click on image
"Sausage is pretty 'horrific' if you see how it's made."
Somehow, the equation of a later term fetus and the lancing of a boil is as troublesome, if not more so, than the gruesome procedure that is puncturing of a fetal skull.
5008. 109109 - 12/1/1999 2:48:29 PM
Of greater concern is the propping up of the procedure for fear that if an inch is given at the back end, the pro-life forces will "wedge" there way into the first trimester. It is akin to the NRA opposing bans on streetsweeper firearms and armor piercing bullets under the logic, "If we give in on them, they'll eventually get to deer rifles." Abortion and deer rifles may someday become threatened, but the fear of such a threat should not affect a thinking person's evaluation of partial birth abortions or bans on streetsweepers/armor piercing bullets.
5009. janjon - 12/1/1999 2:54:43 PM
An abortion discussion - how novel.
No question that those who latched onto PBAs knew what they were doing in terms of being able to grab people's attention and make them more than acutely uncomfortable - their hope being that that discomfort will end up covering abortion per se, not just the PBAs. So, so what if a lot more than just sensationalism and distortion of the rationale of the medical procedure gets used to promote the cause - all's fair in what so many characterize as God's Cause, right?
Right.
A much more compelling argument against abortion can be made based on the "age" at which a fetus is/can be viable, which of course thanks to modern medicine is becoming much earlier in the pregnancy term.
But - if you boil it all down, you are going to end up with a woman's rights versus what some, but only some, will call a fetus's (oh all right, an unborn baby as they would put it)so-called "rights".
I'll wager a lot that it will continue to be a woman's rights that will win out.
5010. CalGal - 12/1/1999 2:58:03 PM
It is such a horrific procedure that it is hard to defend. Once it has been successfully banned, then other procedures will become the target.
But it doesn't work like that. The problem is that they keep being banned as unconstitutional because it is entirely legal to have an abortion at 20 weeks, no matter the procedure.
TS,
Yes, I agree with you about tactics. But it is annoying me, because they are continually overturned--for what I consider to be good reason. And so the real problem isn't being addressed.
I returned the mail, but I just got notified of a meeting. I'll know in a few if I have to go or not so stay tuned for a last minute cancel.
5011. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 3:03:39 PM
janjon,
I don't understand the sarcasm against those (including myself) who want to save the lives of babies. Is it that terrible that we call them unborn children?
5012. cazart - 12/1/1999 3:08:21 PM
Jenerator:
It's not terrible. It's just wholly inaccurate.
5013. CalGal - 12/1/1999 3:09:37 PM
TS,
I sent you a mail as well, but I have to go to this damn meeting. Arrrrgg.
5014. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 3:09:58 PM
Cazart
I've seen the war over what-to-call-it-a-fetus-or-an-unborn baby many times.
5015. cazart - 12/1/1999 3:12:53 PM
I've seen the war over what-to-call-it-a-fetus-or-an-unborn baby
many times.
And you're still wrong? For shame.
5016. Spudboy - 12/1/1999 3:13:40 PM
My favorite bit of footage from last night's coverage of the WTO protests: A protester, all in black and wearing a mask, is shown tearing down the "Niketown" sign from the store downtown, evidently in protest of Nike's globalism. The camera zooms in on his shoes. He's wearing Nikes.
Another piece: A reporter interviews one of the masked "anarchists" who broke out windows and looted stores, walking off with clothes, TVs, electronics equipment. "Why are you doing this?" the reporter asks. The "anarchist" answers: "Well, these giant corporations steal from us every day. This is our way of taking back some of the pennies out of the millions that they take."
In case anyone wondered about what a collection of lame-stains we have here. They are robbing any serious-minded protesters of their legitimacy, frankly.
5017. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 3:14:39 PM
Cazart
Ha ha.
5018. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 3:25:43 PM
Let me turn it around and be the sarcastic pro-lifer.
An abortion discussion - how novel.
No question that those who became aware of PBAs saw that they would indeed inform the masses of this cruelty in terms of being able to grab people's attention and make them more than acutely uncomfortable -their hope being that that discomfort will end up covering certain aspects of abortion primarily the PBAs. So, so what if a lot more than just cold medical explanations of abortions are now mentioned. So, so what if people are forced to look at abortions from angles they're not used to or comfortable with. I can hear the violins now, we weren't suppose to actually SHOW everyone what an abortion does to the fetus. We're not suppose to actually KNOW that it is a fetus in there and not some combobulated group of cells. Heck no, we'll call it a procedure. It's so wrong of us to want people to know more about this termination of our youth, our destruction of the value of human life, right?
Right.
A much more compelling argument against abortion can be made based on the "age" at which a fetus is/can be viable, which of course thanks to modern medicine is becoming much earlier in the pregnancy term. Afterall viability is all that counts nowadays.
But - if you boil it all down, you are going to end up with a woman's rights versus what some will call an unborn baby's (oh all right, a combabulated group of cells' as they would put it)so-called "rights".
I'll wager a lot that it will continue to be a woman's so called rights instead of the life of the unborn baby that will win out. We are afterall, a society which chases immediate gratification, and one which doesn't value human life.
5019. cazart - 12/1/1999 3:31:30 PM
Jenerator:
Nice rant, but wholly inaccurate. It is sad that the anti-choicers must rely on hyperbole and outright lies to further their agenda.
In fact, C. Everett Koop has called the PBA amendment effort "a complete sham."
5020. janjon - 12/1/1999 3:36:34 PM
Jenerator. You prove my points. Fie on the value of human life as described in your diatribe.
5021. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 3:38:02 PM
Cazart,
We see things entirely different. You see it as choice, I see it as life. I call it an unborn baby, you call it a choice. I see the life of the unborn baby as valuable, you see it as a matter of choice for a mother. You say that I rely on lies and hyperbole, I say that I'm interested in saving lives, you seem to be interested in running for office. Typical.
