWN: She looked horrible, she need to dress more like Hillary, she doesn’t have the body for sexy fashion. She isn’t going to be stunning in anything. Barry look dappier, but Michelle, well she needs help!

By USinUK

January 21, 2009 10:25 AM | Link to this

Mara -

also, the dresses on the runway are hanging on someone who is 6’ tall and 120 pounds - with no breasts or hips to break up the line. Michelle, she’s got both and a booty to boot. You know who she should have seen? Laura Bennet from Season 3 of Project Runway - (the architect who had 5 or 6 kids) I thought her dresses were fantastic (she did one heckuva runway show) … I would have said Kara Saun, but I think she may be a bit much. Christian would have been WAY much.

I agree that TOO far below the knee looks dowdy, but there’s something about hitting 40 that makes anything more than 1” above-the-knee look like “mutton dressed as lamb”. I like just hiting below the kneecap - you get the full shape of the calf without the middle-age-wrinkly-knee.

By The Other Jack

January 21, 2009 10:25 AM | Link to this

USinUk

I didn’t notice the “gathering in the middle”. I agree that long and lean is her look. Megan Kelly, FOX’s party anchor girl was wearing the dress that Ms. Obama should have worn. (And then Megan would have been naked . . a win / win.)

I have never worn a dress, but I never saw much more warmth with a long dress or a short one. They all let cold air in from the bottom. (I was just kidding about the cheerleading outfits, but last Saturday, I was in a club and a very attractive woman wore a white, short, pleated skirt ((with heels!!!!)) and she was the attention of every man in the place. Men are individuals from the neck up. From the neck down, we’re the same guy.)

Laura Bush has done a lot with education and women’s health issues. I think Hillary just went power crazy which probably hurt her ability to get anything done. Society is simply going to require Ms. Obama to be more involved.

By Gale

January 21, 2009 10:27 AM | Link to this

I guess if Michelle’s dress is the worst thing we have to say about yesterday, then it all went off very well (idiot talking heads excepted).

By Lyrazel

January 21, 2009 10:38 AM | Link to this

:giggles at the profound Mr. Gandalf making fashion comments.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 21, 2009 10:41 AM | Link to this

Mara, the word Dowdy is appropriate to describe Michelle, as are words such as frumpy, bitter, and HAG… my son asked what this word meant while was while reading a gaming mag, and right there on the TV was Michelle “for the first time in my adult life, proud to be an american” Obama in the HORRIBLE gown. The good Lord kept me from sharing my thoughts with my son, but you adults here will surely see how appropriate HAG is when describing Michelle!

By USinUK

January 21, 2009 10:43 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

I just read Megan Kelly in her green dress described as “dishy”, so you aren’t alone on that appraisal!

having worn both long and short dresses on a cold day, all I can say is that every extra inch of fabric helps! (mentally if not physically)

“Men are individuals from the neck up. From the neck down, we’re the same guy.)”

HAhahahah.

Gale -

“I guess if Michelle’s dress is the worst thing we have to say about yesterday, then it all went off very well (idiot talking heads excepted).”

very true … I’ve seen no hay being made about the oath kerfuffle by anyone other than those who also see black helicopters

did everyone see the Luckovich cartoon today? classic.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 21, 2009 10:46 AM | Link to this

Mrs. George W. Bush will be a tough act to follow, say what you want about her husband, but she did a bang up job as First Lady.

By USinUK

January 21, 2009 10:58 AM | Link to this

GtG -

I totally agree … she did a great job promoting education, literacy and women’s health and wellness. She’s also had her feet on the ground in Africa promoting health and education.

By Lyrazel

January 21, 2009 11:11 AM | Link to this

middle-age knee wrinkly knee syndrome? Tell me you are not serious, lady! Of all the things that have degraded women the biggest has been the fashion industry adopting the pre-teen emaciated body as standard for beauty and all the vacuous bimbettes willing to botox their faces until turning to cement. Why should anyone need to hide the fact they are not twenty-one? Think about all the crap the industry has done to women? Anyone around who has botoxed their knee caps yet?

The body is a lovely temple even when old and wrinkled.

By USinUK

January 21, 2009 11:29 AM | Link to this

Lyra -

wow. easy there, cowgirl! I don’t think that anyone needs to hide the fact that they aren’t 21 - I think there are some butt-kicking women out there who are 40+ (and 50+ and 60+) and FABulous! and, frankly, I mourn the fact that, thanks to plastic surgery, we’re going to see fewer and fewer of our favorite leading ladies aging gracefully - rather, they’re going to start looking like they came from another planet.

on the flip-side of that, I see nothing wrong with dressing stylishly for your age - the only thing worse than seeing someone who is in her mid-40s trying to look like she is in her mid-20s is seeing someone in her mid-20s dressing like her mom.

(by the by, if you haven’t seen the picture of Michelle’s dress from this morning’s prayer service at the National Cathedral, check it out. she’s FAB!)

lastly, yes, people are getting “knee-lifts” - http://www. mybeautifulbody.com/ procedures/liposuction/ankles.asp

sad, but true.

By American Woman

January 21, 2009 11:52 AM | Link to this

According to CNN, the awesome dress/jacket combo was “lemongrass” — a great color that not everyone can wear! Loved the green shoes & gloves too. (If you men think you’re cold, try wearing a dress, pantyhose, & pumps downtown on a cold, windy day and walking a few blocks! Brrr…) The ball gown was a bit prom-ish, but I’d rather see her err on the side of prom-ish than something weirdly edgy that borders on s!ut-ish. Dignity accomplished!

If I have to get lifted, nipped, tucked, & injected to receive love past 40…. well, I don’t think that’s actually love, so I’ll pass. Whatever one gets for investing that kind of money and pain into such self-mutilation, I hope it’s worth it for them, but if it isn’t love, I don’t see how it could be.

By The Other Jack

January 21, 2009 12:19 PM | Link to this

USinUK

did everyone see the Luckovich cartoon today? classic.

I think he is in trouble. The cartoon was true, but his attraction is his very pointed and angry attacks. He won’t attack Obama.

I watched Jon Stewart the other night and I felt sorry for him. He doesn’t have any material. He looked more terrified with each unfunny dig. Leno is searching for material and Letterman is just his silly self again, which was losing ratings like crazy until he became political.

Look for a lot of changes in our entertainment media. We will se a lot more “historical movies” like the Frost / Nixon thing that is on.

By Mara

January 21, 2009 12:22 PM | Link to this

USinUK - “I would have said Kara Saun, but I think she may be a bit much. Christian would have been WAY much.”

How about Andre? Loved !LOVED! his gutter-water gown in season 2. I do like Laura’s designs, but they’re a tad, uh…low cut?…for daywear…IMO. Kara Saun does nice clothes, but I HATE that she absolutely MUST use fur on every garment. There are really nice, plush, luxurious faux’s out there now. She should consider trying some of those.

and — “…the middle-age-wrinkly-knee.”

aw man!! Another thing I have to worry about. Ain’t it enough that my bosoms are going to start sagging soon? And now I have to worry about wrinkles on my KNEES!?? LOL! Somebody has a really messed up sense of humor.

By The Other Jack

January 21, 2009 12:25 PM | Link to this

American woman

Promish. Perfect. That is the description.

Did you know that when most guys go duck hunting, the coldest and most miserable thing a person could ever do, we wear panty hose under our clothes to help keep us warm?

Cold weather just sux. If I don’t see a palm tree soon, they will find me twitching on the floor.

By USinUK

January 21, 2009 12:28 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

Frost/Nixon started here on the West End 2 years ago - then went to B’way last year - HUGE successes for both. I’ll be interested to see how it does in the cinemas (frankly, when times are tough, does anyone want to be reminded of other bad times??)

As for Luckovich - he had a lot of fun with Clinton, as well (Bill AND Hillary, for that matter) - he always made Bill’s nose look like a butt.

