Thinking Right

By Bear

January 2, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

Dear Mr. Wooten:

Thank you for letting me use your playing field this weekend. It was instructive. I will now return to my home field. Some of your bloggers kept misidentifying me as a Greek philosopher, which only added to the sport and was quite a compliment because he seems to spin their gyros. I really enjoyed defending the First Amendment yesterday. Haven’t had a good First Amendment spat since the Homeland Security Act came into being. Thanks for letting me play through.

By On-looker

January 2, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

Dear Mr. Wooten:

Thank you for letting me use your playing field this weekend. It was instructive. I will now return to my home field. Some of your bloggers kept misidentifying me as a Greek philosopher, which only added to the sport and was quite a compliment because he seems to spin their gyros. I really enjoyed defending the First Amendment yesterday. Haven’t had a good First Amendment spat since the Homeland Security Act came into being. Thanks for letting me play through.

By jbmlaw

January 2, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

Good morning all, Happy New Year to all of our friends on the blog. As Jim argues so well, we are now, broadly, a nation whose citizens shirk personal responsibility. This is a topic where I have mixed feelings about nanny-government. I think back to our own parenting experience; while the good times greatly outnumbered the unhappy events, I remember many things that give me pause. When my older son was a mere 15 months old, he climbed to the top of the stairs, then tumbled backward all the way down. When he was around seven years old, playing kickball with me in the backyard, I remember throwing the ball from a long distance, it tangled in his feet, and when he fell the blood gushed from his mouth. I remember throwing batting practice in the backyard when he was around 10, and hitting him in the head with my fastball (which, while still slower than Phil Niekro’s knuckleball, still almost certainly hurt – my son was tough, but it certainly frightened him as much as it did me – we always used a batting helmet thereafter.) Mrs. jbmlaw and I were always mildly distressed that if anyone ever inspected the various bruises suffered by our rough-and-tumble older son, they would assume we beat him with a crowbar nightly. I suppose this rambling narrative is my effort to articulate a concern about allowing the village to insert itself into our lives

By catlady

January 2, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

Jim, I totally agree with you! I’d add a couple of other rules, too. If you have a baby “on the taxpayers”, be warned that a second baby in like manner means you are sterilized. Period. And the father also, if paternity can be established. Also, no welfare, etc, UNLESS the paternity can be established. And the mother and father will repay the money (even if it is $2 each week forever) until the birth is paid for.

Did you notice that the “New Year’s Baby” seems to have been born to unwed parents?

Another, similar rule: if you decide to have assistive reproductive technology that results in the birth of multiple, handicapped children, the taxpayers will NOT foot the bill for their care, etc. So you’d better be VEry Very wealthy or very well insured, and prepared to home school the children instead of expecting the school system to care for them until they are 22, or perhaps the doctor who assisted you in such folly should pay for their care.

If you decide to constantly disrupt your class at school, or want to drop out, that is fine. You go immediately to jail or the service, till you show you have skills to make it without being a parasite on society. No sense waiting till you prey on the innocent.

In all things, responsibility for decisions made should be the key. Don’t expect others to clean up after you and your ill-advised decisions.

By Mid-South Philosopher

January 2, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

While we are in agreement on the majority of items that you enumerate in today’s column, we differ on a couple.

Quite honestly, there are some “faith based” organizations that, in my opinion, should never be allowed to raise a child!

Next, as a pro-life supporter there is one other step that should be taken in my opinion, as much as I despise it. Mandatory sex education and access to birth control should be provided every child at and during puberty.

I have known entirely too many young girls raised by “dominating fathers” who were “absolutely certain” that “their” daughters would “not” end up “in the family way.” Most of those fathers are now called “grandpa!”

Given the social environment (immoral or otherwise) in the United States today, the influence of entertainment genres in the country, and juvenile attitudes of Americans toward the vices, the notion that abstinence is going to work makes about as much sense as Howard Dean being the keynote speaker at a dinner to honor Ann Coulter!

By Redneck Convert

January 2, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

The story Wooten tells makes us rednecks real mad. First, it involves Those People. Then it involves somebody besides us having sex. Then it turns out its Those People having sex. Worse, Those People having sex ain’t marryed. And worst of all, it involves using my taxes to support Those People having sex. If that ain’t enuff to form a linch mob I don’t know what is.

I say we nooter every one of Those People. They’s too many of them and they breed like rabbits. Let the church bring up the kids that are alive now. Then make them get marryed the minute they turn 18. That will put a stop to the sex.

Well, it’s time for my monthly bath. I been dreading it. I bet the other rednecks on this here blog dreads it too—TFTT, Realist, Markus, Wooten, Van, etc. And Sister Dusty probly stinks worst of all after a month, only she’s got all that toilet water on her to cover it up.

Anyway, after my bath I got a bunch of beer to deliver. Those Baptists really gulp it down during a long holiday weekend. I may have to make two runs just to let the bars stock up good. So I guess I won’t be back here till Friday maybe.

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

Imagine my shock that someone that claims they don’t use multiple ID’s makes the first two posts of the day using multiple ID’s.

Nice going Dio!

By Buy Danish

January 2, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

On-Looker evolved from Diogenes,

Bear? Woops. You are “Bear” somewhere else, and came here to deny that you are Dio, but forget to change your nom de plume.

Just as handwriting can be analyzed to determine it’s authenticity, someones writing style, vocabulary, positions on the issues, methods used to twist the words of other bloggers, and notably in your case - the degree of unctousness, all combine to give numerous clues.

You can change your name as often as you wish, but we will be able to figure out who you are very quickly.

Remember, when you were Solon and Democritus? It was much more admirable when you admitted it.

I don’t know what you think you’re proving by playing this ridiculous game - other than to confirm our instincts that you lack credibility - and are off your rocker.

By On-looker

January 2, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

Jbmlaw:

You stated at 1256 Friday, after I had already left for the weekend, “if I agreed to accept all laws enacted before 1932 as written, would you agree to abolish all laws after 1931?”

Is it laws that you are opposed to? Or is some laws? Or is an excess of laws? Or is it unnecessary laws? You also state, “Most disputes were resolved without the courts and without “help” from the government until the modern era,” which makes me suspect that you may lean farther towards anarchy than you confirm. The last phrase, however, makes me think that you are merely opposed to what you perceive as unnecessary laws, “Do we really need a federal justice department, or SEC, or department of labor? Surely we could live without compulsory dues for benefit of the National Endowment for the Arts.”

I, of course, would not agree to abolishing all laws after 1931. Many of the regulatory agencies which help sort out the complexity of modern technology have come into being since then. Technology is wonderful, but it has created problems unimagined in 1931. Perhaps we need to start with the laws written before 1931 and do wholesale slaughter on them, because many, I’m sure, are out of date, but that would not accomplish the “no law” society you’re envisioning.

I doubt that there has ever been a time when man did not need some type of “government.” Whether it was by the tribal chieftain, the shaman, the rabbi, the guy who lived in the house down the road, or the oldest guy in the tribe, man has always needed his affairs arbitrated.

Simple example: we’re two sheep herders who accidentally intermingle our flocks. Our dogs sort everything out except for one pregnant ewe down in the wadi. I claim she’s mine; you claim she’s yours, and the dogs support their masters’ claims. At this point, we have a few options: we can pound on each other with our shepherd’s crooks until one of us is no longer able to stand up; you can be a good fellow and relinquish the ewe to me; we can let our dogs fight. Since I’m five inches shorter and 50 lbs lighter, I don’t think fighting is a good idea. Neither one of us is a good enough guy to give up a nice pregnant ewe, and neither one of us wants to risk a dog. Neither one of us has a coin to toss because coinage hasn’t been invented yet. You’re hefting your shepherd’s crook with an evil glint in your eye when I see old Solomon sitting under an acacia about a mile away. I suggest that we let Solomon arbitrate the issue. You agree because there’s always the possibility that I could get in a lucky swing. (more to come)

By Diogenes

January 2, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw:

We’ve just created government. Depending on what Solomon wants in return for making the decision, we may also have created the first lawyer. As simple as this example is, it demonstrates that man’s affairs have needed intervention since the beginning of time on just such issues. Based on that example and the ancient bodies of laws extant, I lack your confidence that there has ever been a time when man didn’t have “laws.” Government, as I am using it, of course, refers to the set of rules (because all tribes have mores and customs) used by the arbitrator to make the final decision: secular or religious (once there was little or no distinction). From our arbitrator to Hammurabi is a short step.

By Diogenes

January 2, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

Jim,

I’ve stated my thoughts to you on this privately and in my own name, so I’ll stay out of it today.

By Unmarried Mom

January 2, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

I was in my 20’s, with a degree, a career, and my own apartment. Being pro-choice, I chose what was right for me: to keep the baby. Guess who was the most unkind? That’s right, the anti-choice folks had the cruelest, most obnoxious things to say. I also chose not to shotgun my new boyfriend into marriage just because of a pregancy. For a marriage to work, it has to be based on more than that. Divorce hurts, and I already knew that.

Fifteen years later, my out-of-wedlock child is freshman class president at one of the best high schools in the state, an athlete in more than one sport, and an A-student in all honors classes. The child is bright, loving, responsible, and all in all: “future’s so bright, gotta wear shades.” The father is in the picture. We never married, but are good friends. We did the right thing by making the choices that were right for us. No regrets.

Look beyond the sterotypes to find truth.

By CJ

January 2, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten “In 2004, 69.3 percent of births of black children were to unmarried women. For Hispanics, it was 46.4 percent. For whites, 24.5.”

I suspect that if we looked at the statistics for low-income Americans, we’d find that they follow closely with the statistics above. Generally, those living on less have been raised in disturbing environments themselves, are less educated and have a reduced capacity to reason. If we want to reduce the number of unwed mothers who are incapable of carrying for their children, then we have to grow the middle class.

On my favorite liberal network newscast last night, CBS with Katie Couric, there was a story about the “poor tax”. The poor tax is the additional amount that the poor have to pay just for living in a certain zip code. This report showed that the poor pay significantly more for auto insurance, homeowners insurance, mortgage rates and credit. The story even pointed out how a person’s insurance went up by $1,000 just for moving directly across the street (from one zip code to the next). Such poor taxes need to be eliminated.

Another thing we can do to grow the middle class is stop punishing the poor and middle class with sales (or consumption) taxes. Sales taxes result in those at the bottom paying a larger percentage of their incomes in taxes than those in the middle and those in the middle paying a larger percentage than those at the top. In addition to being counterproductive, such taxes are immoral. Contrary to right-wing rhetoric, liberals don’t like to tax anybody. Taxes are necessary evil, and the least objectionable, most productive way to do it is through an income tax system that isn’t an obstacle to the working poor who desire to move into the middle class.

Forbidding banks, insurers and other businesses to rate their products on anything other than risk and implementing a sensible tax system rather than one that punishes the poor and middle class are two of the steps we need to take to grow the middle class. If we concentrate on this goal, then we’ll see fewer unwed mothers, lower infant mortality rates, fewer abortions, less violent crime, etcetera. On the other hand, Jim’s “faith-based” orphanage approach, taken from the pages of Charles Dickens, addresses symptoms rather than causes, and in the long-run, would be significantly more expensive for all of us.

By Jeff

January 2, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

good colummn today Mr. Wooten.

The only objection I can see is that I would not allow “mental harm” to be a factor, unless such harm was EXPLICTLY defined in the law and could be proven in front of a UNANIMOUS jury. In truth, I would say the same with “physical harm”, though I may do without the unanimous jury. As a teacher, I’ve had students flat out tell me that their parents don’t whip them because the kid has threatened to call the police as soon as the parent touches the child. Therefore, since the parent truly loves the kid and doesn’t want to lose them (or maybe just doesn’t want authorities investigating their lives for other reasons), the parent is afraid to whip the child. I’ve LONG held that lessons without some form of pain involved are rarely “learned” for long.

Also like MSP ans catlady’s suggestions!

By Dusty

January 2, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten,

In a weak moment I was thinking you were absolutely right about the cure for babies without fathers or decent parents. It was like “THERE you ignorant, loose sex couples producing the once called “bastards”. The thought of “fixing” these irresponsible people seemed just what they deserved.

BUT……I remember the crimes of the German Reich under Hitler. Hitler was going to produce a “pure” race by riding the country of the mentally deficit or “undesirables” by their extinction or their sterilization.

Now we might not specificly designate the least intelligent as the target for a better baby environment, we would certinly be targeting American citizens because of their ignorance, lack of morals and dependency on the government. I am trying to think of what basis that would be legal in this country or even moral.

So what should be done? I DO NOT KNOW. How do you install morals and character in people who have never encountered any? Morality is the only thought that comes to my mind and that is connected to abstinence which many declare as useless.

But governmental reparations and reprisals? I don’t think so. But I don’t know an answer that will rescue the innocent babies who are welcomed into this world with cruelty and neglect.