5022. janjon - 12/1/1999 3:49:27 PM
It is a matter of choice for a woman who has chosen not become a mother in the case of most abortions. That alone is enough justification.
In the case of PBAs, however, it is a matter of something gone horribly wrong and it almost always is, sadly, a case of a woman who would like to be a mother but, as it turns out, safely cannot be. That is why the latching onto the PBAs for political purposes by the so-called prolifers becomes the equivalent of cynical cruelty. From my perspective, of course.
5023. cazart - 12/1/1999 3:50:05 PM
Jenerator:
It is always easier to debate a suject if one gets to frame the other's argument. It is also rather dishonest.
You say you're interested in saving lives. Fine. Nothing wrong with that. However, most so-called "PBAs" are done to save the life of the mother. You also fail to note that many of these procedures are done on already deceased fetuses.
But it sounds a lot better to say you're interested in saving lives than to state these truths.
5024. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 4:01:40 PM
Cazart,
What ARE the real statistics? Tell me, how many abortions are done to save the life of the mother? What percentage is it?
5025. JJBiener - 12/1/1999 4:03:50 PM
Cazart - It is sad that the anti-choicers must rely on hyperbole and outright lies to further their agenda.
It is always easier to debate a suject if one gets to frame the other's argument. It is also rather dishonest.
This is a riot coming from you. You are the worst offender in the Mote.
However, most so-called "PBAs" are done to save the life of the mother.
Nice lie. It has been documented here numerous times that in most cases the mother's life was not in danger.
You also fail to note that many of these procedures are done on already deceased fetuses.
Another lie. The laws only applies to a live fetus.
I guess you believe you are justified in lying since you are on a holy mission.
5026. JJBiener - 12/1/1999 4:11:48 PM
janjon - It is a matter of choice for a woman who has chosen not become a mother in the case of most abortions. That alone is enough justification.
Is it? If a woman doesn't want to be a mother there are many ways to prevent it. Once she has become pregnant she has already made her choice. Why should her child pay with its life just because the woman changes her mind?
In the case of PBAs, however, it is a matter of something gone horribly wrong and it almost always is, sadly, a case of a woman who would like to be a mother but, as it turns out, safely cannot be.
Unfortunately this is a myth.
5027. cazart - 12/1/1999 4:17:52 PM
Take it up with C. Everett Koop, JJBiener.
In a 5 Nov 96 letter to Martin Sabo (D-MN), Koop stated that all so-called 'PBAs' were "done to avoid serious adverse health
consequences to the woman."
I might not go that far but the evidence is pretty overwhelming that most so-called 'PBAs' are performed when the fetus is already dead or the mother's life is in danger.
5028. JJBiener - 12/1/1999 4:21:41 PM
cazart - I might not go that far but the evidence is pretty overwhelming that most so-called 'PBAs' are performed when the fetus is already dead or the mother's life is in danger.
What evidence would that be? If it is as overwhelming as you claim, can you provide a cite? We have seen plenty of cites that refute your claim. Can you provide any to support it?
5029. 109109 - 12/1/1999 4:22:40 PM
Overwhelming evidence can be easily provided.
5030. janjon - 12/1/1999 4:29:56 PM
Biener. So, for you, its abstinence or effective birth control or the woman pays the price. Period.
You talk about her "baby" losing its "life". I talk about a woman bearing a fetus which becomes a living baby upon birth.
Yet another area where you and I are about 180 degrees apart. Not surprising, I suppose.
5031. CalGal - 12/1/1999 4:32:44 PM
Caz,
There should, however, be no real problem in dropping that "most" to "none".
5032. TrialShark - 12/1/1999 4:32:44 PM
Actually, I'd like to see evidence from either side. Caz says the evidence is "pretty overwhelming" that most PBAs are performed because the unborn child is dead or the mother's life is in danger; JJ says he's seen "plenty of cites" that prove the opposite.
So, guys: put up or shut up.
5033. 109109 - 12/1/1999 4:37:27 PM
Trial
Agreed, though this was discussed a few months back, and I recall an article by a New Jersey newspaper that appeared pretty definitive (it was not screed from one advocacy group or another). It debunked cazart's absurd claim that "most so-called 'PBAs' are done to save the life of the mother" and shattered the anti-PBA contingents' that many of these procedures occured in the third trimester (most are in the 2d).
5034. angel-five - 12/1/1999 4:40:01 PM
Is it? If a woman doesn't want to be a mother there are
many ways to prevent it. Once she has become pregnant
she has already made her choice.
sigh.
Yes, Biener, children coerced into an incestuous relationship and rape victims -- both the traditional variety and those who are drugged with GHB or rohypnol or just given alcohol until they pass out -- have made their choice.
If you're going to hack, at least be honest.
5035. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 4:44:15 PM
Niner,
Yes, I remember that article ---it was based on the testimony of a single doctor who claimed to have personally performed thousands of unneccessary PBA's. I also recall that his testimony was called into question on several points by conflicting evidence.
I didn't save any of this however since this topic comes up so often. Sorry.
5036. robertjayb - 12/1/1999 4:47:00 PM
.
Breslin being Breslin on Journalist Gore and other stuff
5037. PelleNilsson - 12/1/1999 4:49:28 PM
What do you think about this?
5038. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 4:54:41 PM
A PBA link that claims to look at both sides.
5039. angel-five - 12/1/1999 4:59:26 PM
Pelle:
It's really interesting. The correlation offered seems very strong on a lot of counts. The problem is that correlation does not equate to causation -- there can easily be a third or more factors involved that influence the earlier two, and those factors may be very hard to identify.