As for John Stewart and the rest - last night WAS hard for them - how do you make comedy gold out of such a perfect day??

If there’s one thing I believe in, it’s that everyone, D and R alike, does stupid stuff - there will always be fodder, regardless of who is in office. (and, don’t forget - there’s always Congress - talk about a rich source for material!)

By Lyrazel

January 21, 2009 12:40 PM | Link to this

Uk, not being critical of anything but an industry that demoralizes older women; not of you. I would comment that she is one of the few black women in public without a hair dye job and its beautiful she has enough pride in her self to not succumb to dictates of the industry. My hope is she can turn this youth-fashion-obsessed country into one pursuing higher education. Maybe we will see fewer blondes… one can only hope. However, she did make the largest fashion blunder (and I really wonder why the AJC has not put it into headlines as they have previously) by wearing white shoes after labor day. Wink wink to ya, lady.

By USinUK

January 21, 2009 12:41 PM | Link to this

Mara …

sorry, but the first thing I think of with Andre … no, the first TWO things I think of with Andre is 1) his total breakdown on the first challenge (could you imagine if he got “the call” from Michelle?) and 2) where the HELL is my chiffon!!!

but, yes, the water gown was absolutely GORGEOUS.

Laura had nothing going on up top - that’s why all her stuff could be so low cut (nothing to fall out!). Kara Saun did a lot of REALLY low-cut stuff, too. But, come on … don’t you think Michelle would have looked stunning in Laura’s dress: http:// img. timeinc.net/ people/i/2006/stylechannel/blog/061030/projectrunway3400x300.jpg

By USinUK

January 21, 2009 12:47 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

I believe you are old enough to remember Joe Naimeth (sp?) making headlines for saying that football players wear pantyhose under their uniforms to keep warm!

Well, now there is MANTYhose!

http:// www. stylelist.com/ blog/2008/07/28/mantyhose-were-serious/

(I can’t see my very “good ol’ boy” brother-in-law suiting up on those to go sit in a deer stand)

By Gale

January 21, 2009 12:51 PM | Link to this

TOJ: panty hose under our clothes The opperative word is “under”. Try wearing only the panty hose. To be honest, the walk down Penn was exposed and took chutzpah in more ways than one. I bet the secret service guys were sweating out those five blocks.

By The Other Jack

January 21, 2009 12:52 PM | Link to this

USinUK

We’ll see. Personally, I think that most of the entertainment industry that has emerged over the last eight years made a living off Bush. He’s gone. And Bush never “”got it”. Reagan got it. The media hated Reagan (remember how he kept them behind the ropes at shouting distance from him?) so he was savvy enough to know how to starve them for material. Bush just didn’t care, especially there at the end.

O’Rielly was actually very complimentary last night Didn’t like the MSM’s coverge and the drooling commentary did get old two weeks ago.

Megan Kelly is such a babe. She is rather loud mouthed, almost a tom boy (sure doesn’t walk like a Tom boy) and somebody that would be a blast to go drinking with. Yes, that dress looked great, but I would love to take a year and try to find something that would look bad on her. She reminds me of one of my best friends in high school. We dated in college but to be honest, being friends and getting into trouble in high school are my best memories of her.

By USinUK

January 21, 2009 12:53 PM | Link to this

TOJ, I can’t do much, but I can do this for ya:

http:// www. byron-bay-beaches.com/ images/tropical-beach.jpg

By Gale

January 21, 2009 12:55 PM | Link to this

Make panty hose in a camo design, no problem for the deer hunters. :->

By USinUK

January 21, 2009 1:00 PM | Link to this

Gale -

” I bet the secret service guys were sweating out those five blocks.”

cereal!

okay, I’m heading home … laters, taters!

By The Other Jack

January 21, 2009 1:04 PM | Link to this

USinUK

(I can’t see my very “good ol’ boy” brother-in-law suiting up on those to go sit in a deer stand)

You should ask him. I’ll bet he does.

BTW. I’m a fan of Nixon (He fought to end Viet Nam and did) and Ron Howard. It is the conundrum of living in the US right now.

By The Other Jack

January 21, 2009 1:33 PM | Link to this

USinUK

My last trip to the tropics was to several islands but my favorite was called Hopetown. (Any search engine will take you there) It has this great old lighthouse that burns kerosene and is turned by the same kind of mechanism that makes a grandfather clock work. But the weights for the lighthouse are cannon balls from a pirate ship.

The island also has a huge population of ferrel cats. An old woman had raised hundreds and when she died the government had them all fixed. but the island is covered with these great, friendly cats.

No cars are allowed on the tiny island. (golf carts) No airport. There is a small maritime museum and of course about five really great small bars, a few shops with clothes and jewelry. On one side of the island is that crystal clear bathtub of the Abacos and on the other side is the bottomless, dark depths of the cold Atlantic.

Too small for cruise ships, but it is a great stop-off for private sailboats. We were shooting a show about a company that promotes sailing trips for tourists. I think about 5 grand puts you on a 55 foot Catamaran with your own experienced Captain for a week. It sleeps six plus the captain and mate, so that makes it about $800 a head which is actually really great.

We had to insist on spending the night ashore because of battery issues and the fact that we were also shooting nightlife, but the non-crew guys slept on board. There were drawbacks for them. We had a fresh shower every morning before we set sail for the day, but they didn’t. Most of the tourists cooked and basically lived on board the boats. (We had three boats. The crew got our own) We threw a “shower party” on Wednesday night in Great Guana Cay because we had rented two, four bedroom condos and there were showers galore, so we shared.

Man, i really love those kinds of trips. A lot of brits love those private sailing trips. You guys should look into it.

I really need to concentrate on getting another show like that.

By Mara

January 21, 2009 1:41 PM | Link to this

Gale - I bet the secret service guys were sweating out those five blocks.

I don’t disagree but it’s a widely known ‘secret’ that Obama’s suit was manufactured with bullet-resistant material.

“According to Caballero, many of his garments offer more than three levels of ballistic protection and they are about seven times more flexible than the Kevlar vests that are usually worn. Designers that use Kevlar tie together dense strands of the material…”

see more at — blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/01/president-oba-1.html

and since nobody else has mentioned it today…I thought it was kinda nice that our new president saw fit to publically acknowlege the existance of agnostics, atheists, humanists and other non-believing Americans. Another first on a day filled with them.

By Gale

January 21, 2009 1:59 PM | Link to this

I noticed the mention of non-believers. I also noticed the missing Buddists. There are quite a few in our area. But everyone can’t be mentioned. It was a very large number of recognized religions when the military was having an issue recently. I noticed a mention of equality that did not specifically mention gays, but I was wondering. All in all, I was glad I read his speach before listening. When I read it, I was imagining how he might deliver the speach, being such a talented orator. I confess it brought tears to my eyes just reading it. His team of speach writers and what ever fine tuning Obama added himself made it a great speach. However, when I head the speach on the radio while driving home, I was actually disappointed by the delivery. Maybe it was the cold. Maybe it was a worry about being heard and understood by the thousands listening to loudspeakers. But I thought the delivery was a bit choppy. When I read it, hearing his voice in my head, I thought there it unlikely there was a dry eye on the mall.

By Gale

January 21, 2009 2:03 PM | Link to this

Mara, bullet proof clothes? really? But remember Kennedy was a head shot. I noticed the glass surrounding the podium yesterday looked about two inches thick.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 21, 2009 2:50 PM | Link to this

Gale the CIA killed him! For the Bay of Pigs, and his little brother too!