By time for the truth

January 2, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

So Bill O’Reilly is right when he keeps pointing out that blacks have a 70% bastard rate these days and at nearly 50% mexican types are catching up real fast in this shameful crimewave/gangbanger production factory that the rest of us increasingly have to endure. The sad thing is that this pathetic illegitimacy rate has historically (at least since the leftist hippy surrender monkey days of the 60’s/70’s) has not really changed much. And its mostly liberals’ fault for allowing such moral laxity and moral relativism to go largely unchallenged in liberal run schools, urban hell holes and the sick freakshows that are CA, MA, VT et al. Given that homos and lesbians also produce bastards and sadly that production line is also increasing the number of (literal) bastards (presumably) voting liberal will continue to grow. Thus, given the non-white predilection for vote buying, welfare grasping, illegal immigrant pandering etc liberal policies, the now purely sociological phrase liberal bastards is simply a factual statement acknowledging how deep in the liberal shiite the USA is these days.

Back in the 50’s folks OF ALL RACES had a much better attitude to illegitimacy, social discipline and personal responsibility!!

By Buy Danish

January 2, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

If you decide to constantly disrupt your class at school, or want to drop out, that is fine. You go immediately to jail or the service, till you show you have skills to make it without being a parasite on society. No sense waiting till you prey on the innocent.

Catlady,

Are you saying that “acting up in class” deserves a prison sentence?

On-Looker,

You lapsed, and forgot to insert a colon in 1256. That’s what Dio does. See how easy this is?

By Symbolic Capital

January 2, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

Jim:

I’m glad somebody with an audience is pointing out that the deaths of children under state supervision (or at least state awareness) is not just a policy problem but a moral problem. We journalists should realize that, too.

Think back on all the news stories about dead children of unwed mothers. They are virtually interchangeagle. Headline: “The short, tragic life of -fill in the child’s name - ” Then the lead: “From the moment Tanisha M. entered the world in a drug-induced haze, the odds were decidely against her living a happy, productive normal-according-to-bourgeois-standards life.” Then comes the litany of “tragic” mistakes — cue violins, cue Oprah — and the last, heartbreaking comment by a heart-broken relative or burned-out caseworker. In between, we’ll get the statistics about how little is spent on various programs, how few caseworkers there are and how often they quit or have strokes from their impossible caseloads. We’ll probably get recommendations from some expert from some group with the name “Center for” or “Family” in the name that goes like this: Hire more case workers, hire more judges, distribute more condoms, send cops to diversity workshops, etc.

Journalists tend to shy away from the moral dimensions of stories, perhaps under some misguided notion of “objectivity,” but you’re not drifiting into advocacy journalism if you ask questions about moral issues, as long as you’re fair and balanced, as always. Morality shouldn’t be confined to the opinion pages. And yes, I know such reporting is hard. But wouldn’t it be more interesting, and relevant, than another dead toddler story?

By catlady

January 2, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

time for truth—I think back in the 50’s we did not bail folks out of their mistakes as quickly as we do now, and that might account for the better (more usefully functional) attitudes toward illegitimacy, discipline, and responsibility. As I get older, I just don’t want to suffer for your lack of/unwillingness to plan ahead and think what you are doing and how YOU are going to take care of the logical fallout from what you have or haven’t done. We’ve disconnected cause and effect, and it has resulted in massive pathology.

By Unmarried Mom

January 2, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

time for the truth, please know I am educating my out-of-wedlock child about how people like Bill O’Reilly and his followers degrade our society. Trust me when I say that in spite of the slurs, prejudices, and glaring hypocrisy, there is hope for the future. We teach our children quietly; they will prevail, your hate will not.

By Jeff

January 2, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

catlady:

See my most recent comment on Get Schooled… you may like….

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Well I see the resident racist is back. I’m sure momentarily jbmlaw will be telling us how entertaining the scumbag at 10:10 is.

Jim,

This column is almost a copy of the December 11th entry, was one for the blog only or have you been taking lessons from Bookman on mailing in the same story over and over?

By Symbolic Capital

January 2, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

Jim:

Thanks for pointing to the moral dimensions of this tragedy. I wish journalists would deal with moral issues in news stories more often.

Go back a year, five years, 10 years, 20 years, to all the stories about poor neglected kids who died. Your eyes will glaze over and you’ll get the feeling you’re reading the same story with only names and locations changed. Actually, you are; it’s a problem with news.

Just picture it. Headline: “The short, sad life of (name)” Then the lead: “From the moment Tanisha M. entered the world in a haze induced by her 14-year-old mother’s drug used, the child’s chances of a normal-by-bourgeois-standards life were slim at best.” Then comes the litany of “tragic” mistakes (can we ban “tragic” from stories for a year?) and the recommendations from “The Institute (or Center) for the Same Old Well-Meaning but Impotent Policies” for the usual: more workers, more judges, more condoms, sensitivity training for cops, etc. Cap it off with a last heart-breaking “if only” comment.

Where are the regular news stories about moral decay? Does “objectivity” scare us away? It shouldn’t, as long as we adhere to journalistic standards. Ask questions, keep your opinions out, and get a diversity of views. Still objective, but with a different story line, one that doesn’t end with boilerplate policy prescriptions. Such stories may be hard to report and write, but they might be more interesting, and more relevant than another dead baby story.

By catlady

January 2, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish—note the word “consistently”. I can tell you we have students who “get their kicks” from constantly disrupting the learning of others. They love the attention it gets them. I think there would be more control of these children’s behavior if there was a substantive consequence. We provide you with a chance for an education. If you don’t wish to avail yourself of it, or want to hog the class time for your attention needs, we will give you an opportunity to get attention in another setting: jail (boot camp) or the service. I believe that either setting can help instill proper attention seeking (through discipline) that will benefit the person and society in the long run. And the students in class will benefit by getting those disruptives/non-performers out of class. For too long we have emphasized the needs of the individual over the needs of the group. If students (and their parents) can see the tangible value in subjugating their wishes (attention seeking) or there are significant consequences (not just a day of ISS or OSS) things will improve for everyone. And, if you look at the data on folks in jail, you can see most of them were out of school, literally or figuratively, long before they ended up in jail. I am just saying, let’s cut out the part where they prey on some poor schmuck, and get them into a program that MIGHT replace pathology with achievement, lack of discipline with discipline, lack of education with a skill that can make a living.

As a teacher, I have “predicted” children ending up in jail or with unwed pregnancy when the kids were 5 years old, and watched as it has come true, time and again.

By Lily Toad

January 2, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

Wooten, the anti-nanny statesman, now advocates the Government taking children away from unmarried parents and putting them in faith-based orphanages? Is this even constitutional? Are you advocating a return to workhouses for the orphans and their non-supporting fathers?

By catlady

January 2, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

I’d love, for the sake of perspective, to find out how other countries handle the problem mentioned here. Of course, in some countries the non-caretaking, disfunctional parents might be eligible for an award or something!

By Joy Edwards

January 2, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Thanks for the column! The only thing I would add is that until society decides that a child’s best safety net is TWO parents and celebrates and promotes marriage and parenthood, our children are doomed to a life of good intentions and moral mistakes!

Growing up in the 60s and 70s, unwed parents were not celebrated and held up like they are now. It was not something to be proud of. Women were warned against having unprotected sex and when we did not listen, we either got married or we quietly raised the child with the help of parents and other adults.

Parenthood is not for the faint at heart or for children who are not equipped to take care of themselves let alone a innocent child.

We need to wake up and smell the coffee, it’s burning!!!

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Cartoon Idea: Show Kramer on stage with a Microphone doing stand up and Saddam is in the audience heckling him and Kramer says, “2000 years ago we used to hang dictators like you.”

By catlady

January 2, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Lily T—workhouses for non-supporting fathers AND mothers sounds good to me!

By time for the truth

January 2, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

my hate … huge smirk

Its not “hate” love - its simply a realistic assessment of how the inexorable slide of personal moral standards and the concomitant (look it up crackpipe) increase in violent crime have become tolerated by liberal folks who refuse to see the UNDENIABLE blindingly obvious link!! The number of illegitimate births in the 1950’s was tiny compared to today - and most crime was also vastly lower (even given the much smaller population). Obviously this is NOT the only factor -but its a pretty big one.

You say your own kid is doing well - fine - good luck to you and yours, but dont get stridently or dishonestly defensive about a HUGE NATIONAL problem that is undeniable. So often these days the more ignorant, self absorbed folks invariably tend to glibly gloss over any “reality” which they dont like, or they simply personalise things and refuse to see the bigger picture. Hence your irrelevant drivel about my hypothetical lack of planning - whatever the hell that silly bollocks was all about!!

I note, very predicktably you utterly ignore my reasoned factual logic about liberal bastards.

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

Cartoon: Show the Statue of Saddam Hussein being torn down but you look closer and it’s Kramer holding a Microphone being pulled down by an enraged audience.

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

Cartoon idea: Show the statue of liberty, but it’s actually Kramer holding a microphone and the inscription reads, “Send me your racist audiences, your bigotted refuge…”

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

Joy Edwards, never feed coffee to an innocent child.

Wooten? What is up with the bloggers today?

By time for the truth

January 2, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

HA HA HA HA HA …

I see the ignorant bigoted wankpig aboriginal is back … spewing its irrational dishonest IGNORANT hate again.

THERE’S A GOOD PARROT

THERE’S A GOOD PARROT

THERE’S A GOOD PARROT

THERE’S A GOOD PARROT

THERE’S A GOOD PARROT

THERE’S A GOOD PARROT

THERE’S A GOOD PARROT

THERE’S A GOOD PARROT

Yet again this patronising moron shows it doesn’t even vaguely understand the word “racist”. But its sure likes to puke it up - like a smug bellicose tw@t!!

There’s NOTHING at all “racist” about my post turdbrain!!

You look more and more like an obsessed nutter every time you slither on here!!

By catlady

January 2, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

unmarried mom and others, no one is saying you cannot manage to raise a child alone, or that you won’t do a good job. But there are a lot of parents, single, unmarried, and married that expect that the safety net will catch their child if they bail out of their responsibilities. Lots of folks don’t have the wherewithall to do the most important job of putting their child’s needs before theirs and sacrificing all to raise the child properly. They expect the government to fund their efforts while they are trying, and pick up the pieces if they fail.

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

We are a nation that acts-out for the paparazzi. We dangle babies over third story balconies to show the paparazzi. Then we show the paparazzi where babies come from by removing our panties and climbing into limos.

Dont you see? It’s The Paparazzi!!

The Paparazzi knows all. The Paparazzi sees all!

Viva la Paparazzi!

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

Cartoon idea. Show Katie Courik doing the news, but you look closer and it’s Kramer holding a microphone and he’s using the “N” word and acting like a jerk toward a mixed race audience, and scuttling his career.

By MELO

January 2, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

The media and society in America perceives those on the Right to be DUMB AND DUMP, paraphrasing Jim’s sunday article in the ajc. But he conveniently forgot to mention that’perception is reality’-most of the time i would imagine.

By economist

January 2, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Very simple solution:

Allow sensible sex education in public schools, discussing all options with all students: abstinence, condoms, etc. Since we already require all children to go to school, it’s a small step to take to protect unwanted children from being begotten.

By time for the truth

January 2, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Cartoon Idea:

Aborted Foreskin jumping off the top of Atlanta’s Spaghetti Junction in the rush hour with the obsessive R(abid) W(anker) theaboriginal and NAMBLA in quaintly submissive headlocks under its noxious, foul smelling, flea infested armpits.

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

Cartoon: Show the Bush Twins being neglected by George and Laura, but when you look closer, it’s Kramer with a microphone drunk in a night club giving his bodyguards the slip.

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Hey! I just realized that the new Bush Twins are Paris and Brittany!!!

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

tftt,

P!ss off punk.

By Unmarried Mom

January 2, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

But there are a lot of parents, single, unmarried, and married that expect that the safety net will catch their child…. expect the government to fund their efforts while they are trying, and pick up the pieces if they fail.

Catlady, so true! Plenty of married people also screw their children up through family violence, ignorance, repressive indoctrination, incest, alcoholism, lack of motivation, over-indulgence in material things, and so forth. Many fail to prepare their children to be productive and self-sufficient adults.

Perhaps the marital status of the parent is not the primary issue afterall, but as you stated, the willingness of parents to sacrifice and put the child’s needs before their own. The emphasis on one, in my opinion, detracts from the real issue to be addressed. The act of getting married, in and of itself, does not guarantee this willingness! (Unless you’re a gay couple wanting to marry and adopt, in which case, the extra 100 miles you have to walk to do so is a good indication of willingness and commitment.) And FYI, I never took a dime of government assistance.

By Dusty

January 2, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

Bloggers,

Please excuse me for a moment, as I have a message for RedNeck Convert from Sister Dusty.

(Red, Didn’t get my bath this month ‘cause the pond was froze. But the perfume overdose was ‘cause I sit next to you at the meetin’. whew You really should take your boots off when you bathe.)

By catlady

January 2, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

tftt-Since you make an important contribution to the discussion, could you drop the bombast and offensive language and just speak politely, letting your true eloquence and the strength of your analysis convince people? The temptation for me is to not read your posts because of your name-calling, which is a loss for all who need to be exposed to your point of view. Consider it; if your position has merit and strength, you don’t need to resort to little boy name calling. It makes your ideas less seriously taken and considered.

By time for the truth

January 2, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

P!ss off punk.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Poor wittle diddums … the Rabid Wanker makes puerile hateful empty assertions about its betters on here and then, when confronted about its lies/abuse just posts abuse!!

YOU’RE BEHAVING LIKE A DAMN LIBERAL CRY BABY Rabid Wanker!