Still, all the aligned data are suggestive. As one commentator in the article says, I think there's a kernel of truth in it. Maybe much more.
5040. cazart - 12/1/1999 5:37:26 PM
I defer to Dr. Koop who allegedly knows a thing or two about the subject. Certainly, his beliefs carry a tad more weight than 109109's "cite" from some unknown New Jersey newspaper of an indeterminate date.
Indiana Jones' link provides further evidence that most so-called 'PBAs' are done to protect the health of the mother or involve deceased fetuses.
5041. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 5:41:24 PM
Frequently the "health of the mother" translates to "mental health."
5042. 109109 - 12/1/1999 5:46:19 PM
cazart
Incarnation 1: "most so-called 'PBAs' are done to save the life of the mother"
Incarnation 2: "most so-called 'PBAs' are done to protect the health of the mother or involve deceased fetuses."
5043. 109109 - 12/1/1999 5:54:35 PM
The Record
September 15, 1996
THE FACTS ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION; BOTH SIDES HAVE MISLED THE PUBLIC
Ruth Padawer
"Even by the highly emotional standards of the abortion debate, the
rhetoric on so-called" partial-birth" abortions has been exceptionally
intense. But while indignation has been abundant, facts have not. Pro-choice activists categorically insist that only 500 of the 1.5
million abortions performed each year in this country involve the
partial-birth method, in which a live fetus is pulled partway into the birth canal before it is aborted. They also contend that the procedure is reserved for pregnancies gone tragically awry, when the mother's life or health is endangered, or when the fetus is so defective that it won't survive after birth anyway.
The pro-choice claim has been passed on without question in several
leading newspapers and by prominent commentators and politicians,
including President Clinton.
But interviews with physicians who use the method reveal that in
New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed each year, three times the supposed national rate. Moreover, doctors say only a "minuscule amount"are for medical reasons.
Within two weeks, Congress is expected to decide whether to
criminalize the procedure. The vote must override Clinton's recent veto.
In anticipation of that showdown, lobbyists from both camps have
orchestrated aggressive campaigns long on rhetoric and short on
accuracy.
For their part, abortion foes have implied that the method is often
used on healthy, full-term fetuses, an almost-born baby delivered whole.
5044. cazart - 12/1/1999 5:55:44 PM
109109:
Picking nits? How unbecoming.
However, it is the best you can do.
Just admit you were wrong and run along like the good simian you are.
5045. 109109 - 12/1/1999 5:56:28 PM
In the three years since they began their campaign against the
procedure, they have distributed more than 9 million brochures graphically describing how doctors"deliver"the fetus except for its
head, then puncture the back of the neck and aspirate brain tissue until the skull collapses and slips through the cervix, an image that
prompted even pro-choice Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, D-N.Y., to call it
"just too close to infanticide." But the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are not performed on almost-born babies. They occur in the middle of the second trimester, when the fetus is too young to survive outside the womb.
The reason for the fervor over partial birth is plain: The bill
marks the first time the House has ever voted to criminalize an abortion procedure since the landmark Roe vs. Wade ruling. Both sides know an override could open the door to more severe abortion restrictions, a thought that comforts one side and horrifies the other.
How often it's done
No one keeps statistics on how many partial-birth abortions are
done, but pro-choice advocates have argued that intact "dilation and
evacuation", a common name for the method, for which no standard
medical term exists, is very rare,"an obstetrical non-entity,"as one
put it. And indeed, less than 1.5 percent of abortions occur after 20
weeks gestation, the earliest point at which this method can be used,
according to estimates by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of New York, a
respected source of data on reproductive health.
5046. 109109 - 12/1/1999 5:57:19 PM
The National Abortion Federation, the professional association of
abortion providers and the source of data and case histories for this
pro-choice fight, estimates that the number of intact cases in the
second and third trimesters is about 500 nationwide. The National
Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League says"450 to 600"are
done annually.
But those estimates are belied by reports from abortion providers
who use the method. Doctors at Metropolitan Medical in Englewood
estimate that their clinic alone performs 3,000 abortions a year on
fetuses between 20 and 24 weeks, of which at least half are by intact
dilation and evacuation. They are the only physicians in the state
authorized to perform abortions that late, according to the state Board of Medical Examiners, which governs physicians practice.
The physicians estimates jibe with state figures from the federal
Centers for Disease Control, which collects data on the number of
abortions performed.
"I always try an intact D&E first,"said a Metropolitan Medical
gynecologist, who, like every other provider interviewed for this
article, spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. If the fetus isn't breech, or if the cervix isn't dilated enough, providers switch to traditional, or"classic," D&E, in utero dismemberment.
Another metropolitan area doctor who works outside New Jersey said
he does about 260 post-20-week abortions a year, of which half are by
intact D&E. The doctor, who is also a professor at two prestigious
teaching hospitals, said he has been teaching intact D&E since 1981, and he said he knows of two former students on Long Island and two in New York City who use the procedure."I do an intact D&E whenever I can, because it's far safer," he said.
5047. 109109 - 12/1/1999 5:58:18 PM
The National Abortion Federation said 40 of its 300 member clinics
perform abortions as late as 26 weeks, and although no one knows how
many of them rely on intact D&E, the number performed nationwide is
clearly more than the 500 estimated by pro-choice groups like the
federation.
The federation's executive director, Vicki Saporta, said the group
drew its 500-abortion estimate from the two doctors best known for using intact D&E, Dr. Martin Haskell in Ohio, who Saporta said does about 125 a year, and Dr. James McMahon in California, who did about 375 annually and has since died. Saporta said the federation has heard of more and more doctors using intact D&E, but never revised its estimate, figuring those doctors just picked up the slack following McMahon's death.