By Gale

January 21, 2009 3:13 PM | Link to this

GTW, The I guess Obama is safe from the CIA. He hasn’t done anything with foreign relations yet.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 21, 2009 3:25 PM | Link to this

Safe as a baby in his Momma’s arms. Not his daddy’s, Barry’s dad, well, he, abandoned? yes that’s it abandoned young Barry, that’s why Barry thougtht it was OK to smoke pot and do every drug except H, and join a racist AFRIKA first church in Chicago, and pal around with unrepentant terrorists and say that the terrorists did that when Barry was a kid so it don’t count. Well BARRY no black man or woman has been a slave in the US since before 1866, get over it, it’s done. Though if his mommma was as fugly as Michelle, I might have banged and ran as well. As for me, I am glad a man of color can become elected, just very sad it was this particular one.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 21, 2009 3:51 PM | Link to this

BARRY! HE’s SCARY!

By lozen

January 21, 2009 5:02 PM | Link to this

From the optimism and thankfulness of a new day in the USA I come to check this blog. Oh God. This blog is just as bad as it’s ever been! Gandalf the White: you are the one that’s scary. “I might have banged and run too.” You don’t even recognize what this statement says about you! You are pitiful. You must have been brought up in a h-ll of a family to spout the crap you have the gall to spout. You are so deep in your disgusting hole and it’s just too bad you have access to a computer and we women have to be subjected to your gross thinking! We have a new president who asks us, not to go out and shop to show what good citizens we are, but to go out and make the world a better place. Hallelujah. We have a new president who wants the USA to take back our place in the world as a haven for freedom, law and democracy. I am so inspired as are millions of others. Even I, unbeliever in an invisible, old testament god, was included yesterday in his speech. Crawl back in the hole GTW. Nobody wants to hear your crap.

By Billy

January 22, 2009 8:20 AM | Link to this

Buddhists could still be considered nonbelievers. Buddha isn’t a god. He’s just the first to achieve enlightenment. Furthermore, the individual ceases to exist when final enlightenment is achieved.

What did the buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?

“Make me one with everything.”

By Gale

January 22, 2009 8:45 AM | Link to this

I guess one could say that about Buddism. There are a number of organized religions that are non-theist. But I think it is wrong to lump them together with “nonbelivers”. Often when a Christian says that, they mean “not accepting Jesus” specifically, or not accepting a “god” or supreme being.

By USinUK

January 22, 2009 9:15 AM | Link to this

Billy - ““Make me one with everything.”” - YAY!!! I love that!

I’d love to be a Buddhist, except for the fact that 1) I like meat and 2) I don’t like bugs and kill them whenever possible (especially slugs)

TOJ - re: beaches. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the TV show, “Life” - it stars the guy who played Maj Winters in Band of Brothers, a major-league redhead. His character wins a multi-million dollar lawsuit, but he continues to work as a detective - his partner says that, if she had won that kind of money, she’d buy a place on the beach. He just looked at her and said, “Do I look like I tan?”

That’s me. As I’ve said before, I’m so white, I glow in the dark. It’s why the Mister and I don’t reproduce - we’d actually evolve backwards - our offspring would burst into flame in direct sunlight.

While I see the attraction of the beach, give me a river in the woods ANYtime.

Mara -

“I thought it was kinda nice that our new president saw fit to publically acknowlege the existance of agnostics, atheists, humanists and other non-believing Americans. Another first on a day filled with them.”

I agree. finally, the folks who check “other” have been recognized!

As for Warren’s invocation, it was better than I expected - but I just wish he hadn’t included the Lord’s Prayer or closed it in Jesus’ name. HE might be Christian, but there are a lot of people in this nation who aren’t - and they just got shut out.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 9:16 AM | Link to this

LOZEN, I was just personalizing what Barry’s father did. Abandoned his son…do you deny that this happened? The statement says nothing about me and everything about who you elected to office. You and all who voted for this man are the pitiful ones.
We have a new president who wants the USA to take back our place in the world as a haven for freedom, law and democracy. So explain how you are going to do this by: closing GITMO, denying interrogation techniques that work, and giving back Iraq to despotism?
Time will prove to you that I am right, just like Carter and his socialist idea’s the country will be reeling from the blows that this ASSHAT has bestowed upon us and the world. Trust me, you’ll say why did we vote for him anyway? Then he will go to join Carter, Arafat and the “alGore” as winners of the Ignoble Piece Prize.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 9:19 AM | Link to this

Oh, Lozen, Jesus loves you and Barry too! He would sit down and have a drink with Barry, as he loves to hang with the sinners. And Lozen, you have to admit, that MRS. Barry Obama is pretty fugly, don’t you?

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 9:39 AM | Link to this

Did Barry say so help me God? I was working so I couldn’t watch….

By USinUK

January 22, 2009 10:07 AM | Link to this

GtG -

“Did Barry say so help me God? I was working so I couldn’t watch….”

funny enough, no - he said Allahu Akbar, then threw off his tie and put on a kaffiyah - just like he did in your imagination.

too bad you missed it.

By Gale

January 22, 2009 10:08 AM | Link to this

He did say that, GTW. I wouldn’t and I am still curious how this country will react to a nonbeliever as President, when and if it ever happens.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 10:19 AM | Link to this

Gale thanks! EXPAT-not even in my wildest imagination would he do that, at least at his first coron…. I mean inaguration.

Why do you think I would think he would stop lying to the American people now? Oh, he doesn’t lie, he just states “HOPE” “YES WE CAN” and then sidesteps any real answer. Answers are above his paygrade, all he does is hope! :-)

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 10:19 AM | Link to this

Gale thanks! EXPAT-not even in my wildest imagination would he do that, at least at his first coron…. I mean inaguration.

Why do you think I would think he would stop lying to the American people now? Oh, he doesn’t lie, he just states “HOPE” “YES WE CAN” and then sidesteps any real answer. Answers are above his paygrade, all he does is hope! :-)

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 10:28 AM | Link to this

Gale, if an aethist or agnostic is ever elected, at least we won’t have to worry about who give the invocation! Rick Warren and the Homosexual Bishop, (Which is strange to me, most Roman Cathlic Bishops are homosexual, or at least some of them are, and no one makes a big deal about it, I guess it’s the actually doing the homosexual act that makes it a sin in their eyes…???) will both be left out in the cold! Blow up the National Cathedral, or turn it into a museum!

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 10:28 AM | Link to this

Gale, if an aethist or agnostic is ever elected, at least we won’t have to worry about who give the invocation! Rick Warren and the Homosexual Bishop, (Which is strange to me, most Roman Cathlic Bishops are homosexual, or at least some of them are, and no one makes a big deal about it, I guess it’s the actually doing the homosexual act that makes it a sin in their eyes…???) will both be left out in the cold! Blow up the National Cathedral, or turn it into a museum!

By USinUK

January 22, 2009 10:31 AM | Link to this

GtG -

“not even in my wildest imagination would he do that”

I find that hard to believe …

By USinUK

January 22, 2009 10:34 AM | Link to this

hey … is it me, or is this Day 2 of Ain’t No Sunshine …

do we think there’s a little Sunshine Sproglet newly arrived???

for her sake, I hope so - she sounded miserable on Tuesday …

By USinUK

January 22, 2009 10:39 AM | Link to this

GtG -

“I guess it’s the actually doing the homosexual act that makes it a sin in their eyes…???”

jsyk … yes, that’s exactly it. the Catholic church has said that it thinks people are homosexual due to genetics/nature - the problem is that any sex outside of marriage is a sin, and since gays can’t get married, then the act of homosexuality is a sin.

unless you want to be celibate. then you’re okay.

which makes as much sense as their edict that you can use a condom for protection againse disease, but you can’t use it for birth control.