By Jeff

January 2, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

catlady:

Two amens on as many blogs in as many minutes… you go girl! :)

By jbmlaw

January 2, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Good morning RW @ various times, it appears you have no thoughts at all today other than spewing. Clearly you are a model for us all. I don’t have a problem with those of you who wish to play only on the side of the name-calling, but you should leave alone those of us with a couple of real thoughts.

By @@

January 2, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

Jim:

Today’s topic is one of those moral dilemmas that begs the question:

“How in the hell did we allow ourselves to get to this point, and what are we gonna do about it?”

You advocate legally mandating morality, and unfortunately, that may be an action necessary to save the most innocent among us. But, as long as we remain politically polarized in ideologies this catastrophic result will continue.

Conservatives have been labeled as cruel and uncaring when trying to promote traditional values and personal responsibility.

Hypocrites when those in our party fall from the platform. I, for one, believe they should suffer the consequences of their actions just like anyone else.

You’ve reflected back to a time, the 60’s, when I believe we lost our perspective of what was right and what was wrong. A radical era when it was believed that the individual’s rights were more important than the well-being of a collective society.

Personal responsibility was abdicated to government bureacracies. Opportunities were awarded and squandered and the bloodletting began. More government band-aids were applied, but the bleeding continues.

Were these the results of progressive thinking? Unfortunately, yes.

If ever there was a time when we should have asked ourselves where we were, and where we were heading, it was the radical 60’s.

It was stylish at the time, but the results have turned out to be unsightly in the reflective mirror.

We’re at that place in time where the high-minded among us, the intellectual elite, will fight to save their cause while sacrificing the effect, our children. Our greatest natural resource. Our investment in the future.

What motivates them? Pride I suppose.

Step back I say…there’s no reason to be proud of what we’ve allowed ourselves to become with this kind of progress?

By Educator

January 2, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

economist (1127)

Your comment: “Very simple solution:

Allow sensible sex education in public schools, discussing all options with all students: abstinence, condoms, etc. Since we already require all children to go to school, it’s a small step to take to protect unwanted children from being begotten.”

That’s a starting point, and a very good one. Abortion on demand is another piece of the puzzle.

Perhaps the next piece of the puzzle is a combination of a good social network and Faith Based Initiatives which really care about children. In my opinion, the churches need to get out of politics and into helping folks (especially if they are going to criticize social networks). The fewer unwanted children, the less the problems like the Banks problem (at least in theory).

Adoption is only part of the answer. There don’t seem to be as many American babies (the operative word here is “baby”) available for adoption as there are people willing to adopt them, so babies are imported from other countries to fill those needs.

It’s a complicated problem with no obvious answers, but sterilization is emphatically not one of the answers, as I think your comments imply.

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Paris and Brittany: poorly poured potpourri of pantyless puss-n-boots punking the paparazzi and perverting our preteens. Just add Clinton and you’ve got every porn movie ever made.

The only thing we have to fear from children today are the parents themselves…..the neglected child becomes the neglectful parent in the sequence of fractured-family fractals that forms the timeline of man.

Our children truly are our apostles.

By Barbara

January 2, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Good morning all. I’m with catlady from her first post on this point, although I sympathize with Unmarried Mom. I don’t believe we should, as a society, accept children born out of wedlock as “okay”. However, we should love our fellow man, and, if someone does make the decision to have sex out of wedlock, and become pregnant, and decide to have the child (which in my opinion is the only choice), then we should show those people compassion and try to help them in any way we can.

One difference between Unmarried Mom and most of those we see bearing children out of wedlock is that it seems Unmarried Mom has a reasonable perspective about the choices she made. Some others have pointed out that our society is willing to let folks off the hook for having children out of wedlock, and society thinks those people should be handed the financial means to live the same lifestyle as those who chose to wait, or planned their children so that they could more appropriately provide for them.

I am pro-life. My suggestion would be adoption, although I realize it’s very hard to do that after carrying a child for 9 months. I also believe that we must accept the consequences of our actions. For those who have sex and produce children out of wedlock, the consequences are that life will be a lot tougher, you won’t be able to provide as well, and people may give you a hard time. You have to accept that.

I do agree that even married folks can produce disruptive children. Unfortunately even I have produced one. And from a very involved parent’s point of view, I have no idea how the child became motivated to be so disruptive and I don’t know exactly what to do about it either. I’ve tried everything!

Catlady and Unmarried Mom, you’ve made an interesting conversation today.

And jbmlaw, I too have had my share of ugly accidents with my boys while we were home. It’s amazing how fast a kid can get hurt while you’re standing right there watching.

By David

January 2, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

First of all, government is accountable to parents, not vice-versa. Second of all, Mr. Wooten, if you think that people caught smoking pot should lose their kids, then I hope you have the decency to leave the country. Too bad the USSR is gone; you’d have been real happy there.

PS Thank God for hold-out jurors.

By catlady

January 2, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

Part of the problem in relying on sex ed is NONE OF OUR CHILDREN THINK PREGNANCY WILL HAPPEN TO THEM. AND IF THEY DO GET PREGNANT, IT WAS MEANT TO BE. So, although they may be science-savy on birth control,etc., it does not apply to them. (Sort of like parking under the No Parking sign at the store because you are just running in for a minute.)

I recommend reading “Promises I can Keep” on the topic of why the poor seem to put baby-having above and before marriage.

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

I’ve made three comments before this one today so surely you shouldn’t have to make the implication that I’ve been posting trash all day.

The first post was to point out our multi-ID pretender had double posted with two names. The second acknowledged the liberal Moby you seem to be so fond of and also asked Jim Wooten a pertinent question in a slightly snarky manner. The third was a direct response to the idiot you are always holding forth as a great fount of entertainment.

You have on multiple occasions inserted yourself into this so don’t beg off now.

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

Responce to Educator. “allow sensible sex ed in public schools”….. Legislation gets underwritten. You underwrite legislation. To pass legislation you must underwrite legislation.

Who knows what that means, in 25 words or less?

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Wait a minute, Barbara, are you suggesting that children born out of wedlock are the very children we should be throwing off third floor balconies?

By getalife

January 2, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

We are a nation that blows up babies into pieces for oil.

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Catlady, it’s the parked car itself that causes unwed pregnancies, (“no parking” sign or not). If we eliminate the parked car then we shall overcome? Your insights today are supercilious!

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Forget RW, Jbmlaw’s rollin’

By Lily Toad

January 2, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

catlady, I agree about teens thinking they won’t get pregnant. Just like they won’t crash their car driving 80 mph around a curve. Oh, to be young and immortal.

Many of these unmarried mothers wouldn’t be better off married to the men who impregnate them, especially if the men are drug users or criminals.

There is a culture of young women who want a baby because it is something that will belong to them. No amount of sex education about contraceptives is going to change that state of mind. I find this unfortunate but it is something that middle class people need to realize.

By Educator

January 2, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

Patriotic Foreskin (1218):

The portion you quoted is from economist at 1127.

My response starts with “That’s a starting point… .”

By catlady

January 2, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

Does “underwriting” legislation mean figuring out how to pay for what you propose to do? If so, there is very little underwriting that actually happens, in our state or nation!

By FrustratedCitizen

January 2, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

What a bunch of hot air. It is easy to sit on your moral high horse and pontificate about the behaviors of single women everywhere. Here is a thought—SEX EDUCATION!!! We have the same amount of sex as people in 3rd world nations, yet 3 times the number of STDs and teen pregnancy. And all of this “abstinence only” education is just feuling the fire. And why is it that the windbags who think (black) women should just keep their legs closed are the same ones who are against abortion, which would prevent such misery in the first place???

By time for the truth

January 2, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

pussycat lady

Modom … I note with pleased as punch gratification your curious, seemingly badly bewildered plea for yours truly to begin posting in an intellectually dishonest fashion. Namely proferring less factually (accurate) descriptive characterisations of the scum of the earth on here who foolishly do not subscribe to the generous inexorable logic I delightedly deign to share with the more socially inadequate benighted wankpigs who daily congregate on here looking for my (and your)… indeed “our” august moral guidance.

Suffice it to say, I have dutifully - for almost a split nano second - pondered the deeply troubling disadvantages of appropriating your rather quaintly lily livered and restrained mode of remonstration. However, I humbly suggest to you that being true to my core munificent nature is of overiding importance. Thus I must always pragmatically and prudently address the hordes of liberal vermin who sadly choose to infest these boards with their anally obsessive whining cut and run treasonous Bush hate and their lemming like dank, baleful moral laxity.

I of course never need to beseech anyone for their understanding - but if, and only if I could bring myself to do so, I would cheerily beseech you to pretend to evince, even if you are actually unable avail yourself of a much more compassionate tone viz-a-viz the resident marxist maggots. Indeed denying said pinkoscum their daily dose of wisdom and richly deserved upbraiding would be a bitterly brutish selfish act and one I couldn’t in all conscience reasonably ever bring myself to perpetrate. Thus the well established and much acclaimed norm will of course remain the norm, thereby rendering to the verminous leftist hordes (including the truly bigoted crackpipe and Rabid Wanker) what is rightfully theirs.

Yours in virtual steadfast bilious hate

time for the truth

By Barbara

January 2, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

PF, no, I am not. I am simply saying that there are consequences. When people choose to have sex, and children, out of wedlock, those children will most likely have a harder life. So will the parents, should they choose to keep them, rather than give them up for adoption. As a society we should hold these people accountable (the parents). I do not support abusing or endangering children in any way, but growing up without the newest toys, or not having the same lifestyle as everyone else is not abuse. It’s reality for many people. We go too far with out social programs, and it costs us greatly. We are paying too much and people are not feeling the pinch for their actions. That is why so many are careless in their choices. After all, the government is always there ready to hand out a check. We should not simply tolerate these decisions as “okay” or see it as a “right” of any fertile person to have a baby anytime they feel like it. We are not all equipped, or qualified to have children. Sometimes that’s a temporary state, and sometimes it’s permanent. Many factors make up that state of being, including our emotional maturity level, our free time we have to devote to raising a child, our financial status, etc. That’s just a fact. People need to accept it.

TFTT made a good point too, about how we, as a society reacted to this problem in the 50s (although I’m just relying on history books, being born in the 60s myself……) I bet if you check, you’d find that people didn’t get a check everytime they spit out a baby out of wedlock back then. You have a child out of wedlock, you bring a potential hardship on yourself and your child. You have to work harder, give up all of your free time, and you probably won’t progress financially the way you would if you had waited.

The more liberal minded folks want everyone to have the same status, regardless of the choices they make, or how recklessly they behave. That is not the way it should work, IMHO.

By Diogenes

January 2, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Hey, Educator sounds just like me.

By Charles

January 2, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

It is very obvious that Jim Wooten may not understand what has befallen the African-American community. Mr. Wooten, integration and integrationist have confused the masses beyond measure. Both have caused more psychological and physical harm than the system of chattel slavery. Sixty-nine percent of out of wedlock births is a great accomplishment.

A prominent African American lawyer was in federal court defending a client. The lawyer said to the white judge, “Your honor, is this a good point to break for lunch.” The stern judge replied, “That is the first thing that you have said the entire morning that made any sense.” The judge was exactly right.

All of these integrationist black people that the government has chosen to lead African-Americans are similar to the prominent African American attorney; they make no logical sense. That nonsense has been infused into most African Americans. They have criminally misled the masses of African Americans insisting that education is the answer. Sixty-nine percent of out of wedlock births is a great accomplishment considering the leadership.

Lastly, there is nothing that the government can do to help if this criminal leadership remains in place. Remove the integrationist leadership from the African-American community in all areas of people activity. (economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war) Replace it with leadership that believes in self determination. I can assure you there will be a complete reversal of all the negatives that we presently experience.

In summary, having good sense is not a prerequisite for attaining a Ph.D.

By catlady

January 2, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

Foreskin, at least I’m not being unctuous today! What an improvement!

I think if we focus on little stuff (the illegally parked car, the person accosting you to wash your windshield, the broken window) we will have better luck dealing with the big stuff.

BTW, true story: At the birth of my second child, the state employee’s insurance co, who had already paid their share of my drs. bill, wanted to deny coverage on the hospital bill because they said they had reason to believe the hospital stay was the result of an auto accident. I informed them that no part of the child’s birth nor conception had anything to do with a car!

By catlady

January 2, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

tftt, thanks! I kinda like it! I appreciate your efforts at language control for however long they last.

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

Educator, this blog has a tricky format. It’s not obvious where you begin and someone else’s comment ends. You have to make allowances for the tiny little punctuation marks that this blog barely registers. Maybe it’s my crt screen with not enough refresh or pixels.

However, even if you include my miscalculation about who said what, upon reviewing your comment, My reply was still appropriate to you, because you ditto’s the remark I addressed.

“That’s a very good starting point” is “ditto”.

By ICEMAN

January 2, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

Charles,

Integrationist is a term that you might want to define to our lovely readers. Otherwise, you will be painted as a segregationist and that is not the correct move. Also, you might want to explain who are these leaders that you don’t like, i.e. Al Sharpton or Condoleeza Rice. You need to give more details, rather than just make blanket statements, which is why a lot of people may choose to listen to the very African American leaders you say they shouldn’t, because they define what they mean.