"We've made umpteen phone calls to find intact D&E practioners,"
said Saporta, who said she was surprised by The Record's findings.
"We've been looking for spokespeople on this issue.. .. People do not
want to come forward to us because they're concerned they'll become
targets of violence and harassment."
When it's done. The pro-choice camp is not the only one promulgating
misleading information. A key component of The National Right to Life Committee's campaign against the procedure is a widely distributed illustration of a well-formed fetus being aborted by the partial-birth method. The committee's literature calls the aborted fetuses"babies" and asserts that the partial-birth method has "often been performed"in the third trimester.
5048. 109109 - 12/1/1999 5:59:16 PM
The National Right to Life Committee and the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops have highlighted cases in which the procedure has been
performed well into the third trimester, and overlaid that on instances in which women have had less-than-compelling reasons for abortion. In a full-page ad in the Washington Post in March, the bishops conference illustrated the procedure and said women would use it for reasons as frivolous as"hates being fat," "can't afford a baby and a new car," and "won't fit into prom dress."
"We were very concerned that if partial-birth abortion were allowed
to continue, you could kill not just an unborn, but a mostly born. And
that's not far from legitimizing actual infanticide,"said Helen Alvare, the bishops spokeswoman.
Forty-one states restrict third-trimester abortions, and even states that don't, such as New Jersey, may have no physicians or hospitals willing to do them for any reason. Metropolitan Medical's staff won't do abortions after 24 weeks of gestation."The nurses would stage a war,"said a provider there."The law is one thing. Real life is something else."
In reality, only about 600, or 0.04 percent, of abortions of any
type are performed after 26 weeks, according to the latest figures from Guttmacher. Physicians who use the procedure say the vast majority are done in the second trimester, prior to fetal viability, generally thought to be 24 weeks. Full term is 40 weeks.
5049. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:01:49 PM
Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson denied that his group had focused on third-trimester abortions, adding,"Even if our
drawings did show a more developed baby, that would be defensible
because 30-week fetuses have been aborted frequently by this method, and many of those were not flawed, even by an expansive definition."
Why it's done. Abortion rights advocates have consistently argued that intact D&Es are used under only the most compelling circumstances. In 1995, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America issued a press release asserting that the procedure"is extremely rare and done only in cases when the woman's life is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality."
In February, the National Abortion Federation issued a release
saying,"This procedure is most often performed when women discover late in wanted pregnancies that they are carrying fetuses with anomalies incompatible with life."
Clinton offered the same message when he vetoed the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act in April, and surrounded himself with women who had
wrenching testimony about why they needed abortions. One was an
antiabortion marcher whose health was compromised by her 7-month-old
fetus neuromuscular disorder.
5050. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:02:52 PM
The woman, Coreen Costello, wanted desperately to give birth
naturally, even knowing her child would not survive. But because the
fetus was paralyzed, her doctors told her a live vaginal delivery was
impossible. Costello had two options, they said: abortion or a type of
Caesarean section that might ruin her chances of ever having another
child. She chose an intact D&E. But most intact D&E cases are not like Coreen Costello's. Although many third-trimester abortions are for heart-wrenching medical reasons, most intact D&E patients have their abortions in the middle of the second trimester. And unlike Coreen Costello, they have no medical reason for termination.
"We have an occasional amnio abnormality, but it's a minuscule amount,"said one of the doctors at Metropolitan Medical, an assessment
confirmed by another doctor there. "Most are Medicaid patients, black
and white, and most are for elective, not medical, reasons: people who
didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were. Most are
teenagers."
The physician who teaches said:"In my private practice, 90 to 95
percent are medically indicated. Three of them today are Trisomy-21
Down syndrome with heart disease, and in another, the mother has brain
cancer and needs chemo. But in the population I see at the teaching
hospitals, which is mostly a clinic population, many, many fewer are
medically indicated."
Even the Abortion Federation's two prominent providers of intact
D&E have showed documents that publicly contradict the federation's
claims.
In a 1992 presentation at an Abortion Federation seminar, Haskell
described intact D&E in detail and said he routinely used it on patients 20 to 24 weeks pregnant. Haskell went on to tell the American Medical News, the official paper of the American Medical Association, that 80 percent of those abortions were"purely elective."
5051. JonesAtLaw - 12/1/1999 6:04:14 PM
It would be nice if the abortion debate were not dominated by fire eaters willing to distort the truth, if not wholly fabricate, the evidence to support their positions.
The hard truth is that even couched in the rhetoric of the extremes, the conclusions they advocate don't follow. There is clearly a quantum leap from clumps of cells with the potential for independent life, and a fetus nearing or past viability. But the activists both want to deny this reality. There is a moral difference between abortion as a means of sex choice, and as a response to fatal genetic disorders or any of the myriad conditions and fact patterns that pregnant women find themselves in.
5052. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:04:23 PM
The federation's other leading provider, Dr. McMahon, released a
chart to the House Judiciary Committee listing"depression"as the most
common maternal reason for his late-term non-elective abortions, and
listing"cleft lip"several times as the fetal indication. Saporta said
85 percent of McMahon's abortions were for severe medical reasons.
Even using Saporta's figures, simple math shows 56 of McMahon's
abortions and 100 of Haskell's each year were not associated with
medical need. Thus, even if they were the only two doctors performing
the procedure, more than 30 percent of their cases were not associated
with health concerns.
Asked about the disparity, Saporta said the pro-choice movement
focused on the compelling cases because those were the majority of
McMahon's practice, which was mostly third-trimester abortions. Besides, Saporta said,"When the Catholic bishops and Right to Life debate us on TV and radio, they say a woman at 40 weeks can walk in and get an abortion even if she and the fetus are healthy."Saporta said that claim is not true."That has been their focus, and we've been playing defense ever since."