By Gale

January 22, 2009 10:54 AM | Link to this

Gandalf, Well in my wildest immagination… If I was the Prez taking the oath, I would simply say it as it is in the Constitution. As for prayers at the the innaugeration; they are traditional, but not proscribed. I would leave them off, although I think it would be good to have someone speaking who offers a spiritual, non-religious message. I would not blow up the National Cathedral. I might attend the traditional prayer service, but only if all my advisors desired it. I have no doubt it is a place where one can find a reverential and meditative perspective on life. A new president surely needs that. But since the prayer meeting usually involves a lot of people speaking prayes aloud, I personally would not find it very helpful. Silence and the surroundings would be best for me. I think a lot of the religiosity around the traditions of the innaugeration are just for show.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 11:08 AM | Link to this

So, EXPAT…all the Priest should come out of the closet and get married to each other? Or it’s a noble profession? I didn’t get your jist, I am an EX cathlic, and hold no bad feeling about them, and I have always respected the choice that priest and nuns and monks for that matter make. As for Sunshine’s affliction, I pray that it makes it from disease state to human state quickly and safely, so the obamanation can begin to raise it as He sees fit. How long will Funshine take off? 3 weeks? PLENTY NUFF time to raise a kid. FUNSHINE WILL BE TOO BUSY POSING FOR HER BREASTESES PICTURE ON FACEBOOK TO POST, DARN!

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 11:11 AM | Link to this

fun fun that Barrry did the oath again in his office correctly away from the cameras. EXPAT? Is that where he used the Koran? And said allah is the one true god and mohammed is his profit margin? We will never know, but MAYBE, he had Robert’s blow it on purpose, so he could do it his way behind closed doors….MUAAAAAHAHAHA

By Sunshine

January 22, 2009 11:12 AM | Link to this

Hello Everyone!

No, I am still here!! I am just training my temp so no Blog time! No news yet! I have an ultrasound tomorrow to see what the little guy is up to, and I can’t wait! What a great day to be an American! Tuesday was awesome! Beautiful family, great music, democracy in action! Got to run! BTW, I loved both of the First Ladies Dresses, I can’t wait to see her style from here on out! I like that it’s not the run-of-the-mill/plain-jane stuff!

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 11:14 AM | Link to this

Barry makes Bill look sincere!

“Unbelievable…Obama Becomes First President To Skip the “Salute To Heroes” Ball No time for Medal of Honor and Purple Heart recipients or paralyzed vets? Yeah, honeymoon…over.

From This Ain’t Hell…

According to TSO who was at the “Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball”, this newly sworn-in President for the first time in 56 years blew off the ball (that’s 14 Inaugurations). Some background on the ball;

The American Legion sponsors the ball, which recognizes recipients of Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award. It started in 1953 for President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first inauguration.

Event co-sponsors include 13 other veterans service organizations, among them the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.

Obama did manage to make it to the Commander in Chief’s Ball which was a good thing. Of course in 2005 George W. Bush managed to find time to make it to both balls. Of course, he didn’t have the MTV and Neighborhood Balls as options. Kanye West was at one of them. How can you skip Kanye for some Medal of Honor winners? Dude!

Have I mentioned how much I miss W. despite all my problems with him? If not… God I miss that man.

BTW, Bush started the CiC Ball in 05 to honor active duty members of the military and several hundred Wounded Warriors. Last night FNC sent Megyn Kelly to cover it. I’m guessing the troops appreciated that. Well done Fox!

Be sure to take a minute to read TSO’s post on his night with these great Americans. “

By USinUK

January 22, 2009 11:21 AM | Link to this

GtG -

if you please … they’re called breasticles.

the more folkses who come out of the closet, the better, I think (Sen. Graham, you listening???) … as for priests/nuns/monks - I understand the theory behind the Catholic Church’s decision to require an unmarried life (easier to move around, you can devote your life to God without restraint) … but, I think it should be a matter of choice, not a requirement. And, frankly, I think that being in a committed relationship with another person would help most priests when it comes to a lot of the counseling they’re asked to do.

I mean. would you go to a mechanic who has made a vow never to drive a car?

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 11:38 AM | Link to this

EXPAT, I stand corrected, my bad! The walking mechanic…there has to be a joke there…good point! In that case I am glad I am an ex Cathlic and now I talk with a “mechanic” “that Drives!” AND as a bonus, no more “Bless me father for I have sinned, my last confession was 1 week ago, I called Sunshine and the eldest of eighth graders “[{DUM BASSES!]}” on WTW, for these and all my sins I am sorry” “My son, they are both Dum BASS’s but you needn’t alway tell them so, do 6 Hail Marys and listen to side 1 album 2 of Tommy the rock opera by the Who “

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 11:38 AM | Link to this

EXPAT, I stand corrected, my bad! The walking mechanic…there has to be a joke there…good point! In that case I am glad I am an ex Cathlic and now I talk with a “mechanic” “that Drives!” AND as a bonus, no more “Bless me father for I have sinned, my last confession was 1 week ago, I called Sunshine and the eldest of eighth graders “[{DUM BASSES!]}” on WTW, for these and all my sins I am sorry” “My son, they are both Dum BASS’s but you needn’t alway tell them so, do 6 Hail Marys and listen to side 1 album 2 of Tommy the rock opera by the Who “

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 11:38 AM | Link to this

EXPAT, I stand corrected, my bad! The walking mechanic…there has to be a joke there…good point! In that case I am glad I am an ex Cathlic and now I talk with a “mechanic” “that Drives!” AND as a bonus, no more “Bless me father for I have sinned, my last confession was 1 week ago, I called Sunshine and the eldest of eighth graders “[{DUM BASSES!]}” on WTW, for these and all my sins I am sorry” “My son, they are both Dum BASS’s but you needn’t alway tell them so, do 6 Hail Marys and listen to side 1 album 2 of Tommy the rock opera by the Who “

By USinUK

January 22, 2009 11:50 AM | Link to this

GtG -

shouldn’t that be “drink 6 Bloody Marys” and listen to side 1 album 2 of Tommy …?

(and, yes, I’m a former Catholic, as well … so I can say that)

By Mara

January 22, 2009 12:20 PM | Link to this

not that it’s important, but Bishop Robinson isn’t Catholic, he’s Episcopalian (or, IYP, Catholic Lite. All the ceremony but only half the guilt).

and regarding an atheist CiC…that seems VERY unlikely in my lifetime. According to the most recent poll I’ve seen, only 45% of poll respondants would even consider casting a vote for an atheist. IOW, 55% of the United States electorate would NEVER, under any circumstance, vote for one.

By The Other Jack

January 22, 2009 12:29 PM | Link to this

Gandalf

How can you skip Kanye for some Medal of Honor winners? Dude!

Get used to it, Pal. He closed Gitmo this morning. Chances are, the vast majority of those people will be moved down the street to the Atlanta Federal Pen. (We are the largest anti-terrorism facility in the country) That means that they will be tried here in the Federal Courthouse. I wonder if we can talk Brother Barry into visiting us here in Atlanta during those trails? We can’t protect a setting judge from a common thug and our police will be charged to protect this city from hundreds of mass murderers.

Bend over America.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 12:32 PM | Link to this

EXPAT: If I drink 6 Bloody Mary’s I won’t be able to listen to anything…So in the perfect world (that one without Barry) “Drink 2 Bloody Mary’s and 2 Old Grand Dad’s and listen to Side TWO of Led Zepplin (for you neophytes, that would be Led Zepplin I)”

By Sunshine

January 22, 2009 12:48 PM | Link to this

AMERICA, PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS STARTED TO RETURN YOUR HONOR!!!! Hurray for being an American today! YEAH FOR CHANGE!!!

From ABC:

“In a meeting with retired military officers today, President Obama signed three new executive orders, one of which calls for shutting down the controversial Guantanamo Bay detention center in a year’s time, as first reported by ABC News Wednesday.”

“The orders will also shut down CIA detention centers around the world, establish an interagency task force and a procedure to be worked out with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the attorney general through which the Obama administration will decide what to do with the detainees going forward, and require all U.S. interrogators to adhere to rules in the Army Field Manual.”