By catlady

January 2, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

Jim, I guess it goes without saying (so I will say it) that the little Banks girl was failed by at least 8 levels: the five listed, plus, most importantly, her mother, her non-father, and her other family members who knew what was going to happen (I am leaving the great aunt off the list, as it seems like she made some effort to help the child, as family members should do).

By @@

January 2, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

I don’t normally get into discussions here, but I need some clarification on sex education in our schools.

There are those who post comments as though it doesn’t already exist. It does. I had to sign off on my daughter being able to receive it.

I’m an advocate of sex education to include abstinence along with other forms of contraception. But…when you talk with teenagers, and believe me, I’ve talked to more than my own, sex education is a subject for humor.

Jokes such as…”Have you ever seen one that big?” “Can’t we have live models for demonstration?” “What good will a condom on a cucumber do? Will it cut down on our choices at the salad bar?”

Up for consideration…

Rather than leave it up to the clinical approach put forth by B.O.E.’s, why not utilize members of society. Responsible adult men who were driven by hormonal surges in their youth. Let those guys talk to the girls. Enlighten them as to the realities.

Respect for the young ladies and their future was not priority for the guys when they were 14, 15, 16 and so on.

Sorry fellas, but you know it’s true.

By the stopper

January 2, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

You folks seem to be missing the most amazing part of the Woot’s column today. I’ll quote it, with emphasis:

We should declare that from the moment of conception until a child is grown, government’s first obligation is to protect.

Everyone got that? Jim apparently wants the Feds to intervene and prevent use of any birth control methods that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall.

Yeah, you’re a “conservative,” Jim. Any other basic rights you’d like your thugs to wrest from us?

By peter

January 2, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

All the hate on this blog is over to top, so why could anyone here actually debate what is good for a child or children………

The WRONG on this blog will say it is OK to bomb another country as they Blindly follow the idiot president we have, turn a eye to the homeless on the street, yet they want to talk about protecting babies………

HA HA HA…….to all the Rights that are WRONG including Jim himself……..

When we as a country start looking out for adults, and children in this country, and stop the spreading of voilence around the world, and stop the pouring of our tax dollars into FAT CAT Greedy corporations and stop screwing the American public with the Monitary waste that goes on with our RIGHT WING Government, then perhaps it will be time to talk about taking care of babies…..

$400 billion for this war is a sham……never mind the fact the Right Wingers would step on the poor for profit…….

Talk about babies rights…….HA HA HA HA HA HA …….

Jim you are a joke and so are all the RIGHT (WRONG) wingers here………..

Chicken Hawks!

By Curious Observer

January 2, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

I enjoy seeing the sanctimonious conservatives decrying the immorality of mothers—and particularly black mothers—who have children out of wedlock.

My memory seems to recall that it was the conservatives who insisted that no federal or state aid go to intact families—that husbands must be absent from the household if a mother was to receive government aid in rearing children. The same conservatives then conceived the myth of the welfare queen, esconced in a Cadillac and buying food they could not afford.

What do you hypocrites think is going to happen when you insist on splitting the family unit as a precondition of providing aid for children? What is going to happen and what did happen was a generation of children who saw marriage as an unnecessary component of child conception and who, seeing single mothers all around raising children, decided that single motherhood was perfectly acceptable in all instances.

Go ahead and sing your moralistic hymns. Your own twisted sexual hangups created the problems you decry.

By Jeff

January 2, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

stopper:

Funny, but my copy of the Declaration of Independence states that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (emphasis mine)

Can you name anywhere in either the Constitution or the Declaration that says that “All men have the right to murder at their convenience”?

By catlady

January 2, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

Stopper: Yeah, we saw the “from the moment of conception” part, but I, personally, decided not to engage that point at this time.

Good point, Curious Observer. I don’t know who came up with the idea of restricting some aid only for non-intact families, but we have certainly reaped a “reward” from it. Makes me hopeful that we can do the reverse with the right carrots/sticks. People rise or fall, to a large degree, on what is expected of them. It is amazing that when you kick people out of some “entitlement” programs, they find out that they can make better choices that can lead to more independence for themselves, and less assistance from others. Sometimes you have to reset the thermostat.

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

Curious Observer,

Do you find it odd that you are essentially saying exactly the same thing Dan Quayle was saying about the Murphy Brown show?

By Dusty

January 2, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

Charles,

I can’t buy your premise that integration is the root of all problems for unmarried women having babies. Integration here is the result of the American standard that all people are created equal (and should be treated as such).

Are you trying to say that because people of different races associate with one another there is more sexual activity? More babies? Do you have any facts to back that idea?

I do believe that self determination is better for everyone. I also believe that more education is better than less. But to blame integration for sexual activity is beyond my imagination or reason and I do not see your point.

By peter

January 2, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

Hey Jeff………….note the “Iraq War”…..Bush can murder when ever he chooses……….

By Mass Distractions

January 2, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

Good one today, Jim! Keeps the people from focusing on this.

By getalife

January 2, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

“It’s Alice in Wonderland. I’m absolutely
opposed to more troops to Iraq. It is folly.”
— Chuck Hagel

We can blow up more babies.

By Jeff

January 2, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

Peter:

Name ONE INSTANCE where President George W. Bush has physically pulled the trigger and murdered someone.

You’re showing your disdain for our TROOPS, you’re not insinuating ANYTHING about the President.

By ChrisD

January 2, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

Bill O’Reilly is a real leader in child protection. He was the strongest backer of Jessica’s Law. Everyone should get behind tougher punishment for child abusers and molesters. There’s NO excuse for it.

By Blind Homer

January 2, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

CATLADY - Close, but mandatory sterilization should come with the first dime of public assistance for the 1st kid. Of course even this is doomed to failure. The Chinese have taken some pretty extreme measures trying to restrict people to one child for a generation now, and the population has risen from 1.0 to 1.2, although it’s arguably still less than it would have been without the policies.

By CJ

January 2, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

catlady,

Thank you for recommending the book, “Promises I Can Keep”. I haven’t read the book, but after seeing your post, I read some of the reviews on Amazon. However, I have to say that after reading these reviews, I’m a little confused about your positions in some of your earlier posts. You support sterilization, cutting off access to welfare programs (e.g. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), food stamps, children’s’ school lunch programs for special needs children) and paternity payments.

On the other hand, according to the reviews, this book seems to point out that, contrary to popular opinion, poor women aren’t motivated to get pregnant by welfare programs. If true, then your solution would not reduce the number of children born to unwed mothers.

The book you recommended seems to point out that, within poor communities, having children is primarily a means to attaining self-worth. One of the reviewers observes that the authors “…believe that the economy needs to be the biggest consideration in the policy equation. Early childbearing is the one way in which the poor establish a sense of self-worth and meaning. If they had greater opportunities in terms of education and jobs and greater access to resources, they would not, in the authors’ opinions, be so quick to jump into parenthood.”

If this and other reviewers’ portrayal of the book is accurate, then the authors of this book have confirmed my instincts – hence my position of removing obstacles to moving from the working poor into the middle class and removing obstacles to staying in the middle class (e.g. “poor taxes” imposed by the private sector and regressive sales or consumption taxes imposed by the public sector).

By Dusty

January 2, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

Peter,

If there is any hate on this blog, you have exceeded all of it with your outpouring.

I am talking about hate for the president as you say we are blindly folowing our idiot president. Then your hate for our country as you post that we areblindly spreading terror around the world.

There may be an excuse for citizens like you but I can’t think of one. Well, maybe one but I rather not mention it.

By Educator

January 2, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

The thing I find interestng, the stopper (100) is that Mr. Wooten wants to “protect the child” from the moment of conception, but he is willing to steriize the mother.

At any other time, I would tease Mr. Wooten for such a liberal notion as making the “government” responsible for the lives of all of us from the moment of conception, but I think it too important a topic to tease about.

Mr. Wooten:

Although I said I’d spoken my piece in private and would not post, I thought it worthwhile to bid you welcome to my side of the aisle. I hope we can discuss the implications of this decision on your part further at some point in the future. I’m very interested in hearing more about it. Bravo.

By Aquagirl

January 2, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

Stopper, thanks for calling Jim out on that nasty little part about the government being involved “from the moment of conception”. Conservative thought scares the * out of me when I hear that crap.

BTW, placing not having a mother and father in the home equal to factors like physical threats to the kid is another frightening moment of Jim’s proposed nanny state. Neglect or endangerment is a reason to remove a child from a home. The fact that you don’t like their family structure isn’t.

Unless you’re a conservative, that is.

By WTFBBQ

January 2, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

1) State benefits for ALL PEOPLE for the first and second child. Third child? ALL BENEFITS GONE!

2) Abortion allowed until the 3rd trimester. After that, illegal.

3) Only 2 abortions in a lifetime (without proven medical necessity - ectopic, etc) - MANDATORY HYSTERECTOMY WITH A 2nd NON-MEDICAL ABORTION!

4) Mandatory tube-tying for all male parolees. You can get the procedure reversed if you can save up the money (meaning, get a job MF!) and you have a wife! Alternately, once parole is complete for non-felons, the procedure will be reversed by the state. Felons however will still need to pay for their own, parole or not, wife and job or not.

5) MANDATORY PHYSICAL CASTRATION FOR ALL SEX OFFENDERS! (of course, there must be a lengthy appeals process, during which should the accused be in custody or on parole, chemical castration. If off parole and married, can come off chemicals… but if the appeals are upheld - SNIP SNIP MF!)

6) Water-heads, retarts, MS, MD, deformed, etc - STUMP THEM! I see no reason to support these with my tax money whatsoever. Yeah, there have been a few Stephen Hawkings in the world, but whats the percentage? You want your deformed mutant child to survive? Fine, pay for it yourself. NO benefits! (does not count towards the 2 children for benefits only rule, as in #1 above)

Income level is not a requirement for any financial assistance. Healthy children are our one true natural resource, and as such the education, feeding, clothing, and health of them should be one of our top goals. But, if you’re wealthy enough to have more than two, or you want to keep a mutant, good on you! Just don’t expect my taxes to pay for them.

By Barbara

January 2, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

Dio, busted!! When you said you had spoken your piece with Jim in private, you posted under Diogenese @10:05am. Hmmmm?? Normally I stay out of the name-calling side, but seeing how many different names you post under, I just had to point it out. The reason I find it worthy of mention is that posting under multiple IDs (and ID stealing too) takes away from the opportunity for genuine discussion where participants are willing to own their opinions.

Just thought I’d mention it……

By WTFBBQ

January 2, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

ADDENDUM

Any deformed / malformed fetus may be aborted without counting towards the “two electives only” rule. The genetic tests exist, and should be used! If such a child is allowed to come to full term, it is now in protection of the full force of US Citizenship, and as such cannot be “dispatched”. However, ignorance is no excuse. You have a malformed child, it gets no benefits. You kill it after birth, you go to jail. Use the tests, thats what they’re there for dag-nabbit!

By peter

January 2, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

The troops are there because the Bush administration LIED to the American people and Congress……..

Don’t talk about distain for anything but the crap we have put up with for 6 years now……

BUSH ordered troops in…..he is responsible for the killing that goes on daily!

If you are for Pro Life……..you CANNOT BE PRO WAR!

By peter

January 2, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

You are anothe BLIND person following a president who has wasted more resources than any other in our history……

He has started a war on his own accord, and is responsible for killing on a daily basis…..

As an American you should be ashamed of how anyone who does not support this made up WAR, is called anti American…..

HA HA HA to all the Chicken Hawks who blindly follow a Killer!

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this

Educator,

By Diogenes January 2, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this Jim, I’ve stated my thoughts to you on this privately and in my own name, so I’ll stay out of it today.

Wouldn’t it be easier for you to pick a name and stick with it? “Educator” is the name you made up so you could continue your drivel after claiming you were leaving, remember? Why don’t you just accuse Jim of advocating eugenics and get it over with? You know you want to.

By Blind Homer

January 2, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Jeff - Fortunately, Jefferson’s editorial on inalienable rights is in the Declaration and, as such, not part of the law of the land. Fortunately of course, because Jefferson was wrong. Hobbes was right, you know, the “solitary, poor, nasty, bruttish and short” part.

By Jeff

January 2, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Peter:

Your hatred of all things Bush has blinded you to reality. Goodbye.

By Lily Toad

January 2, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

I’ll bet Hitler never pulled a trigger on anyone either. Are you saying he never killed anyone?

By Tara

January 2, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

CJ hit the nail on the head. Our social ills are manifested primarily by and among the poor. Taxpayers incur both social and financial costs such as the growing crime rates that not only affect the victims, but also result in the need to spend more money on cops, the judicial system, and to jail (house, feed and secure) more and more of our citizens. Other social and financial costs occur as a result of more abortions, higher infant mortality rates, more children born that require special education or special care, and yes…more children born to unfit parents.

Implementing public policies to help the working poor move into the middle class is the best thing we can do to significantly reduce these social ills and, in the long-run, the best thing we can do for each other and our children.

By getalife

January 2, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

If you are for Pro Life……..you CANNOT BE PRO WAR!

Amen.

By getalife

January 2, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

WTFBBQ,

You must be against Iraqi and Corporate welfare.

By @@

January 2, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

WTFBBQ:

I’m more than shocked by your attitude towards “malformed” fetuses, but hey…everyone is entitled.