Where lobbying has left us. Doctors who rely on the procedure say the way the debate has been framed obscures what they believe is the real issue. Banning the partial-birth method will not reduce the number of abortions performed.
5053. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:05:12 PM
Instead, it will remove one of the safest options for mid-pregnancy
termination.
"Look, abortion is abortion. Does it really matter if the fetus
dies in utero or when half of it's already out?"said one of the five
doctors who regularly uses the method at Metropolitan Medical in
Englewood."What matters is what's safest for the woman,"and this
procedure, he said, is safest for abortion patients 20 weeks pregnant or more. There is less risk of uterine perforation from sharp broken bones and destructive instruments, one reason the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists has opposed the ban.
Pro-choice activists have emphasized that nine of 10 abortions in
the United States occur in the first trimester, and that these have
nothing to do with the procedure abortion foes have drawn so much
attention to. That's true, physicians say, but it ducks the broader
issue.
By highlighting the tragic Coreen Costellos, they say, pro-choice
forces have obscured the fact that criminalizing intact D&E would
jettison the safest abortion not only for women like Costello, but for
the far more common patient: a woman 4 1/2 to 5 months pregnant with a
less compelling reason, but still a legal right, to abort.
5054. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:05:22 PM
That strategy is no surprise, given Americans queasiness about
later-term abortions. Why reargue the morality of or the right to a
second-trimester abortion when anguishing examples like Costello's can
more compellingly make the case for intact D&E?
To get around the bill, abortion providers say they could inject
poison into the amniotic fluid or fetal heart to induce death in utero, but that adds another level of complication and risk to the pregnant woman. Or they could use induction, poisoning the fetus and then "delivering"it dead after 12 to 48 hours of painful labor. That method is clearly more dangerous, and if it doesn't work, the patient must have a Caesarean section, major surgery with far more risks.
Ironically, the most likely response to the ban is that doctors
will return to classic D&Es, arguably a far more gruesome method than
the one currently under fire. And, pro-choice advocates now wonder how
safe from attack that is, now that abortion foes have American's
attention.
Congress is expected to call for the override vote this week or
next, once again turning up the heat on Clinton, barely seven weeks from the election.
Legislative observers from both camps predict that the vote in the
House will be close. If the override succeeds, a two-thirds majority is required, the measure will be sent to the Senate, where an override is less likely, given that the initial bill passed by 54 to 44, well short of the 67 votes needed.
5055. angel-five - 12/1/1999 6:07:49 PM
Niner:
There are such things as links.
5056. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:10:46 PM
angel
A legitimate beef. And normally, I have no defense. But on this, my source was not the internet. So, I'm like one of the Menendez boys who, while shooting at Ma and Pa, got lucky with simultaneous and spontaneous heart attacks.
5057. janjon - 12/1/1999 6:11:04 PM
109109 doesn't want to be a pussy. And therefore he don't link.
5058. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:15:35 PM
The number I saw was 3-4 thousand per year nationwide. What's up with the folks in Jersey that they account for more than a third of the PBAs performed annually?
5059. cazart - 12/1/1999 6:16:12 PM
5060. cazart - 12/1/1999 6:17:43 PM
God, Must I Do All 109109's Work AND Educate Him, Also?
5061. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:17:47 PM
Whadja do to the source code Cazart?
5062. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:17:55 PM
Chris
You never heard about Jersey girls?
Actually, I imagine an accurate count is difficult given the subject matter. But 500 a year is as much a fantasy as the the suggestion that most PBAs are performed in the third trimester.
5063. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:18:31 PM
hmmm....back to normal
5064. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:18:45 PM
cazart
You rock.
I checked the web site (not that I would have linked) and I thought it only went back as far as 1997.
5065. cazart - 12/1/1999 6:19:16 PM
Dunno, ChristinO.
Likely something 'horrific.'
5066. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:21:12 PM
Niner,
As I said I'd heard that the number was 3-4 thousand and that the 500 number was a reactionary and deliberate misstatement in response to the hysteria that women on the verge of labor were having their babies sucked out of them in the hundreds of thousands.
5067. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:26:29 PM
Chris
I believe the term you are seacrhing for is "defensive fabrication."
5068. angel-five - 12/1/1999 6:33:52 PM
For those of you who don't like to click blind links, this is Pelle's link. And it's fascinating. The link leads to a Scientific American article on a new study which links the drop in violent crime rates to the post Roe v Wade abortion trend. It's the first reasonable, scientific offering I've seen in the debate that abortion has positive consequences for society as a whole.
5069. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:39:56 PM
Niner,
Well, I would have said he popped off with a lie because he was pissed.
5070. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 6:41:39 PM
angel-five--Do you realize what you're saying?
5071. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:41:43 PM
but then the lawyerly version puts a much better spin on it.
5072. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:42:31 PM
Indy,
He almost always is.
5073. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:42:53 PM
er, "does."
5074. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:43:10 PM
And that's why it commands the big bucks.
And free condiments.
Later.
5075. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 6:44:35 PM
Chris, I'm doing him the Koppel-Campanis favor.
5076. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:46:16 PM
See ya later Niner!
5077. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:48:54 PM
Indy,
Kind of you but not needed. You'll notice he hasn't yet taken a position other than to state that this is the best presentation of that particular position that he's seen.
5078. angel-five - 12/1/1999 6:49:38 PM
Indiana Jones:
What? All I'm saying is that the debate on the social benefits of abortion, pro and con, have thus far been characterized by baseless assertion. This is the first hard science argument I've seen from either side.
Or was there something else that caught your attention, some implied gaffe I'm not aware I committed? Do tell.