“I was clear throughout this campaign and have been clear throughout this transition that under my administration, the states do not torture,” Obama said at a press conference two weeks ago. “We will abide by the Geneva Conventions that we will uphold our highest values and ideals.”

::CARTWHEELS!::

By Mara

January 22, 2009 12:58 PM | Link to this

“He closed Gitmo this morning”

no he didn’t. The order he signed today authorizes the closure of Gitmo WITHIN THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS. It’s not like he called up Rear Admiral Thomas and told him to lock the gates and start packing everybody up for their Club Med vacations.

What he’s done is set up a task force that would have 30 days to recommend policies on handling terror suspects who are detained in the future and where Guantanamo detainees should be housed once it has closed. There’s a lot to be done before Guantanamo can close, including what to do with those folks like the 17 Uigher dissidents who even the DoD admits AREN’T GUILTY OF ANYTHING. They remain in prison ONLY because China won’t take ‘em back. Some cases are clear cut. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, brought to Guantanamo in 2006 from CIA custody, has claimed responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks. He said he wants to be executed to achieve martyrdom (I say put him in put him in the SuperMax and let him rot). But on the other end of the spectrum are men even the Pentagon acknowledges are no threat. Switzerland has indicated that they might be willing to take some, as has Portugal, France and Germany. But nothing has been signed yet.

Once those issues are resolved, THEN Gitmo can be closed. But that day ain’t today.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 1:03 PM | Link to this

So TRUE TOJ, SO TRUE! BOHICA! and FUBAR come to mind!

By Mara

January 22, 2009 1:08 PM | Link to this

more on the Gitmo issue -

Muhammad Saad Iqbal is a free man after serving more than six years at the U.S. military’s detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — without any charge.

Now, Iqbal is suing the U.S. government for unlawful detention.

“I am angry in my heart,” Iqbal said in a recent interview. “It’s easy for the U.S. government to say, ‘There are no charges found and he’s free.’

“But who will be responsible for seven years of my life?”

[snip]

The Pakistani citizen was taken into U.S. custody in January 2002 while visiting family in Indonesia. He was reportedly arrested after talking about making a shoe bomb, something he denies.

“I never (made) that statement,” Iqbal said. “But they have (said) a lot of things, like I went to Afghanistan, but they have no proof.”

By USinUK

January 22, 2009 1:10 PM | Link to this

Mara -

(I say put him in put him in the SuperMax and let him rot).

I say put him in a woman’s prison. now, THAT’S retribution.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 1:13 PM | Link to this

I say we torture the detainee’s to death. Waterboard them in the Atlantic with a pair of cement shoes. We can take them half way between Florida and Cuba in a boat and let them walk home. Torture is listening to Barry’s speeches and looking at his Fugly wife.
So how would you like it Sunshine, if one of the GITMO detainees gets moved to Atlanta, and then is released and moves in next door to you? Would that be fine? YOU AND BARRY ARE BOTH “SMALL MOUTH BASSES”..(Father is that better? I think she still knows what I mean, but it’s less crass? OK, I’ll do 2 Bloody Marys and 2 Rare Breeds and listen to Rush 2112 side 1…thank you Father…)
Mara we know bishop Robinson belongs to a non mainstream religion, we were simply discussing the number of homosexuals in the Roman Cathlic Clergy and how it was a noble way to spend your life.

By USinUK

January 22, 2009 1:18 PM | Link to this

Mara-

and don’t forget that most of them were NOT “captured on the field of battle” (as O’Liely likes to say) - the majority of them were named by their neighbors … and I’m sure THEY’D never lie …

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 1:20 PM | Link to this

Poor Barry doesn’t understand the Geneva Convention! It doesn’t apply to terrorist! Silly, silly boy, in a man’s job!

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 1:24 PM | Link to this

EXPAT, they all are innocent little wall flowers! Be Free! Will England take them? Lot’s of Ragheads over there from what I have heard!

By Mara

January 22, 2009 1:46 PM | Link to this

“Mara we know bishop Robinson belongs to a non mainstream religion”

HA! Christianity is NOT a mainstream religion?! I did not know that. Considering that the Anglican/Episcopal denomination has the fourth largest membership of all Western CHRISTIANITY, one is forced to wonder if “mainstream” has lost any real sense of meaning.

By Gale

January 22, 2009 1:48 PM | Link to this

Mara, and less than 2000 years ago the major world power threw Christians to the lions.

By Gale

January 22, 2009 1:51 PM | Link to this

Sorry, I tossed out the Christians to the lions comment out without saying what the point is. The point is, opinions change. We are a very young country in the grand scheme of things. Religions evolve like every other cultural institution. OR, maybe the Rapture will carry away the faithful and there will be nothing left but the nonbelievers. :-)

By The Other Jack

January 22, 2009 1:51 PM | Link to this

Mara, USinUIK

Are you saying that all of the people held at Gitmo are innocent?

I’m very concerned because these people that the military has decided were so dangerous that they have kept them in a prison offshore on an island that is protected by battleships and fighter jets, these same people are going to be my new neighbors.

Atlanta Federal Pen is the prison that has been holding islamic terrorists for the last 20 years so you can bet the we get them all right here in our under-policed city. (Now who is it that runs this place? Is it Democrats in the City Hall or Republicans?)

And better yet, since the world is now ran by lawyers, they will be tried here. The city that cannot protect a setting judge from a common thug will be the focal point of every Islamic loonie in the world for months and probably years of public trials.

So no, he didn’t turn the key on the padlock that closed the gates at Gitmo. He did put into action a group of events that will include bringing the most dangerous, violent and most valuable prisoners in the world to the facility that is exactly 1.51 miles from my home. So I don’t really care when the padlock is closed. I’m sure you understand.

By USinUK

January 22, 2009 2:04 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

It’s 7p and I’m bleary-eyed from reconciling spreadsheets all day, so I’m going to be really short on this. If I don’t answer everythning, I’m just trying to hit the highlights before my head hits the desk.

First of all, the MILITARY didn’t decide these folks were so dangerous - that was an administration decision. Secondly, they have been imprisoned for 5+ years and deserve a trial and to hear the charges against them. Again, in many of these cases, these guys are being held simply because their neighbor turned them in. Would YOU like it if one of YOUR neighbors said you were a Klan member and you were imprisoned for 5 years without a trial, without legal representation and without even hearing the charges/evidence against you?

Lastly, Gitmo has already released HUNDREDS of people who were held for years - not everyone there is now or ever was a terrorist.

Above and beyond anything else, the US is supposed to stand for the Rule of Law. THAT is what Obama is trying to re-implement by ordering the Gitmo review and shut-down within the next 12 mos.

Going home now … have a good night!

By Mara

January 22, 2009 2:05 PM | Link to this

Gale - “OR, maybe the Rapture will carry away the faithful and there will be nothing left but the nonbelievers. :-)”

I don’t know which was the funnier satire on the Rapture, the episode of the Simpsons when Homer’s convinced he’s been “Left Below” or when the folks from My Name is Earl thought the end had come and moved into the dollar store. LOL! Hilarious.

TOJ - “Are you saying that all of the people held at Gitmo are innocent?”

nope. But at this point, there is no way to know for sure who is and who’s been tortured into confessing.

“I’m very concerned because these people that the military has decided were so dangerous that they have kept them in a prison offshore on an island that is protected by battleships and fighter jets, these same people are going to be my new neighbors.”

have you been drinking or do you just not pay attention? A very large portion of these people are NOT dangerous terrorists. THAT information comes from the DoD. Google it yourself and find the FACTS dear, before you get all hunkered down in that backyard bunker.

Outtie, buds. C-ya tomorrow.

By The Other Jack

January 22, 2009 2:09 PM | Link to this

Mara:

You seem to be a bit confused. The Geneva Conventions only apply to prisoners of war. But you claim that these guys were not prisoners of war.