Question. What would you do with those who are older and either physically or mentally incapacitated through an auto accident, etc.

Just wondering…

By Jeff

January 2, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

Blind, I am unfamiliar with the Hobbes your cite. Please elaborate.

Thank you!

(See, I DO admit when I don’t know something!)

By peter

January 2, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

Hey Jeff,

There are Bushes in my yard and I don’t hate them…….HA HA HA another Chicken Hawk who is PRO lIfe but supports WAr……….HA HA HA……

Gee I guess we are a tad mixed up!

I guess abortion is OK if you use a Stelth Bomber!

By Jeff

January 2, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this

Lily:

I would argue that Hitler was a truly evil man, but other than suicide, I would not accuse him of murder with what I know about him. To my knowledge, the only blood he physically spilled himself was his own.

Make sure your charges are accurate and provable beyond a shadow of a doubt. That’s what I’m saying…

By freddy joe

January 2, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

I know that the stats show that there is higher % of children born out of wedlock in black & Hispanic community.But do you really think that White women are not having out of wedlock sex? Have you been to a predomainate college lateley? I Know the majority of them are not virgins,have you been to Buckhead and see all of those drunk White girls “hooking up” with guys? So the question is what is happening in the White community after they have sex out of wedlock as opposed to the Black & Hispanic community. The answer is they are having abortions (I know you conservatives are against it but its true!)And They are on some sort of birth control.Now some Blacks & Hispanics do not or cannot afford to get insurance so therefore they cannot get birthcontrol and some cannot afford abortions.So then it becomes a big cycle of poverty and kids born out of wedlock. Since you guys like stats & want to protect children,We all know that 90% of child molestors & child preditors are White males(probaly some of you on this blog!)

By Lily Toad

January 2, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

To those of you complaining of your tax dollars going to welfare and prisons, how do you feel about the huge tax cost of the Iraq war?

By Jack

January 2, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

Mr. Jim Wooten,

Great article.. This subject is very near and dear to my heart. Your right, the parents need to be held accountable to their childs health, welfare, mental and physical being and education. The government,family courts, psycologist and DFACS do not hold the parents accountable enough !!

Being a father and having first hand experience with DFACS, I can tell you that DFACS definatly needs reform and changes as well as the family court system. I believe “whats in the best interest of the children” should be taken more seriously and investigated deeper by the family courts and DFACS. Their needs to be tougher laws that would cause parents to be parents and face consiquences of having their children taken away from them. Do the family courts and DFACS really properly and throughly investigate whats in the best interest of the children? Does DFACS hold the parents accountable? What steps does DFACS take to ensure that the parent/parents get the proper teaching/training, parenting courses, drug/alcohol test, to make sure that they can properly take care of a child? Is child psycologist and gaurdian ad litems that famiily courts appoint to help determine the best interest of a child properly and throughly investigate the parent/parents? Are the gaurdian ad litems and child psycologist properly trained in that arena? Why is it that gaurdian ad litems and child psycologist feel like they can determine which parent is more suitable for primary custody of the children with just 3 visits and very small amount of investigating?

Its not about whether a single parent can properly take care of a child. Its not about whether having children out of wedlock determines your parenting ability. Their are alot of single parents and parents that has a child out of wedlock that I know personally who are AWESOME parents. Whether you are married, have a child out of wedlock or single parent due to divorce does NOT determine your parenting ability !!

Its about the government, DFACS and family courts need to hold the parent/parents to a higher accountability as parents. Its about getting the legislation to making laws that would cause parent/parents to face tougher consiquences for mentally or physically abusing their children and making sure parent/parents play a huge part in their childrens education. DFACS needs to make sure a parent is a parent and not just a part time want to be parent. To many children are being left in harms way or not receiving the parental guidance that they deserve. Why is it that someone I know has documented proof that their chiildren kept headlice every weekend that he had his children for a year straight, DFACS was called and informed 5 or 6 times and the primary custodial parent suffered no consiquences from DFACS?

REFORM REFORM REFORM CHANGE.. legislative laws are needed. Family courts need reform and change also..

HOLD THE PARENTS/PARENT ACCOUNTABLE for the well being of their child/children, both phsically and mentally and educationally. If the child/children are over weight due to the parent/parents not properly feeding the child healthy foods, or if the child is in 3rd grade and on a kidergarden level, MAKE THE PARENT ACCOUNTABLE !! The child/children deserve a parent or parents that will take care of them in all aspects of their life…

We also need to hold the family courts, DFACS, gaurdian ad litems and psycologist accountable also. We need to have judges accountable for their decisions on child custody and what parent is best suited as a primary custodial parent in a divorce. We need to hold DFACS accountable for not taking the proper action on any case that comes forward to their attention.

By deegee

January 2, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

We have progressed culturally much faster than we have physiologically. Young women are most fertile between the ages of 15 and 19. Somewhere in the mid-twentieth century it became taboo to marry and bear children before the age of 21. Now it’s a crime. Sixteen year old girls will stop having sex when sixteen year old boys stop asking for it. If the baby’s family doesn’t want to care for the baby then it should be adopted by someone who wants it. It is unacceptable for a child to be beaten to death by an immature, drug and alcohol dependant parent.

By peter

January 2, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

Tara,

I hope you understand that none of the things you mention can happen…….

$400 Billion spend on a war, and 2 Billion spent on Katrina, and over 50% of the Katrina money wasted BY the GOP, so there is no money to help OUR people, you know the American Public….

Don’t get your hope up high for any Poor people to get help…….all the excess waste goes directly to the top of the food chain……..YEP the Rich!

That is the way for the Wrong Wing!

Yes the Wrong Wing that wants WAR, and backs it, but says killing is a sin (abortion) …….

HA HA HA………I like the post that said Hitler never killed anyone, so I guess he was innocent of murder, just like Bush!

By peter

January 2, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

Hey Jeff,

Do you have any Jewish friends?

By ICEMAN

January 2, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

Jesus, said” The poor you will have with you always.” This was in response to the pharisees wondering why he wasn’t spending all of his time with the poor. Folks there will forever be people who make decisions that keep themselves in a state of poverty. There is no need to continue to bang our heads against the wall trying to help them no more than we help anyone else.

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

We couldn’t leave Darfur if we were feeding the starving hoards, now, could we? Similarly, our army cant leave Iraq.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy became the cooler head after it was suggested that someone else might be.

The Persians are the cooler heads right now, according to their recent ballot.

Hey! The shia had one vote that didn’t count because the paper ballot had a hanging saddam.

By michelle

January 2, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

hello all…i haven’t the time at the moment to read all the comments, but i aim to get there by the end of the day.

one thing and then i’ll come back:

jim…i normally hate your blog, although your regular posters offer hours of entertainment. you have the right idea today, sir….until you mentioned that children should be moved to a faith-based organization instead of suffering in a dysfunctional household. (to poorly-summarize). we all know holy institutions can do no wrong because they are of the lord….by the way, how are some of those alter boys doing nowadays?

it’s foolish to think that a faith-based institution is going to automatically do better than a child’s natural household, simply because it’s got religious backing.

there just needs to be a serious look at our social programs in general….how some of these people get 11 foster kids and live in crappy housing is beyond me.

By Lyrazel

January 2, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

Strange that public assistance social workers are so incapable of taking care of children that the government needs to step in to bring faith-based charities. I dont think there is one faith-based charity capable of taking care of children without major government funding—so if we have the funds to fund the faith-based charity—we must have the funds right now, right? Without any records of past efforts for child rearing to what standards do we measure these organizations? How much cost will the proposals, surveys, studies and planning be to create the new government institution of placing children in faith care? How does the government regulate these faith-based charities to insure that the children are receiving adequate care? What kind of system would be brought for those charities who are no better than the current. What are these charities allowed to reject: handicaps? disruptive? different faith? Can they say: Sorry, we are full? DFCS cant.

How much will this cost? You always avoid looking at the cost of your feel-good measures, Jim.

Why not just declare mandatory abortions for anyone pregnant who is widowed, divorced or single so their child is not an inconvenience to good church-going taxpaying people…

By the stopper

January 2, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

Jeff, two questions:

1) are you under the impression that the Declaration of Independence is our Constitution?

2) Even if you are willing to accept the DoI as some kind of double-secret pre-Constitution and not, basically, an “F-you” letter to King Georged, last I checked, a fertilized egg was not a “man”.

But if your gang of bozos and losers wants to convince America that a fertilized egg should have the same rights as an actual human being, go for it.

Have fun and let us know how that works out for ya.

By WTFBBQ

January 2, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this

Getalife:

Iraqi welfare? Let them live off of their oil profits. Stop redirecting them to other countries. We’re not supporting them, they’re supporting themselves.

Corporate welfare? WTF? Its a dang nab business. You can’t survive, get outta business. (yes, down with airline subsidies, amtrak subsidies, oil company tax breaks, auto industry tarrifs, etc.)

@@:

Elderly? Thats what SSI is for!! Duh.

Disabled due to accident?
Thats what INSURANCE is for!

Of course, if its your fault you got in the accident, and you’re stupid enough not to have insurance, get outta my gene pool. Darwinism at its finest. I don’t care if its me. If I can’t make it in this world, I can’t make it, and don’t deserve to be here.

Was it someone elses fault? LAWSUIT TIME! No insurance to live off of? Try your family then. No family? No FAMILY? Get out the gene pool, unless your lawyer wants to help you to survive so he/she can make payday on your behalf.

Unless, @@, you are suggesting a socialist state-sponsored hospital system like Canada? No?

Can’t you just hear the medical industry scream….

=========================== Save the children, raise proper HUMAN genetic stock. Color doesn’t matter, what matters are four limbs, 20 digits, a fully functional neural cortex, and the ability to survive without assistance for the first 24 hours. Pretty simple requirements for life.

Ever seen a 1 winged bird? How about a deaf bat? A dolphin without a blowhole? Me neither..

By Dusty

January 2, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

Peter,

Every American president has been the one to declare war.

If you want to make lies about the process and the war, you are just another far leftist making a cowardly run againsr our president and our country. You wouldn’t fight for this country if the enemy was at your front door.

Your mind is in a rut that most Americans reject. All of us do not agree with everything that is being done in our war effort but we do not turn against the government of our country in the process as you have.

By Blind Homer

January 2, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

Jeff - Thomas Hobbes was a 17th century Brit and one of the fathers of political philosophy. He argued that a strong state was necessary to counteract human nature, which generally led to lives that were “solitary, poor,nasty, bruttish and short”. Point being government is more necessary to protect us from each other, than to enable us to attain any god-given inaliennable rights.

By Dusty

January 2, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

I am sure that Saddam would approve of your thought that he (and Hitler) did not actually kill anyone and could therefore be called innocent.

The Nuremberg Trials condemned Hitler’s leaders to death for their actions although I doubt that a one of them “pulled the trigger”. I cannot see how you think Hitler was an innocent bystander without blood on his hands.

By @@

January 2, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

Well alrighty BBQ. You offered it shredded, pulled and sliced. Like I said, to each his own.

I am in total disagreement with you regarding the disabled, but your blowhole comment made me laugh. Bats ARE blind, but they use the gift of sonar to navigate. The loss of one of the five senses can be replaced by the enhancement of another. Even in humans.

It’s odd that Darwinism (survival of the fittest) is something the leftists put forth in science class while desiring to exclude moral instruction.

By peter

January 2, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

More crap you spin……you don’t know that I and the rest of the Americans, that don’t support this made up WAR would NOT fight for a just cause……

You are just blind to the lies and waste of this administration, and choose to turn a blinds eye to the real truth.

Don’t give me your Anti American crap, because I have a different opinion……

This President started a war, and didn’t really Protect our country, he went after saddam, and has never put in the full effort to go after the ones responsible for the 911 Killings!

Dusty you are the Anti American…..the one that would probably amend the Constitution to read………. Free speech…..NOT HERE!

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this

Dusty’s an innocent blogger with bugs on her hands.

By Rock N Roller

January 2, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

For Dusty.

Greetings from Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.

You call yourself a Christian, I think that you’re a hypocrite

You say you are a patriot’ I think that you’re a crock of sh!t

And listen now, the gasoline I drink it every day

But it’s getting very pricey, And who is going to pay

How come you’re so wrong My sweet neo con…. Yeah

It’s liberty for all, ‘Cause democracy’s our style

Unless you are against us. Then it’s prison without trial

But one thing that is certain, Life is good at Haliburton

If you’re really so astute, You should invest at Brown & Root…. Yeah

How come you’re so wrong, My sweet neo con

If you turn out right, I’ll eat my hat tonight

It’s getting very scary, Yes, I’m frightened out of my wits

There’s bombers in my bedroom, Yeah and it’s giving me the sh!ts

We must have lots more bases, To protect us from our foes

Who needs these foolish friendships, We’re going it alone

How come you’re so wrong, My sweet neo con

Where’s the money gone, In the Pentagon “

By ChrisD

January 2, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

Bill O’Reilly is one of the great leaders of the child protection movement. If not for him we would not have Jessica’s Law in 40 states. We should all get on the bandwagon. Anyone who is on the fence about this issue should be eyed warily.