5079. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:51:07 PM
Is this where I shout "BINGO!!"?
5080. vonKreedon - 12/1/1999 6:59:23 PM
Cos - Good call.
5081. angel-five - 12/1/1999 7:04:53 PM
Up until now pro-choice activists, when arguing societal benefits of abortion, have been forced to invoke an unproven model of action -- that abortions prevent the unwanted births of many children who would not be cared for, loved, supported, and so on, and therefore abortion benefits society as a whole.
Moreover, the thinking went, these unwanted children would be much more likely to be a detriment to society, either as free-riders or as criminals. This model's logic is reasonably clear but until now its conclusions have been unsupported -- there's been little conclusive data that anyone can point to in the real world to support this model as an accurate rendition of reality. The study supports the model.
If this study is debunked, then we will be back to square one. But as it is, the pro-choice position has been elevated above the pro-life position, which is still reliant upon unsupportable assertion in its arguments about how abortion damages the moral fiber of society.
5082. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 7:05:28 PM
Okly, dokly, it's this here:
"It's the first reasonable, scientific offering I've seen in the debate that abortion has positive consequences for society as a whole."
I glanced quickly at the SA story, and it's focus is on the crime rate. The clear implication to me is that aborted children have a higher propensity to cause society ills (such as crime) should they live than non-aborted children. It extrapolates some reasons.
The argument pro/con abortion has chiefly been reproductive rights versus the rights of the unborn, which is a bad enough pickle. Under such circumstances the abortion procedure is at best seen as a necessary evil to enforce the mother's civil rights. If we move to the position of whether society benefits from abortion, we are treading on dangerous ground. Society then has its own compelling interest. Basing a case for abortion on the odds of what the fetus is likely to do 20 years from now can stir the pots of racism, class war, you name it, and goes against our judicial presumption of innocence.
Have to go, but will be interested in your response.
5083. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 7:10:25 PM
Thanks Cos, I do try.
5084. angel-five - 12/1/1999 7:13:16 PM
Under such circumstances
the abortion procedure is at best seen as a necessary evil
to enforce the mother's civil rights. If we move to the
position of whether society benefits from abortion, we are
treading on dangerous ground. Society then has its own
compelling interest. Basing a case for abortion on the
odds of what the fetus is likely to do 20 years from now
can stir the pots of racism, class war, you name it, and
goes against our judicial presumption of innocence.
But the societal argument has always been a part of abortion dialogue. And it isn't a justification, merely a correlation.
'Building a case for abortion' on the grounds of socioeconomic and family-life indicators is hardly going to foment class warfare, simply because it has been a part of the case for so long already. And people have already voiced criticisms of abortion rights based upon the notion that it's a racist or classist institution. They're usually hooted off the stage, because a) most people recognize that free will is involved and b) it's also recognized that family size is still larger among lower-class families, even presuming that they will opt for a higher rate of abortion.
5085. angel-five - 12/1/1999 7:17:48 PM
If we move to the
position of whether society benefits from abortion, we are
treading on dangerous ground. Society then has its own
compelling interest.
To put this another way: This would only be 'dangerous ground' if, indeed, the benefits and detriments to society were to become the primary argument for or against abortion, as opposed to taking a supporting role alongside the current primary arguments, which center upon individual rights.
5086. ranheim - 12/1/1999 7:50:33 PM
I think it appropriate, in the discussion of the WTO and the protests in Seattle, that all of us consider Alistair's post #3784 in the International thread.
Businesses are contributing to have the CEOs or their representatives in attendance at meetings; receive briefings; attend cocktail parties; etc.
Gold Level : $25,000 - 74,999
Platinum : 75,000 - 144,999
Diamond : 150,000 - 249,999
Emerald : $250,000 or more.
I don't think it takes too much thinking to figure out who is going to most influence the bureaucrats of the WTO.
I repeat again : I am not an internationalist! I suspect Friedman; most of the media; anyone who speaks for the Council on Foreign Relations. The WTO does not sound like an entirely benign group to me.
5087. wonkers2 - 12/1/1999 8:27:44 PM
Well, the WTO people's conception of the rule of law is a bit narrower than one might imagine. When they talk about observing "the rule of law" what they are referring to are laws protecting intellectual property, integrity of accounting statements, banking regulations, opening markets to foreign corporations and other matters of interest to multinational corporations and essential to economic development. They resist efforts to condition trade on labor rights, employee health and safety and environmental conservation. As in the case of Singapore, "the rule of law" can be used to protect corporate interests but to repress the rights of individuals. It does not follow that increased trade will also alleviate human rights or environmental concerns. China may well be more likely to follow the Singapore model than the western democratic one.
5088. Greystoke - 12/1/1999 8:40:51 PM
The Pigs kill another innocent citizen in the War on Drugs.
5089. Greystoke - 12/1/1999 8:45:49 PM
An editorial about "no knock" police searches in Denver.
5090. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 8:57:03 PM
But, angel-five, you are still avoiding the implications of your argument. Listen to all the so-called pro-choice candidates for president. They still say things like, "Abortion is a terrible thing and I'm against it. But I'm also for a woman's right to choose. Let's not ban abortion; let's make abortions unnecessary." No mainstream figure wants to make the argument that abortion may do society good.
Suppose we say that those aborted fetuses would likely grow up to be criminals (which, of course, the study isn't demonstrating and no study will ever demonstrate--it may just indicate a greater propensity, but the majority of them won't). Even that doesn't matter because our entire judicial system is based on the premise that better ten guilty go free as one innocent suffer. Alright, then, some can use (again) the argument that we're not talking about people but tissue, but we would still be giving reason for the state to have a compelling interest in reproduction, if not life and death.