The only thing that is said in the Conventions about non-combatants is this: Feigning of civilian or non-combatant status is perfidy and prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I. Art. 37, Sec. 1)

So you are saying that they have no protections from the Geneva Conventions. So by disagreeing with O’Rielly, you are agreeing with the policies that we have followed at Gitmo.

Is that what you meant to do?

By The Other Jack

January 22, 2009 2:13 PM | Link to this

USinUK

You still didn’t answer my question: Do you believe that all these guys are innocent? You just said that lots have been released. We are about to get the guys that weren’t released.

I would feel a lot better about that rule of law if these guys were housed and tried 1.51 miles from the White House instead of my house.

By Gale

January 22, 2009 2:28 PM | Link to this

I’ll bite, TOJ. I don’t think all the people in Gitmo are innocent. But I am willing to take the word of the interrogators who have been working on them for years. They are willing to say that “some” of the detainees are harmless.

By The Other Jack

January 22, 2009 2:30 PM | Link to this

Mara:

A very large portion of these people are NOT dangerous terrorists.

LOL!! Sorry. That doesn’t help. Do you have any idea of the numbers of really, really bad people that are also there? I don’t, but I was hoping that you do. There are thousands housed there so if only 100 are the worst of the worst, that means years of federal trials held here in Atlanta. I would need to be in a coma or dead to ignore that fact.

Maybe there will be so many that the fed will build a special facility for just those guys, but don’t count on it. We are getting screwed by Obama’s first action. Who knows. Maybe it will get better and we won’t get screwed by his next action.

By The Other Jack

January 22, 2009 2:39 PM | Link to this

Gale

Needless to say, I am not worried about the harmless ones.

I’m really worried about the trials. It’s a great big prison that will keep them secure, but the motorcades to the Federal Court House and the trials will be nuts.

Maybe they will go somewhere else, but I know for a fact that this prison is set up for Islamic prisoners and many aren’t. They have the translators, the food, etc. Maybe they will move everyone out of here, but I really doubt it.

By LaughoftheWeek

January 22, 2009 2:43 PM | Link to this

wow, let’s bring those Islamic Terrorists to Justice, just not in my back yard.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 2:43 PM | Link to this

Mara 2,154,572 folk are Episcopalians, that’s less than 1% of the US population. Episcopalians aren’t Anglicans. Baptist’s have 220,000,000 and Cathlics have over a billion, so mainstream was’nt the right word, CULT? that may be better. 26.7% of the US Population are evangelicals, like the Rev Warren. Espiscoplians are a sect fo Aglicanism, and a wacked out LIBERAL one at that. So Mainstream would be Cathlic (24%) or Evangelical, Sect would be the one you are talking about. YOUR SMALL MOUTH BASS! :-)

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 2:49 PM | Link to this

Food? What food? No different food for towel heads! That is ridiculous!

By Gale

January 22, 2009 3:02 PM | Link to this

That is entirely too much energy spent on label given for Episcopalians. Many people use the word religion when they mean sect or denomination. I know it is often difficult to see meaning behind the words on the display. BUt let’s not get so excited about it. When Obama’s green engineers discover how to convert keystrokes to electricity, Then we can fire up the keys over stuff like that.

By The Other Jack

January 22, 2009 3:02 PM | Link to this

laughofthefool

wow, let’s bring those Islamic Terrorists to Justice, just not in my back yard.

Exactly. if the idea of holding trials for some of the most dangerous people in the world who are members of some of the most dangerous organizations in the world, and holding those trials in one of the most under-policed city in the country doesn’t concern you, then laugh on. You will never understand.

By Gale

January 22, 2009 3:14 PM | Link to this

TOJ, Does Atlanta have fewer police per capita than LA, Chicago or New York, for instance? And, I wonder why, if that is so, why there are so many cops doing nothing more than direct (foul up) traffic in front of office buildings? (Not to mention the one that stopped me for a brake light that was burned out… in the daytime.) Don’t they have criminal activity to pay attention to?

By The Other Jack

January 22, 2009 3:47 PM | Link to this

Gale

I have been to so many safety meetings for my neighborhood. I don’t know what the numbers are, but i know that we just combined two police zones which means that enough police for one zone are now policing two. My neighborhood has now had to hire our own security patrol, as has Grant Park.

Shootings went crazy for about two weeks around here but one guy was shot six times in the chest before he hit the ground in East Atlanta because he tried to rob the wrong guy and that seems to have curtailed the street robberies for a little while.

i just bought my first gun. I own several that my Dad left me, but this one, I picked out. I could kill a truck with this gun.

By American Woman

January 22, 2009 3:53 PM | Link to this

“Do you believe that all these guys are innocent?”

In the United States of America, we generally answer this question via a little thing called DUE PROCESS, not by what some random citizen thinks after listening to a radio pundit or watching a couple of 4-second clips on the evening news. If we’re going to take away a person’s life, or portions thereof, we owe them this much. This is what makes us different from our enemies. Personally, I think it’s a good thing. Your ideas about America may differ.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 4:02 PM | Link to this

AMERICAN WOMAN WE ALLOW DUE PROCESS TO AMERICAN CITIZENS. DUH Not a citizen? Tough noggies! They do differ, in fact being holier than thy enemy, isn’t a good thing, it a selfish, egotistical thing. No more than an eye for an eye, and other Hammurabi verse come to mind. Waterboarding isn’t torture! Listen to Obama go on and on, that’s torture. Give me liberty or give me death, just remember the price of that liberty and freedom. It ain’t free.

By Gandalf, the White!

January 22, 2009 4:02 PM | Link to this

AMERICAN WOMAN WE ALLOW DUE PROCESS TO AMERICAN CITIZENS. DUH Not a citizen? Tough noggies! They do differ, in fact being holier than thy enemy, isn’t a good thing, it a selfish, egotistical thing. No more than an eye for an eye, and other Hammurabi verse come to mind. Waterboarding isn’t torture! Listen to Obama go on and on, that’s torture. Give me liberty or give me death, just remember the price of that liberty and freedom. It ain’t free.

By The Other Jack

January 22, 2009 4:07 PM | Link to this

American Woman

Great speech.

So how far do you live from the Atlanta Federal Pen?

How about the Federal Courthouse, downtown. Do you work close to that building?

I live almost exactly between the Pen and the federal courthouse. Personally, I would rather they get a fair trail on an island that is protected by battleships, submarines, helicopters and fighter jets. We are sort of tapped out here in Atlanta on battleships, submarines, helicopters and fighter jets. As you might remember, we can’t protect a setting judge from a common thug.

You may not be concerned about the attentions of some of the most dangerous organizations in the world, being focused here in Atlanta, This isn’t the Atlanta of 1996. Coca-Cola is not going to spend half billion to protect the city, again.

So let’s review.

The arguments presented when I pointed out that we are about to get some of the most dangerous people in the world who are members of the most dangerous organizations in the world are:

All of them are not dangerous.

And a couple of rousing sermons about the rights of individuals.

This is going to be a very interesting four years.

By USinUK

January 22, 2009 4:16 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

You still didn’t answer my question: Do you believe that all these guys are innocent? You just said that lots have been released. We are about to get the guys that weren’t released.

sorry. like I said - I’m running on fumes right now - been a muy long day in a muy long week.

do I think that ALL these guys are innocent? I don’t know - what I DO know is that we need a JUDICIAL PROCESS to find out and weed out the innocent from the not-so-much. Some may be innocent - obviously the (what? 5 guys??) that were in the middle of a tribunal last week may not be. If they’re not, then we need to deal with them in an appropriate manner.

fwiw I don’t think they should be killed and made martyrs. I think solitary confinement for the rest of their lives should do it.

as for the trial, my £££ is on Alexandria, VA, again - or somewhere around WDC, not Atlanta, if that makes you feel any better. That’s where Zacarias Moussaoui was tried.