By Jeff

January 2, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

Dusty:

I am NOT saying that Hitler (or Saddam) were not guilty of ORDERING the murders (which, in the case of national leaders, is more evil than actually committing the murders). I am saying that the act of murder is, by its very definition, the act of taking another human life with your own hand. Therefore, you can convict Hitler (or Saddam) of genocide or a multitude of other crimes, but unless Hitler himself physically killed someone, you CAN NOT convict him of murder. Again, you can convict him of ORDERING the murder, but you cannot convict him of the murder itself. ALL humans have free will, and EVERY human has the power to make choices, even if the choice you make leads to your own death.

I NEVER said the Hitler (or Saddam) were innocent bystanders. Simply that they did not commit the act of murder, to my knowledge.

By getalife

January 2, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

We’re not supporting them, they’re supporting themselves.

Ha, ha, ha, good one.

You are so uninformed, it is hilariuos.

Can you read?

Get real wingnut, were are looking at over 1 trillion dollars idiot.

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this

Show brittany and paris climbing in a limo, and when you look close at their twinkies, it’s really Kramer holding a microphone, saying, “thirty years ago we used to eat candy underwear”.

By ChrisD

January 2, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this

Lily I’d much rather pay for the Iraq war than deadbeat welfare recipients. Atleast there’s a chance I’ll get some benefit from the Iraq war.

By peter

January 2, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this

Jeff……….HA HA HA………I guess Clinton then NEVER had SEX………HA HA HA……gee I guess the Far right can learn some new tricks!

You are totally silly with your argument about Hitler……..YES he was never responsible for invading Poland and starting WW2……….

He wasn’t responsible for any Killing, heck let’s make Him…….

Saint Adolf!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes then you and DUSTY can pray to him when waging war around the world, while putting down folks who believe in woman’s rights!

By Dusty

January 2, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

Oh PoFo, that’s sooo cute.

You posted a song under rock’n’roller. That is so apropo. I just love it when you sing. Maybe you could make it on Idol instead of Little Five Point bars.

By Jack

January 2, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten I have comments on your last comment:

The father should not be allowed to be “out of the picture.” He should pay child support or be required to perform labor in public or minimum-wage jobs, if necessary, to provide financial support to the child or to compensate taxpayers for the support they provide.

Being a father that has gone through a divorce with children involved, I definatly think that the non-custodial parent should pay child support. However I think that the family court system sets the non-custodial parent up for failure due to the unfair method of child support amounts. I think child support is determined unfairly with a percentage of the gross pay instead of net pay. I understand that the child support laws have changed effective today, however it is not much better.

Alot of times the custodial parent interfers with visitation, making it such a heartache and stressful that the non-custodial parent(most the time the father) finds it easier just to walk away. The society view on this is to hire an attorney that you cannot afford and take the primary custodial parent back to court for contempt. Whether people believe it or not, when you go pro’se(representing yourself without an attorney), the judge will get mad and wont rule fairly in the case even if you have documented proof and witnesses. The father definatly should be a very active part of his child or childrens life.

We should legislate some laws giving the non-custodial parent means and ways to get help with interference of visitation and other custodial matters, without having to go to court to get resolved. Just like primary custodial parents have ways to get dead beats who do not pay child support to pay(such as child support enforcement).

I also believe that Georgia should recognize shared parenting where both parents would have equal time/custody and entitlement to the children and no one pays child support. This could be done with a parenting plan.

Fathers get a bad reputation to often and to quickly. People to include judges often judge fathers as the bad guy, the enemy, the deadbeat. However they dont look at the entire picture. Why is it that fathers have to spend alot of money on an attorney and fight like hell to get joint legal and physical custody of thier child/children? Does joint legal and physical custody really give you anything? not really..

The family courts need reform and change. Their is a tremendous amount of changes that could be done to improve the child support/child custody laws.

To often the primary custodial parent wants to make the life of the non custodial parent a living hell and they use child support, visitation, custody as a means to achieve this. To often the women wants as much child support as possible because in their sick minds they think the ex should support them even though they are divorced. They do not want to work so they try to live off the child support, food stamps, welfare. When will the court system put a stop to this maddness and hold the woman(often the primary custodial parent) acountable as much as they do the father? Why shouldnt the women be forced to work and support the child as well?

The new child support law now takes the primary custodial parents job/paycheck into account. It also takes into account how often the non-custodial parent see’s the child. What happens if the primary custodial parent does not work and does not even attempt to work? What happens if the non-custodial parent did not get a good enough custody decision from the court to see the child enough to have the new law work? what happens when the primary custodial parent interfears with visitation to the point that the new child support law wouldnt be effective?

Why in a divorce does the father so many times get stuck by the judge to pay the attorney fees of the woman? What kind of unfair crap is that? It took two people to have a child and it took two people to come to the point of reconsilable differences that lead to a divorce.

I could vent and write about child custody/child support laws all day !! But i will go now….

By peter

January 2, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

You Go ChrisD……..no real point in helping AMERICANS……..

Spoken like a true Right Winger!!!!!!!!

By getalife

January 2, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

Wow.

Save the children, raise proper HUMAN genetic stock.

You sound just like a Nazi freak but to be expected from the right.

Amazing mindset.

Geez.

By LuckoDull

January 2, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

By peter January 2, 2007 02:14 PM | Link to this Jeff, The troops are there because the Bush administration LIED to the American people and Congress……..

George Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002 he is said to have assured the President that the evidence against Saddam amounted to a “slam dunk case.” Tenet was appointed the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence in July 1995 and served through the end of the Clinton administration.

Colin Powell: We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein’s history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations, and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not someday use these weapons at a time and a place and in a manner of his choosing, at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

Bush lied?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Joey Lee

January 2, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

How did Sadaam get mixed up in this discussion? Anyway, it’s astounding to me that after all the work we women went through in the late 60s to make birth control available to everyone, does anyone still actually use it? It is also astounding to me that, although everyone knows how to make a baby, unintended babies are still made. Planned Parenthood, where’s all the idealistic talk about “every child a wanted child”? C’mon, people, if you are not fully prepared to be Mom or Dad, use something. My goodness, while young and single I was so phobic about becoming pregnant I was scared to death not to use birth control. I don’t even care much about the marriage component; it’s so commonplace nowadays for even decent folks to intentionally make babies outside of marriage. I agree with Wooten that probably most of the throwaway babies are made as a result of careless behavior due to drinking or drugs or possibly a determined male. Sadly, those folks who need to hear this will not, just as they will not heed warnings about sunscreen and seatbelts.

By Dusty

January 2, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

Peter,

You would never find a just cause for fighting for this country. You are too afraid.

You ignore the fact that you are living in the safest country in the world.

You ignore the fact that we freed Afghanistan from a tyranical government.

You ignore the fact that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq and not in any city or town in America.

You ignore the fact that we have a volunteer military that is brave enough to fight for us in foreign places. YOU would not move a foot to help.

I am sad that we have Americans like you. But our enemies really appreciate your efforts. Keep hiding behind freedom of speech to spout hate. I do not wish to waste time with your efforts against this country.

By peter

January 2, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

LuckoDull……..back at you……. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Where is Colin Powell today…

distance himself as far from this president as possible…….at the time he said that, he didn’t know about the lies, and “Intelligent Mistakes”…

Have you read what he states since then????

Wrong is Wrong no matter what…….

You cannot support WAR, and support Pro Life!

By jim d

January 2, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

Perhaps your knowledge on Hitler is limited?

Angela Raubal

By WTFBBQ

January 2, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

getalife

Oh, pardon me. Let me rephrase..

We SHOULD NOT BE supporting them…

I apologise for my incorrect typing. The emphasis is entirely on what we shouldn’t be doing, not on what we ARE doing - typo. Yes, I can read just fine. Careful with the personal attacks.. thats not what the blog is supposed to be about, right?

Again, thanks for pointing out the flow in my typing. I completely agree with you.

Amazing, nugfiggit.. You’re arguing a point on Iraqi welfare, when the blog is about children and unwed mothers?!? WTF?

Whatever.. HAHAHA

@@

*Bats ARE blind, but they use the gift of sonar to navigate. *

I asked about deaf bats… :)

Thank you for your civil response to my statements. We can always agree to disagree…

By One World

January 2, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

For Dusty.

In reality, other than religion, patriotism is perhaps THE single most effective political tool. Rove, Bush and Co. have used it expertly to control and condition the opinions of the general masses.

For example, sympathizing with a little Iraqi child whose entire family was killed during the US invasion is unpatriotic. And if not unpatriotic, it is at least unimportant compared to the death of a US soldier, because American lives are more important than any and all other lives.

Politicians use patriotism to breed resentment to other races and nationalities, and to justify certain actions that otherwise would not be tolerated. It is important to understand that patriotism is also frequently used to “bind” a person to his country, and in doing so, stifle dissent, and make it generally unacceptable.

This form of patriotism is a tool to make the general populace have a single opinion that is supplementary to the actions (or future actions) of the politicans in power at the time.

By getalife

January 2, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

I can see why the Pope left.

Geez.

By Lily Toad

January 2, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

Chris, what benefit do you hope to get from the Iraq war?

By Dwayne

January 2, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this

WOW, how original of a thought Mr. Wooten. How kids are left behind, is this some old topic you dug up since you have nothing new to rant about?

By Lexophine

January 2, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this

For Dusty.

Patriotism: By true definition, the idea of loving your country enough to criticize it.

Nationalism: The second step towards fascism.

Chickenhawk: Any person who is a proponent of a war while not enlisting and going off to fight in said war. A kind of hypocrite. A chickenhawk is one who says: “it’s okay for other mother’s sons and children’s fathers to go off and get shot, dismembered and incinerated, but me, I’m too much of a wilting daisy to go off and break a nail trying to load one of those gun thingies.”

By Jeff

January 2, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

jim:

I googled that name. Elder half-sister of Hitler, died in 1949. (4+ years AFTER Hitler) Had a daughter named Geli that Hitler had a relationship with. Hitler cheated on Geli with Braun, and in 1931 Geli and Hitler had a major fight. Hitler stormed out, and Geli took her own life.

Still don’t see evidence that he ever committed the act of murder….

By WTFBBQ

January 2, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

getalife

Quote: By getalife

January 2, 2007 03:49 PM | Link to this

Wow.

Save the children, raise proper HUMAN genetic stock.

You sound just like a Nazi freak but to be expected from the right.

Amazing mindset.

Geez.

:Unquote

Right? Hmm, I see myself more as a Middler, not a Right or a Left.

Hitler wanted to kill all homosexuals, jews, blacks.. anyone not white.

Interesting how you chose, again, to only see what you want to see, and attempt to make an argument based around out of context.

Yes, the first one, I mistyped.

This one, however, CLEARLY indicated that color was not important. The key here is HUMAN.

I suppose then, by your very statement, that by comparing me to Hitler you are indicating that everyone who isn’t exactly like you are inferior races? That anything that is anything NOT human is equal to Human? Martians are just as good as Terrans?

I mentioned nothing about races.

You, Sir, are the racist. A racist non-terran who should be destroyed.

HUMANS ONLY!

By peter

January 2, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

OK Dusty……..

Which foot did you use the RIGHT one……..HA HA HA……

Since you are such a great fighter of injustice around the world and here in the USA…..PLEASE…..

Tell me about all your great victories fighting the terrorists……..

What would you have all Americans doing so we are a safe country?

Is sending more non bids to Haliburton a good idea………will that make us safer?

Will sending our troops with Hummers not totally armored, be another good idea?

Should we send more of our troops into battle without proper armor make us safer?

Should we go invade another country because we got attacked on 911 make us safer?

PLEASE tell us what we can do to be like YOU, and so thus we have a safer America?????

By Scarlett

January 2, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

To those who criticize President Bush, please pay no attention to Dusty. Anybody who criticizes Bush or his War, in her small mind, is anti-American, unpatriotic, treasonist, a coward, commits sedition, undermines our troops, etcetera. She has the faith of a child and the intellect of an infant. Many have tried to help her, but none have succeeded. Spare yourselves the frustration. Her posts are clutter.

By WTFBBQ

January 2, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

CORRECTION

By WTFBBQ January 2, 2007 04:05 PM “Again, thanks for pointing out the flow in my typing. I completely agree with you. “

Should Read - ..thanks for pointing out the FLAW in my typing…

By LuckoDull

January 2, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

By peter January 2, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this at the time he said that, he didn’t know about the lies, and “Intelligent Mistakes”…

peter: You probably can’t understand this, with you being a lib and all, but Bush wasn’t the one on the ground in the Middle East gathering prewar intelligence.

That was the job of Powell’s State Department and Tenet’s CIA.

Think about it for a moment, if you can.

Check this out, for the rest of you, does anyone one really believe that if Bush said he was sorry and made up some cute phrase like “Intelligent Mistakes,” that the libs would rush to his defense like they have for Powell?

That everything would just get better?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Lily Toad

January 2, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

WTFBBQ, Hitler sent disabled people to the concentration camps also.

By getalife

January 2, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

Lexophine,

Yep thats “crusty the clown”.

She is the perfect fascist.

WTFBBQ,

Nevermind PF.

By Lily Toad

January 2, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

Jim keeps harping on this subject because he can’t stand the thought of a home without a MAN. Women can’t possibly raise a child properly without a MAN.

By peter

January 2, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

DUSTY……..