Either way, I don't see the advantage you do for the pro-choice folks. They've built the case for the unconstitutionality of abortion prohibition on "it's my body and you can't tell me what to do with it." That flies in the face of any majority (perhaps viewing legalized abortion as a terrible blot on civilized society) saying "We cannot let this go on."
Now, on the basis of this scientific study, you would open the door and say, "Look. It benefits society, too." You cannot keep governmental authority out with a "right to privacy" and simultaneously demonstrate a "compelling interest" for the state. Moreover, if allowed to affect the outcome of a real case, such a legal argument would open the door for the worst kind of governmental malfeasance.
5091. angel-five - 12/1/1999 9:24:06 PM
Indiana Jones:
But no one is 'demonstrating a compelling interest of the state', for many reasons, some of which you mention -- the study is very far from conclusive. No one is using the study to argue for abortion. You're building strawmen. If you'd argue otherwise, you have to address yourself to the bridging of a critical gap -- the difference between noting that declarations of martial law lower crime, and arguing that martial law should be the norm simply because it reduces crime.
Furthermore, arguments about the effects of abortion on society and arguments on whether abortion ought to be allowed are seperate arguments, and commenting on the one does not necessarily change one's stance on the other.
Now, on the basis of this scientific study, you would
open the door and say, "Look. It benefits society, too."
Please. I've done nothing of the kind. All I've said is that the study is interesting and I suspect there's something to it. That's a far cry from the sort of words you'd put in my mouth -- let's stick to facts, please.
However, to play devil's advocate, were I to do that, I would not be invoking a societal imperative in the debate. I'd just be point out a result. I would only be bringing the society's needs into it if I were to abandon the individual responsibility locus of the argument.
5092. 109109 - 12/1/1999 9:47:23 PM
I can't imagine you need much of a scientific basis to conclude that crime is reduced by zeroing out all kids who, if their makers had had their druthers, would be dead. Is that a legitimate basis for abortion policy? Not unless we can smartly salute and wear earth tone brown well.
But the conclusion is hardly startling.
5093. angel-five - 12/1/1999 9:48:27 PM
Exactly.
5094. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 9:51:38 PM
Well, angel-five, I always tire rather quickly of the abortion debate and certainly don't want to be a cazart in this and just restate my position (of what arguing from compelling societal interests implies). So you may have the last word.
5095. CalGal - 12/1/1999 10:09:57 PM
Actually, Indy is quite right in that pro-choice folks did not view this news in a positive light. In fact, they found it rather embarrassing and did their best to spin it. There were quite a few articles about it when the study was first released some months ago.
5096. JonesAtLaw - 12/1/1999 10:58:31 PM
Greystroke- good examples of how constitutional safeguards are truly designed to protect the innocent, rather than merely the guilty.
5097. JJBiener - 12/1/1999 11:02:38 PM
A5 - children coerced into an incestuous relationship and rape victims --both the traditional variety and those who are drugged with GHB or rohypnol or just given alcohol until they pass out -- have made their choice.
I have no problem making exceptions for rape and incest in the first trimester. You have seen my rationale for it a dozen times, I am surprised you would bring it up again.
5098. TrialShark - 12/2/1999 1:26:42 AM
See, I just don't get it.
If abortion is murder, then it's no less murder because the unborn child's father was a rapist. In what society do we permit killing the blameless child for his or her parent's crime -- which might not, depending on the facts and the prejudices of the judge or jury, even net the guilty parent a lengthy stay in jail?
Now if abortion isn't murder, never mind.
5099. CalGal - 12/2/1999 1:37:08 AM
Exactly. I have never understood either side's willingness to dismiss murder.
5100. concerned - 12/2/1999 2:10:46 AM
First it was Love Story, now Love Canal, next I half expect that Al 'No Controlling Legal Authority' Bore will be claiming that he was, in reality, Gavin MacLeod of the 'Love Boat' TV show.
As if claiming to 'invent' the Internet wasn't foolish enough, Bore showed further symptoms of terminal hoof in mouth disease by claiming (from a AP release):
At a high school forum Tuesday in New Hampshire, Gore 'answered' a student's question about youth cynicism with a tale from his early days as a Tennessee congressman as follows:
"I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing. I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue," Gore said.
"That was the one that started it all. ... We made a huge difference and it was all because one high school student got involved."
In August of 1978, Gore did chair hearings on the matter by the House Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations - two months after the Love Canal homes were evacuated and President Carter declared the neighborhood a disaster area.
Tobacco Bore - the man's a pathological liar.
5101. concerned - 12/2/1999 3:27:34 AM
A quick note on the WTO: It appears that the WTO goal of a single economic global trading block may be too simplistic and is certainly premature at this point in time, when the Euro is in trouble, the Asian economic crisis has not yet resolved itself, and the US has been pursuing such an ineffective foreign policy and increasing interest rates.
Therefore, the US should not look to the WTO to 'control' or restrict US trade policy, especially given the disarray and widely disparate interests and goals of the members of the WTO resulting largely from the above factors.
5102. angel-five - 12/2/1999 3:54:43 AM
Some pro-choice folks, perhaps, may have been embarrassed by the study, and I'm imagining they were the none-too-bright ones. I can say with certainty that some pro-choice folks did not see the need to 'spin' the study. The existence of a possible argument does not indicate that it is a valid argument; noting it and quoting supporting data does not mean that you're embracing the straw-man argument that lower crime rate alone is a sustainable reason to allow abortion.
Noting that abortion may have a beneficial effect upon society does not a priori mean that societal gain or loss should be the pivot point upon which the argument for abortion rests. You are just talking about secondary side effects. FWIW, I do agree that arguing the legitimacy of abortion primarily from a society net loss-gain angle does open you up to a lot of other arguments. The problem, Indiana, is that you immediately assumed that I was indeed embracing that argument in that fashion, and implied that I was doing so, when in fact I was not.