By The Other Jack

January 22, 2009 5:05 PM | Link to this

USinUK

I can’t argue because it is total speculation that they may come here. I really do know a security contractor for the prison and he says that they are preparing for the worst of the worst. Of course he also swears that several guards have told him that Osama Bin Laden has been kept there since 2004.

I can see moving people from Gitmo and unlimited imprisonment is wrong, but this knee-jerk closing of a facility that has been used by every president since Roosevelt is nuts. We gained control in 1934 and it became a secure facility in 1958. Gitmo was not invented by GW Bush and he was certainly not the first president to put foreign detainees there.

Do you understand the evolution of War? A good example is the fact that during the Civil War, men fought in a Napoleonic Style. Shoulder to shoulder and marching into your enemy’s ranks was considered bravery until the repeating rifle was invented. At that point, it was just a matter of human slaughter.

Of course that was when America’s military had matured. When we fought the brits, only one side fought like a real army. They were very strict about the “moral” way to fight. What kind of barbarian would shoot at real soldiers who are observing the proper way to fight? It’s just not done. You might want to recall who won that war.

With 9-11, war was changed forever. It’s a lot more about intell and our enemies are doing the equivalent of colonist hiding behind rocks and shooting at the stupid brits that marched shoulder to shoulder, dressed in bright red.

We are the Brits and our high handed ideals are doing the same thing as the brit’s high handed ideals did about the way they fought. I know I will be crucified for saying it, but we are fighting a 21st century war with the tactics and false moral high ground that was used at Iwo Jima.

it is a very simple bottom line. Our sons and daughters are right now setting on a cliff in Afghanistan. Across the valley are the enemies of our country who live to kill those sons and daughters of America. Which side of the valley celebrated the closing of Gitmo?

By The Other Jack

January 23, 2009 8:40 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I have thought a lot about the post I wrote last night. I was wrong. We aren’t trying to fight a 20th century war in the 21st century. We were brutal as hell to our enemies during the 20th century. I listed Iwo Jima as an example of the way we fought. My Dad was at Iwo and he claimed that we had no problem killing anybody and everybody and the rules of war were for people in suits and dresses to worry about. They were just trying tto stay alive.

This idea of being kind to enemy combatants is simply nuts. it is rules made by bureaucrats and office workers who have never faced any sort of danger or have faced a person who’s information can kill hundreds of fellow soldiers.

But in this case, the really shameful thing is that media is now involved. We are deciding how we treat our brutal murdering enemies according to what the publishers at the NYT thinks.

American Woman gave the perfect post last night. A moving cry for kindness from a person who has never been in grave danger at the hands of other people in her life. Clean, nicely groomed people setting in offices with absolutely no combat experience dictating to the brave men and woman who put their lives on the line every day, how to conduct their business.

It’s war. They cut our heads off on camera for the amusement of their following and people setting in offices are telling our guys not to make the enemy “think” they are drowning.

They are laughing at us and we will probably lose this war because of this kind of complete nonsense..

,

By The Other Jack

January 23, 2009 8:42 AM | Link to this

And on the lighter side:

With all the sadness and trauma going on in the world at the moment, it is worth reflecting on the death of a very important person, which almost went unnoticed recently.

Larry LaPrise, the man that wrote “The Hokie Pokey” died peacefully at the age of 93.

The most traumatic part for his family was getting him into the coffin.

They put his left leg in…

And then the trouble started…….

By USinUK

January 23, 2009 8:48 AM | Link to this

Hi TOJ -

won’t be here long today - I’m in the weeds …

BUT, I disagree with your assessment of military history - there has been guerilla warfare even before the Revolutionary war - for instance, during the French and Indian war, both the English and the French actively recruited native americans to fight for their side … it wasnt’ so that they’d march side-by-side in regiment formation - it was so they could help ambush.

The same throughout history. the military saw its biggest changes during WWI - it was why the casualties were so high - they were fighting a higher-tech war using the same old “over the top” methods, leading to a higher casualty count. fast forwad to WWII and the German’s excessive use of mines (think of them as IEDs), and the guerilla tactics of the VC.

I understand what you’re saying - that the insurgents aren’t using Queensbury Rules for fighting - however, there’s one huge difference. the “insurgents” aren’t terrorists … they’re not the folks who flew into the WTC, or bombed Spain, London or went on a spree in India.

The bottom line is - we need to either find them guilty of a crime or we need to send them back from whence they came.

I’ll check back in if I can.

By American Woman

January 23, 2009 8:53 AM | Link to this

TOJ, first of all, you don’t know me and you don’t know what I’ve seen, so don’t presume to know. Second, if your premise is that war is hell, I agree with you. To kill those men where they stood would have been considered combat. Whether they were armed and resisting at the time presents a moral challenge that God and their commanders would have had to sort out for our soldiers. But they weren’t shot dead where they stood. They were captured and imprisoned with no trial. Holding an American citizen for a year without charges would be unthinkable. Someone captured in battle? Maybe not so unthinkable. But it’s been much longer than that. Judicious disposition, one way or another, is warranted for these humans, IMO. If you think that my believing in the American way is Un-American, then that’s YOUR opinion, and I’ll respectfully withhold my opinion of YOU here, since, contrary to what you seem to believe, not everything is about you and your own trembling fear of who might move in down the street from you.

By The Other Jack

January 23, 2009 9:12 AM | Link to this

American Woman

If you think that my believing in the American way is Un-American,

The only problem is that it is not the American way. It is the NYT’s way. It is the way of non-combatants. it is the way of people that have no business telling our soldiers how to fight a war. It is the teachings of self righteous fools who think that war is a game about rules.

not everything is about you and your own trembling fear of who might move in down the street from you.

Your ignorance is almost as funny as your self righteousness. I live on a street that is probably one of the most diverse street in the city. Don’t pretend to know me, half-wit.

Try for just one day, to get your fat head out of your very large butt and actually try to comprehend that every conservative is not the stereotype you have been told we all are by your indoctrination. Try, just for a day to not be the sanctimonious know-it-all that you pretend to be everyday.

Now please, let’s have that self-righteous sermon that is just a boilin’ under your finger tips.

By The Other Jack

January 23, 2009 9:13 AM | Link to this

USinUK

The problem is that terrorists do exist and yes, we have captured many of them.

By Gale

January 23, 2009 9:26 AM | Link to this

I wonder that you have the nerve to talk about stereotypes, TOJ. And can you for a while, refrain from insults while trying to discuss something with a person who disagrees with you.

The very ugly part of my soul thinks it would be easier to let the soldiers shoot everyone who even looks like a bad guy. Shoot them dead. Take no prisoners. Leave no witnesses. I think the same thing about the police force. Fortunately for me, I know that is wrong. We have a very contradictory nature when it comes to war and justice. I would not give orders like that to our soldiers. I don’t want to think about the stains on their consciences and souls if they ever became comfortable with that mode. That is the way of tribal warlords who will hack to bits anyone who is not one of their tribe. THat is not the way of a free people.

By American Woman

January 23, 2009 9:29 AM | Link to this

Ooooo, the he-man-woman-hater can’t make a point without calling me names. Nice, TOJ. If you need to be nasty to make a point, do you even HAVE one?

You were the one who expressed concern over the location of your house in relation to the Atlanta Federal Pen, not me. I don’t give a s—t where you live, but am glad to ascertain that it it not in my neighborhood.

The American way predates the NYT. Get off your assumption that “listening to the media” is everybody’s problem. As one who takes in many sources every day, refusing to blindly nod and clap to just one, I can say without hesitation that you are so far up Hannity’s butt that you haven’t made a single point that wasn’t on his show first. (I listened to his very special interview with Limbaugh this week. What a HOOT!)