Today we pay tribute to President Ford………have you read what he said about the “Mistake” President Bush made by going to WAR in Iraq?????

Gee I guess since President Ford didn’t agree with the current President………

HE MUST BE A NON PATRIOT!!!!!!!

According to your rules……..President Ford is not a true Patriot…….

HA HA HA to all your silliness!!!!!!!!

By jim d

January 2, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

There was evidence that it wasn’t a suicide.

Do a little more reading.

By peter

January 2, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this

HA HA HA……LuckoDull……..

Yes you are correct…….

He was the one who took the information and then misrepresented the information………….then of course it never matter as “Dick” stated we were going to invade Iraq anyway……

So it never was about the intelligence anyway……..but it was one great way to lie to the public for thier agenda!

He even lied in a state of the union address…….

Also Saddam was responsible or 911………HA HA HA……Remember “Dick” also stated that…….

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

By jim d

January 2, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this

Well Lily,

The numbers seem to support jim’s argument.

By WTFBBQ

January 2, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this

LilyToad

1) I am not advocating the murder or “camping” of disabled people. Check the post again, if they’re alive, they’re citizens, and as such should be protected. If they can be removed from society before birth, specifically before the 3rd trimester, then that is a good thing. There are tests that can determine, before the 3rd trimester, for any major anomalies. If they make it to birth, then they should be protected as any other person. However, the government shouldbt be forced to pay to support them - they aren’t a productive part of society.

2) Hitler picked his nose. By that logic, you must be a Nazi.

NOSE-HEIL!

By Dusty

January 2, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

Lexophine,

You have changed definitions to suit your politics. Patriotism is loving your country pure and simple. No caveats need to be attached.

I do not show love to my children by criticizing them. If they are wrong I try to correct them but never hate them.

I love my country without “ifs and buts”. If I do not agree with what is being done, I do say so. But I do not hate our country. What Peter and other hate mongers are producing I do NOT call patriotism. I do not see any love of country there.

Speaking of children, my oldest son has served in the military as did my husband and father during wartime. I have never been in the eligible category.

So much for you trying to attach your chickenhawk definition to me and mine. You are just plain chicken and no hawk.

By @@

January 2, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

WTFBBQ:

I know you asked about deaf. I heard you with my own two eyes.

There are all sorts of worthwhile attributes to humans whether they come in fractions or wholes.

Watch. Using two of mine now. Nothing else is moving. (Smile & wink)

I work with special ed children, so I’m just a tad sensitive on the topic. But while you’re doing your thing, I’ll be doing mine.

By Lily Toad

January 2, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

Peter, don’t forget — Saddam tried to kill W’s daddy.

By Jeff

January 2, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this

jim:

Let’s say that I grant you Geli, and even Eva, since that one could have been a murder/suicide. That makes him a murderer of TWO, not TWO HUNDRED MILLION (OK, so my number was exaggerated to go with my flow, but you get the idea). I STILL put forth that while the Holocaust probably wouldn’t have happened without his truly evil and deranged leadership, he did NOT commit the act of murder on the people that died during it. Remember, by and large he was a POPULAR leader in Germany at the time. YES, he ordered the Holocaust, YES he ordered the blitzkriegs on both fronts, I will even grant you that the vast majority of Axis strategy came from Hitler himself. But that STILL does NOT make him a “murderer”. (Though, as I said earlier, I will grant both Geli and Eva, making him a “murderer”, just not on the scale that most people think of him as.)

And on THAT POINT ALONE, I will grant you similarities between Bush and Hitler, but you can also put Madison, Jefferson, both Roosevelts, Wilson, Jackson, Kennedy, Lincoln, the first Bush, Reagan, and probably a few other presidents in this category: They were popular national leaders that ordered their countries in directions that may or may not have been ethical or right. (On the international front, you could also put Mussolini, Chavez, Castro, Lenin, Stalin, and quite a few others in that category.)

By jim d

January 2, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

Dusty.

Bush administration lies.

LIE #1: “The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program … Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.” — President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati

LIE #2: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” — President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

LIE #3: “We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” — Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on “Meet the Press.”

LIE #4: “[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” — CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening’s speech by President Bush.

LIE #5: “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases … Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.” — President Bush, Oct. 7.

LIE #6: “We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States.” — President Bush, Oct. 7.

LIE #7: “We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they’re weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.” — President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

LIE #8: “Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” — Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

LIE #9: “We know where [Iraq’s WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.” — Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

LIE #10: “Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited.” — President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

Now I ask you—Is this someone you’d place your childs life in the hands of?

By Buy Danish

January 2, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this

TfTT,

you don’t think your 10:10 was a racist rant? Wow.

jmblaw,

Re your 11:58, I’m sorry but I missed the “spewing” from RW. Could you point out exactly where this occurred? I can direct you to your pal TfTT’s 10:10 which clearly illustrates “spewing”.

RW,

Dio/Bear/On-Looker/Educator is unintentionally quite entertaining isn’t she. I wonder if “Jim” likes having their “private conversations” made public.

@@ and Catlady,

I disagree on one particular point you both made, which was that we are failing because we have placed too much emphasis on the individual at the expense of society at large.

Valuing the individual instead of the group is a hallmark of American life, and is something that differentiates us from countries like Japan, where everything (especially in education)is geared toward the group. That is one of the first things I recoil at when educrats suggest we model our education system on theirs.

The single biggest factor in out-of- wedlock births, and the destruction of the black family unit (which was largely intact before the Sixties) was welfare programs which paid unmarried women to have children. But these programs have nothing to do with the “individual” and everything to do with a form of “collectivism”, i.e. “the group”. It was a well-intentioned but disastrous Big Government Socialist program where one “group” of taxpayers was required to pick up the tab for another “group”.

WTFBBQ,

I find your 2:09 comments appalling and ignorant. Two things stood out immediately - MS is not a disease you are born with, and you misspelled “retards” as “retarts”.

I’d be very careful if I were you - you might develop MS, or someone might decide that your ignorance proves that you’re a worthless “retard”, and toss you out with the garbage.

By KP

January 2, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this

Wow, it seems like a lot of people here advocate treating unwed mothers like Hester Prynn. Get over it! It’s not the 17th Century anymore.

While I don’t advocate everyone just running out and having children, I don’t think every child born to an unwed mother will be pure Hell.

There are many responsible, smart, well-earning women who are in a position to have a child but don’t want to be married. If they have the means to care for their children, then by all means, they should be able to have them.

And before any of you make assumptions, I am married with no children, so do think I’m trying to justify my lifestyle.

By Lexophine

January 2, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

For Dusty.

Chauvinism: 1. blind enthusiasm for military glory based on zealous and aggressive patriotism. 2. biased devotion to any group, attitude, or cause.

By Blind Homer

January 2, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

Lucko - You might consider the commonality in the Administration’s immigration non-policy, war on terror, anti-abortion, and even NCLB law. The common element is that it is in the best interests of the rich and powerful to maintain and even expand a poorly educated and impoverished lower class. Living in gated, guarded communities with the best private schools and health care, they avoid the social ills these policies inflict on most of the rest of us. Don’t believe their lies.

By Jimmy Z. Bellows

January 2, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this

Dusty wrote “I love my country without “ifs and buts”…What Peter and other hate mongers are producing I do NOT call patriotism. I do not see any love of country there.”

Classic Dusty. She knows a patriot when she sees one. Supporting Bush equals loving our country without “ifs and buts”. Criticizing Bush equals “I do not see any love of country there.”

Poor Dusty.

By Rita

January 2, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this

peter - You are a perfect example of why Free Speech is so important. You are doing a wonderful job representing the liberal mindset in this country. Please - keep talking …

By jim d

January 2, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

The body count marches on;

3003

http://icasualties.org/oif/

By jim d

January 2, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

I fear You are failing to consider when people refer to Hitler, Bush or any other head of state they are referring to their regime’s not them as individuals.

Accountability for actions taken by any regime must be placed upon the shoulders of its leadership, at the end of the day.

By peter

January 2, 2007 5:10 PM | Link to this

Yes DUSTY…..she is so Right….and all Right wingers should agree with her……..totally, why because that is how it must be……..we all agree or you are wrong!

IT is RIGHT to start wars, but wrong to kill during an Abortion……heck it is never wrong to kill once a person is over 3 months!

All WILL agree with your silly concepts of WAR, and Patriotism……….of course if one doesn’t agree…… then that equals HATE!!!!!!!!

This would include myself, President Ford, and others who didn’t agree with the Iraq War, we are all non Patriots…….we shall all be called Haters…..

Go DUSTY……….let’s also put in another term for Patriotism………

“Loving your country should also mean blindly following your PARTY, no matter who it hurts!”

Plus I can hardly imagine going through life like Dusty……she has NEVER Critisized her children, not once NEVER……..can you imagine how wonderful that can be……..like being PERFECT!

I imagine we can now call DUSTY a Saint……..we can now pray to…….yes you guessed it……

Saint Dusty, along with Saint Adolf for WAR when we go to sleep at night!

Dusty you are right though….I am not a Hawk!

Love baby is what gets you through, not the bull you spew!

By getalife

January 2, 2007 5:10 PM | Link to this

WTFBBQ is PF.

BD,

You must be RW’s clone because you are always on his side.

Do you ever disagree with your clone?

Bobblehead.

By peter

January 2, 2007 5:12 PM | Link to this

Rita……. I am not Liberal, I am not Right Wing………just a person who reads between the lines, and can see the lies that are spun around this world………

AGAIN……..if you didn’t see what he said….President FORD said it was a MISTAKE to INVADE IRAQ!

WAS he Liberal????????

By WTFBBQ

January 2, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this

Danish

Again, here we go.

I wish everyone would bother reading past the typos. I SAID IF THEY ARE DEFECTIVE TO REMOVE THEM PRIOR TO BIRTH.

Sweet nose-goblins.. Only two things stand out? I rant for tens of lines and thats what stands out to you? Thats really a shame.

You pick out that I named a non-genetic disease, but did you point out every other possible actual genetic diseases? Do you disagree with the idea of stamping out genetic diseases? Do you want genetically diseased, and affected individuals sucking your tax dollars?

Their parents can go ahead and give birth, at the expense of NOT GETTING FINANCIAL AID FOR THAT CHILD!

Good god, you all act like I’m Hitler Reincarnate.

I suppose that this is what it is like to be the butt of all rebuttals - especially when there is nothing else that I have said that you cannot agree with.

luzrs (dedicated to DDA)

By Charese F

January 2, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this

I think it’s safe to say that black children are at a great disadvantage whether it’s due to a single parent situation or absentee fathers. Here’s a suggestion: If a single mother decideds to have more than one child, it should NOT be the burden of the government or the taxpayer to “assist”. There is a “gravy train” of single, uneducated women cranking them out and getting assistance to do so. One the other side of the apple, throwing the fathers in jail for lack of support does not solve the problem. The gov’t still has to pay to house these men when they could be out working. Sure, the gov’t wants to recoup their money, but feeding, providing cable tv and computer access for men in jail is just throwing more money at a problem in a way that taxpayers still bear the burden.

By getalife

January 2, 2007 5:16 PM | Link to this

Rita,

It is called reality.

Try to grasp the concept.

The majority of Americans who won the elections were not all liberals.

That liberal blah, blah, blah crap shows your ignorant mindset.

By WTFBBQ

January 2, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

I suppose you are calling me Political Foreskin? Incorrect. I am my own entity.

By Rita

January 2, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this

jim d

16,919

That is the number of alcohol related traffic deaths in the US in 2004. I won’t bother to provide a link for you.

By jim d

January 2, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

Peter,

No need to read between the lines.

Merely read the lines. http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx

And realize every name on the list was someones child.(just not a bush)

By Hank

January 2, 2007 5:22 PM | Link to this

Hey Rita. Dittohead. Why don’t you educate us what the liberal mindset is.

By peter

January 2, 2007 5:23 PM | Link to this

Rita………

some how I think that stat you have for us….(deaths due to driving under the influence) is a reason to believe the Iraq War and American casualties is some how OK???

Yes…….NO ????

By jim d

January 2, 2007 5:23 PM | Link to this

Rita,

So you support Drinking and driving?

Wow, you are liberal!

By Huge

January 2, 2007 5:24 PM | Link to this

Scarlett,

Although I couldn’t agree more with your 4:16, I still believe that it is important for people like Dusty, and the dwindling number like her, who espouse these ultra-nationalistic positions to have a platform.

And though sickening, her self-righteous and radical views that other’s who criticizes the policies of the current administration, it’s leaders or the deadly insanity they have created in Iraq, “hates the country” should be allowed.

In her world-view, her display of and her definition of “patriotism” is the only acceptable one. Like Lexophine pointed out, it is similar to religion in that regard, and used by the politicos accordingly.

So show her words of contempt and intolerance to your friends. And to your parents. And especially to your children.

That is one small way in which we can make this world better…

By Dusty

January 2, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

Poor Peter,

President Ford was a man who loved his country. When he thought the war was a mistake, he did not hate the country or the president because of that. In fact, he did not want it even published until after he died. That is the difference in patriotism and war mongering. He had no wish to harm the country.

You really don’t get it, do you? Publicly expressing hate for our president is the kind of stuff our enemies love. They think our country is falling apart and they are invigorated. They don’t differentiate between the president and the USA.