No one here has said we should excuse terrorists for their actions, but only some of us think that the truth about those actions should be determined in a court of law AT SOME POINT before their entire lives are taken from them. I wonder why you have such a problem with the principles upon which this country was founded. Or is it just that when a woman speaks, you feel obligated to call us fat heads and fools. Hmmm… In any case, you’ve proven that you wish to have no reasonable discussion, so I’ll bid you Adieu. (That’s Frog talk for GFY,A.)

By Monica

January 23, 2009 9:34 AM | Link to this

Mornin’ everyone. Just had to stop by and tell y’all that I am chapped. Did you hear that the CEO of Merrill Lynch is under investigaion? He took a million dollars of bailout money to renovate his office. GEES!

If Congress had only listened to Mara and me, we could all be renovating our houses, or re-financing mortgages, or paying off credit card debt, or buying a new car, or going to Disney World. Oh well…

By American Woman

January 23, 2009 9:35 AM | Link to this

BTW, not that it’s pertinent, but since you brought it up, my butt is a very firm, cute size 4, and not large at all. Sexist pig.

By Gale

January 23, 2009 9:43 AM | Link to this

Mara, no doubt why the big financial houses are in such trouble. They no longer live in the real world. Geez, the economy and his company is coming down around his ears and he thinks it is a good time to renovate his office?

By chuck

January 23, 2009 9:49 AM | Link to this

Good morning everybody. I haven’t had time to check in lately, but I’m pretty sure you didn’t miss me too much.

So Mara, how much protesting did you do when Clinton actually pulled FBI files on Republicans so that he could smear them at election time?

While Code Pink may or may not advocate violence, their actions are anything BUT CIVIL. These are just a few of the things that they have done in the name of “PEACE”. Where are those “jack-booted thugs” when you need them?

September 21, 2006: Code Pink staged a peace march that blocked traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge. Code Pink received permits allowing them to march after the morning commute hours at 10:00am. Instead, the group began an illegal walk toward the center of the span at 7:30am. They left by 10:00am with no injuries or accidents reported.[8]

March 20, 2007: a Code Pink protester interrupted a Hillary Rodham Clinton fundraiser in Washington and was removed by security.[9] This was one of a series of Code Pink protests against Senator Clinton; a week later, five Code Pink members confronted her at the legislative-political conference of the Communications Workers of America.[10]

March 22, 2007: several Code Pink protestors were arrested outside the office of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi after announcing their intent to take over the office. Code Pink was protesting that the majority Democratic party had not stopped war funding.[11] September 10, 2007: Code Pink attended General David Petraeus’ testimony to Congress. Petraeus testified that security objectives in Iraq were largely being met and that a long-term effort there was needed. Members of Code Pink protested, interrupting the general’s testimony and were subsequently removed. Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) attempted to restore order and informed the protesters of possible legal ramifications of their actions. [12]

September 2007 onward: Code Pink began holding weekly counter-recruitment protests in front of the United States Marine Corps Officer Selection Office located in Berkeley, California.[13][14] These protests escalated into the broader Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Center controversy.

October 24, 2007: Desiree Ali-Fairooz approached Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with red paint on her hands and shouted “The blood of millions of Iraqis is on your hands!” She was immediately arrested.[15]

September 4, 2008: At the 2008 Republican National Convention, a Code Pink activist attempted to confront nominee John McCain onstage while he was giving his acceptance speech. Secret Service stopped the activist before she reached the stage.[16]

Code Pink has been the subject of criticism for actions at demonstrations at the Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, DC. The criticism has centered on the use of tactics such as displaying coffins and chanting aggressive slogans. Speaking of the displaying of coffins, Kevin Pannell, an amputee and former patient at the hospital said it “was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever. We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors’ guilt is the worst thing you can deal with.”

By The Other Jack

January 23, 2009 9:58 AM | Link to this

American Woman

Don’t post a comment about someone trembling in fear and then launch into a lecture about penning a nasty post. If you choose to do so, you might start to notice that when people get nasty with me, I will give it back, but be civil to me and I will return the civility.

Oh I’m sure you take in all sorts of media. And judging by your reaction to Hannity’s interview, I’m sure you are soooooo open minded when you hear the views that oppose your indoctrination.

I do apologize for mistaking what you said as meaning that I was afraid of different kinds of neighbors. But if you live in Atlanta and are not concerned about this, you just haven’t been paying attention.

Please explain to me what you define as The American Way. Putting the comfort of a person that hold information that could save American’s lives over the civil right of those Americans to live is definitely not the American way.

Then once you define what you claim to be the American way, please explain how we used The American Way to win WWII. You remember WWII. We ended it by dropping two nuclear weapons on two densely populated cities, killing more people (and they were civilians) in one instant than any other time in history. It was an event so horrible that even in this brutal world, it has never beeen repeated.

And you are worried about some slimeballl thinking he is drowning.

Don’t get me wrong. In this barbaric world, we still take the high road, but the big stick that Theodore Roosevelt talked about was his military and his willingness to beat whomever got in our way with that big stick. Like it or not, this is not a world that is dominated by sheep.

And lay pff the “woman as a victim” nonsense. The nail holes in your hands are sttarting to ooze a little. And Saturday is martyrdom day, not Friday. .

By chuck

January 23, 2009 10:04 AM | Link to this

BTW, anybody see the look Obama gave Biden yesterday when he made the crack about Chief Justice Roberts?

I would not be surprised if he fails to make it through the full 4-year term as VP. I think Obama has finally figured out what the rest of us already knew…Biden is an idiot. He has NO COMMON SENSE.

By The Other Jack

January 23, 2009 10:13 AM | Link to this

Gale

I agree that we need to take the high road. If it was up to me, I would take three prisoners, drown the first, shoot the second and then start the negotiations with the third. But that is not what we do. It is what they do.

We are talking about the humiliation of prisoners. Do you know anything about US State and Federal prisons. Prisoner humiliation is considered a tool. Everyone was shocked at the Abu Grabe photos of a terrified prisoner who was being threatened by an attack dog. Anybody ever watch C.O.P.S.? They don’t scare the 15 year old kid with the attack dog. They allow the dog to rip the skin off the kid.

People parallel waterboarding with what the terrorist do. THEY DECAPITATE A LIVING MAN ON CAMERA. WE WATCH THAT LIVING AMERICAN DIE IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA AND HE DIES IN A MOST HORRIBLE AND PAINFUL WAY.

Imagine that knife cutting through your jugular and then through your throat so you can no longer scream. Think about praying for death so you can escape that horrible treatment.

30 seconds after a person is waterboarded, they are fine, ready to kill again. And people feel the need to launch into sermons talking about the American Way.

It is so far beyond ridicules that it becoming completely insane. And now Obama closes Gitmo. Our president is allowing this kind of nonsense hysterics to steer his policies.

We are screwed.

By The Other Jack

January 23, 2009 10:23 AM | Link to this

Chuck

Obama is a 21st century state of the art politician. He is already showing that he will completely control his press. Biden will stay, but we will see him about once a year.

By chuck

January 23, 2009 10:36 AM | Link to this

Hey TOJ, do you think there is room in the attic of the whitehouse to keep him locked up?

By The Other Jack

January 23, 2009 10:43 AM | Link to this

Chuck

Nah. They built a nice house to keep the VP in. Locks on the outside.

It should be in pretty good shape by now. They had a hell of a time keeping Cheney locked up.

By chuck

January 23, 2009 10:46 AM | Link to this

What I can’t wait to see is how Barack HUSSEIN Obama responds the first time he doesn’t get his way. It appears to me that he believes he was elected to the office of DEITY rather than President. He is going to find out very soon that Congress has a mind of its own.

Here is my prediction for the next 2 years:

Congress will spend the next 2 years “INVESTIGATING” the Bush Administration. Nothing will come of it and Barack HUSSEIN Obama will have to just grin and bear the fact that he has not nearly as much control as he THOUGHT he would as Supreme being of America.