So keep claiming what great Americans you are and the enemy will celebrate with you. They love YOUR freedom of speech and your hate for this country. You are a loser and I refuse to accept your hate as patriotism.

By holdingAJCaccountable

January 2, 2007 5:28 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten,

Please explain: after a column such as the one you wrote today, why has the AJC not once, ever wrote an editorial with the words “We advocate that teachers have the right to remove chronically disruptive students, so that they can teach in others can learn.” Nothing the AJC editorial board has ever written even comes close. Are they locking you out of the editorial meetings or what? Would you be willing to some bones cells from you vertebrae, so your fellow editors could hopefully be implanted with at least a sembelance of a backbone when it comes to real educaion reform? How are you the only member of the editorial staff that gets it?

By Scarlett

January 2, 2007 5:30 PM | Link to this

Huge,

Point taken. Thank you.

By Dusty

January 2, 2007 5:31 PM | Link to this

Well, thanks, Peter,

I just read that you had promoted me to sainthood. I would appreciate it more if you were not so twisted.

My four sons send regards. They say they hope they meet you one day.

By peter

January 2, 2007 5:32 PM | Link to this

Jim D…..

I don’t think you could find a Bush on the list, or anyone in Iraq that is related to our current President………do you even think he would allow any of his family to die there in vain????

I am sure they are all out doing something instead of actually full filling thier duty as the president some how got away with…….

I am also sure they are some one’s child, and that is why I find this made up WAR so sickening……some one’s child is getting killed so the guys at Haliburton can make Millions……

Remember “Dick” said we would have gone to War in Iraq, even with out “weapons of mass distruction”…….

By @@

January 2, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this

Dusty @ 4:54. We really don’t disagree. More than likely, I simply failed to make my point clear.

I was very young during the sixties, but in history books and documentaries revolutionaries of the era were pursuing all the wrong things. For example:

If I don’t want to serve my country, I don’t have to. I’ll go to Canada.

If I want to take a trip, I’ll just drop a little acid. It’s nobody’s business but mine.

If it feels good, I’ll just do it and damn the consequences.

It was a small, very small, mass movement incognito that served individual wants. You’re right, once government jumped in the fray to support that type of thinking, it created the potential for socialism.

You, of all people, have to know how opposed I am to any form of socialism. Scarey stuff. Question is, how do we get back to where we were without taking drastic measures? Or, are drastic measures all that’s left to us.

I’m like you. I don’t know the answers.

By WTFBBQ

January 2, 2007 5:36 PM | Link to this

First I’m called TFTT, now I’m called PF.. I think I’ll just re-name myself as Fhurer For Life. None of you seem to care to believe that someone isn’t someone else, unless they have been here for a thousand years, and you all seems convinced that I’m Adolf…

Here comes a new person, with some very strong opinions, that just happen to not agree with yours. So, what happens? You immediately call me one of your old nemises.

NEWS FLASH - I’m none of the old folks from this blog. I may share their views, but I’m not them.

Finally, before I leave for the evening, let me direct you to my 2:09 post again.

I NEVER, *EVER SAID TO KILL ANY LIVING BREATHING PERSON. That means any human that has been born, no matter they be normal, or abnormal.

I advocate genetic testing and the removal of fetuses that are abnormal to the point of mutation, or not having 4 limbs, 20 digits, a working cerebral cortex, and the ability to survive alone for the first 24 hours.

I have not, and do not, advocate the killing of anyone.

Please, can’t anyone take offense to forced hysterectomy? Forced chemical and/or physical castration? Yea to governmental support for the first two children, with a severe penalty for a third child?

All you guys care about is what you THINK I said, and who you THINK I am.. and in both cases, every one of you who has called me PF or asked me if I were Hitler because you think I want to kill retards, you are all completely incorrect! (@@ excluded, at least (s)he took the time to actually read and comprehend the post)

Get over yourselves and stop seeing things that aren’t there.

Read the posts carefully for content over typos.. I took responsibility for making one rather egregious error when I said “we’re not supporting Iraqis” when I meant to say that “we should not be supporting Iraqis” - so I made a mistake.

The second mistake was in naming MS as a genetic disorder when it isn’t. Ok, so its not, and I’m mistaken. But thats not the point of the matter, is it? Puny thing to grasp at, that and “retart”…

The first mistake dealt with content, what was MEANT to be said - and as such is a valid gripe.

The SECOND mistake was an error in classification - you missed the point entirely, which is to eliminate genetic mutation prior to birth. Grasping at straws…

==========

Better yet, I relent.

I am a proud member of the leftist conspiracy. I am for free money to everyone, redistribution of wealth through increasing taxation of the rich, and no war with anyone, ever.

(that’s sarcasm, btw)

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Perhaps you can find the spewing that jbmlaw accuses me of today and that you seem to agree with.

Buy Danish,

She was especially funny when she said we we’re comparing her to some great Greek philosopher. Diogenes’ big contribution to philosophy is that man should be more like dogs and just do all their business wherever and whenever they wanted. You would think someone that believes like that would stick to a name.

By peter

January 2, 2007 5:40 PM | Link to this

Yes DUSTY……….

He didn’t agree, can you imagine President Ford Bloging……HA HA HA…….gee the guy was Republican………..HA HA HA……

So I guess not agreeing with Bush is saying hate……..I hate America because Bush is a lier……..you really do come up with some silly stuff!!!!!!!!!

If you were a REAL Patriot, you would seek the truth, and make up your own mind as I have, then you would vote as I did.

Then you would have watched as the Wrongs got crushed in the last election, because the country is Sick and Tired of this president, and his OWN Personal agenda!

BIG GOVERNMENT, WASTE, and UNBID contracts to all the Presidents men!

Then you would realize I was not the only person in this country who believes the President acted selfishly, and NOT in BEST interest of the USA!

By LuckoDull

January 2, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this

By peter January 2, 2007 05:12 PM | Link to this President FORD said it was a MISTAKE to INVADE IRAQ!

What a real dullard, yawn.

Ford was a few weeks shy of his 93rd birthday as we chatted for about 45 minutes. He’d been visited by President Bush three weeks earlier and said he’d told Bush he supported the war in Iraq but that the 43rd President had erred by staking the invasion on weapons of mass destruction. “Saddam Hussein was an evil person and there was justification to get rid of him,” he observed, “but we shouldn’t have put the basis on weapons of mass destruction. That was a bad mistake. Where does [Bush] get his advice?”

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By peter

January 2, 2007 5:45 PM | Link to this

I would like to meet your sons DUSTY……should I be worried they could be violent?

Is that what they would have in store for me?

Is that what your motherly Love taught them?

Is that the Right Wing Values that we should be aware of?

By Jeff

January 2, 2007 5:45 PM | Link to this

jim @ 5:06:

When people start referring to “the Bush government” - itself an inacurracy - or “the Bush regime” - same thing - I will apologize for my rebuttals. HOWEVER, most people here seem to have a problem with the MAN… they’re not attacking the government he is but one piece of, they are attacking HIM.

Most people seem to fail to realize that the Congress is JUST as powerful as the President, and that truly it is slightly MORE powerful… the President only allows or disallows legislation that makes it to his desk. There is a VERY LONG process to get it there, and at last count somewhere aroun 250+ people have to sign off on it FIRST, whether or not the sitting President likes it. ALSO, if it is something that the Congress REALLY WANTS to happen, even if the President doesn’t like it, it CAN become law by a congressional override….

By peter

January 2, 2007 5:49 PM | Link to this

Hey ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

He said we should have not gone to war without going through all possible negotiations first…….. which Bush didn’t do…………….

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ back at you!

By Dusty

January 2, 2007 5:49 PM | Link to this

Huge,

You do have one thing right. I have contempt for those who do not love this country. I mean, so you can tell they do.

If being patriotic is being radical, then I guess I am. If I do not believe every lie posted about the president, then I guess I am radical. If I do not count the deaths of our troops every day and say to the world how useless it is, then I am radical. If I vote in every election and expect honesty and integrity from the candidates, then I am radical.

So continue your name calling. For what it is worth, I will continue to support this country every way possible. If you don’t like it, well…TOUGH!

By Buy Danish

January 2, 2007 5:55 PM | Link to this

WTFBBQ,

Here’s what you said, a*******hat:

6) Water-heads, retarts, MS, MD, deformed, etc - STUMP THEM! I see no reason to support these with my tax money whatsoever. Yeah, there have been a few Stephen Hawkings in the world, but whats the percentage? You want your deformed mutant child to survive? Fine, pay for it yourself. NO benefits! (does not count towards the 2 children for benefits only rule, as in #1 above

You are showing yourself to be a congentital ignoramus, so using your guidelines, I suggested that you watch your back.

THE FACT IS, most of these conditions that you wish to kill babies over are not even detectable through pre-natal genetic testing, or are not present at birth, including “retardation”.

Next, I would not recommend that we view having 3 or more children some hideous act that is an affliction on society.

Regarding your idea that people on parole be sterilized, there are people on parole for minor infractions, like pot possession. Don’t you think that state-ordered vasectomies for non-violent crimes is a bit extreme? And what about female parolees? Why the men and not the women?

Before you propose drastic solutions, it might help if you thought them through first - if you aren’t too “retarted” or myopic to do that.

By jim d

January 2, 2007 5:59 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

are we familar with the Term “executive order”?

By jim d

January 2, 2007 6:01 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

It would appear you may have confused radical for gullible.

By Buy Danish

January 2, 2007 6:03 PM | Link to this

Peter and Jim D and other malcontents,

Read this and then come back and tell us who lied.

This is just one of countless examples.

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 2, 2007 6:05 PM | Link to this

It’s ridiculous to assume that hanging saddam was justification for invading Iraq. Also, there was no reality on the wmd grounds.

Thats two of the two reasons we went to war. Both fairy tales.

Now our flag is on either side of a religious probate court gone berserk.

When the American People realize what Bush has done to the destiny of America’s future, and the sheer enormity of the cost post 911, they will force him to resign.

Our army’s mission is in the hands of the Shia now.

By Buy Danish

January 2, 2007 6:10 PM | Link to this

My New Years resolution is to get a job. I’m tired of being worthless.

My other resolution is to only sleep with my gardener, Jose, on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays.

My other resolution is to call WTFBBQ a boor one thousand times.

My other resolution is to cut back to half a bottle of vodka and 6 valium a day.

By clue

January 2, 2007 6:24 PM | Link to this

6:10 was a name jacker or what’s better known as a “liberal in over their head who’s been thoroughly beaten and is having a childish outburst.”

By Edit

January 3, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

The father should not be allowed to be “out of the picture.” He should pay child support or be required to perform labor in public or minimum-wage jobs, if necessary, to provide financial support to the child or to compensate taxpayers for the support they provide.

Jim, Have you contacted DFCS to make sure that the father in this case IS NOT paying some kind of financial support? Do you have any information that shows he was unavailable? In jail? Dead? Or is this just your opinion and the man is up to be slandered because it is convenient?

By e girl

January 3, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

After reading all of this, I can only think how lucky I am that I got to witness having kids from my cousins.

It taught me early on that I didn’t want kids - I don’t have the patience for them! Once you have kids they are your life - you don’t have one of your own anymore!

Too bad more young people can’t witness what life is like with kids before they make that fatal mistake of having sex.

Thank you dear cousins for saving me from a miserable life!!!

By Justin

January 3, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

Jack, I agree with you. Family court is so biased against fathers. A woman can be a crackhead and the father a saint and the woman would still get custody of the children. Women fight so hard for equal rights, so then be equally financially responsible for the children you bring into the world. If they were held accountable, then I bet the numbers of “accidental” pregnancies would decrease. Also, put women in jail for withholding visitation and parenting time. Make them accountable for how the child support monies are spent, submit receipts, etc.

By jim d

January 3, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

Oh Dear, Buy Danish.

Shall we take them one at a time?

Lie #1 FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, said the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, reportedly said “You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that’s just a lie.”

Lie #2 FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story was p**: “They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie,” and that “They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly.”

Lie #3 FACT: There was absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

Lie #4 FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early ’90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence 180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

Lie #5 FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq’s control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

Lie #6 FACT: Said drones can’t fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq’s drone-building program wasn’t much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn’t a “manned aerial vehicle” just a scary way to say “plane”?

Lie #7 FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there were no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

Lie #8 FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile was found, the United States’ own intelligence reports show that these stocks — if they existed — were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

Lie #9 FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

Lie #10 FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts — including the State Department’s intelligence wing in a report declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

I think I know who to believe. You?

By ICEMAN

January 3, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

jim d,

Lie #11 FACT: Jim you are an idiot beyond measure. You and your left wing propaganda need a total make over.

By catlady

January 3, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this

jim d—Funny how, when there is no real refutation, some folks just call names.

By jim d

January 3, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this

Yep, But I’ve been called worse. I’ve been called a Democrat and was even called a Republican once.

Fact is I don’t subscribe to either’s propaganda. I draw my own conclusions.

By jim d

January 4, 2007 8:12 AM | Link to this

Iceman,

I do understand your solicitude.

We informed idiots have a propensity to impugn the mendacious tales spun by both the right and the left.

So please continue to spin your roaring good yarns. But please accept that regardless of how often or how well they are spun they can only appear as truth and never actually be reality

Do have a good day my friend.