To put this another way: The fact that most pro-choice activists seize upon the individual reproductive rights of the mother as the cornerstone argument for allowing abortion does not mean that they can't consider other reasons, such as net benefit to society, as well. Why would it?
Noting that legalized abortion may decrease violent crime as a secondary side effect isn't distasteful, either, though there clearly are problems with converting this side effect into a desirable goal and pushing abortion onto 'at-risk' populations in an effort to 'cleanse' society. It is sensible to do the former, while the latter is a morally untenable position. The problem is that pro-life activists (at least the ones who think they can get away with it) would equate the two positions in an attempt to subvert their opposition, and evidently some pro-choice activists are dumb enough to let that happen.
5103. angel-five - 12/2/1999 4:01:07 AM
JJ:
You either are trenchantly refusing to admit the point or else are being dim.
I know that you've publicly stated that you think it's acceptable for such cases to have access to abortion. I know that you're aware of them. But you don't mention them until someone forces you to. It happens reasonably often, and this frequency suggests that you are doing it deliberately in an effort to present a stronger front in your arguments against abortion --when you can ignore the exceptions to your arguments, your blanket argument looks much stronger and more seamless. You, for one, don't have to contend with TS's excellent point (not that you will probably willingly contend with it anyway). That's why you use such categorical language preferentially when you present your position on abortion, and I suspect you know it is, and it's dishonest.
5104. 109109 - 12/2/1999 9:05:50 AM
TS
"If abortion is murder, then it's no less murder because the unborn child's father was a rapist. In what society do we permit killing the blameless child for his or her parent's crime -- which might not, depending on the facts and the prejudices of the judge or jury, even net the guilty parent a lengthy stay in jail?"
For the purposes of the pro-life position, it is really a case of whether certain abortions are justifiable homicides. Not a clean position, but there you have it (it is akin to the extremist pro-choice wing who insist that the child is not a child unless free of the mother, which logically would allow for abortion up to the day of delivery).
Society has naturally split the baby, making first trimested abortions readily acceptable, second trimester abortions available (but hardly readily) and third trimester abortions difficult, and getting more difficult as state legislatures act.
Why? I think the reasons are aesthetic. Society doesn't really accept that a fetus at 2 months is a life, or that a fetus at 7 months is the medical equivalent of a mole.
5105. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 9:11:17 AM
angel-five, you seem to want to say an argument has validity while simultaneously saying that doesn't mean you're endorsing it. No offense intended, but I'll reserve my disputations for those who indicate the position they take is a sincere one. When I first asked you in 5070 if you "knew what you were saying," I was giving you the chance to distance yourself from the implications of abortion's social benefits, but you seem to want to have it both ways: i.e., abortion does society good, but that's not why we should have it. Either you think its social benefit is germane or not. If not, let's leave it out. If it is, defend it: "part of the reason abortion should be legal is a scientific study has indicated that legalized abortion has reduced the crime rate."
I don't think I'm stretching to say that sentence should send shivers down your...umm...spine.
5106. Dantheman - 12/2/1999 9:17:58 AM
Another take on what WTO means to us
5107. cazart - 12/2/1999 9:41:13 AM
5108. cazart - 12/2/1999 9:42:09 AM
US Secret Weapon Against No. Korea Revealed
5109. Ronski - 12/2/1999 9:52:38 AM
Niner,
I think a bit more than aesthetic. For some, myself among them, the time of "quickening" is suggestive (and I admit this is subjective) of a major step in the process by which a fetus becomes a human being. Quickening occurs in the second trimester, I am told.
5110. 109109 - 12/2/1999 9:58:47 AM
Ronski
Understood. For public consumption, however, I think the benchmark really becomes "when does it look like me" rather than "when can it be like me." Given the medical advances, which will rapidly allow harvesting children outside of the womb at an earlier and earlier date (didn't you see "The Matrix"?), the distinction will prove critical to abortion law in the future.
5111. Ronski - 12/2/1999 10:05:43 AM
Justice O'Connor has spoken of Roe v. Wade being in a race with technology. But I think it will be many decades before fetuses can be removed from wombs and turned into children in the first two months after conception, images of human-like forms floating in plexiglass vats of chemicals and similar TV- and movie-screen fantasies notwithstanding.
5112. 109109 - 12/2/1999 10:10:16 AM
Whoa.
I thought The Matrix was a documentary.
I agree with you, but the dicey time will be second trimester. And if the ability to maintain fetuses outside of the womb at earlier stages will press the point. And if the medical sense of the general public is primary, then second trimester abortions will find themselves under greater and greater scrutiny and restriction. But is the aesthetic predominates, public opinion will follow the arbitrary yet structured system of Roe.
5113. Cellar Door - 12/2/1999 10:33:33 AM
Just caught up with "The Matrix."
Couldn't make heads or tails of the damned thing, but Keanu is just so pretty.
5114. 109109 - 12/2/1999 10:37:17 AM
Cellar
I was fond of the sleek female leads.
I swear.
I don't know. I'm just so confused.
5115. vonKreedon - 12/2/1999 11:03:04 AM
Regarding viability and abortion:
To my mind the relevant moment of viability is not when technology can replace the womb in sustaining the fetus, but the moment that the fetus becomes capable of independent life. As long as the fetus requires an outside entity to sustain its fundemental processes its fate should remain a private decision of the mother.
I know, a baby requires assistance to survive; it cannot feed or clothe or protect itself. The fundemental difference is that ANY adult can provide this assistance. Prior to biological viability a SPECIFIC adult, the mother, must host the fetus OR the fetus must be hosted by a technological womb.
5116. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 11:05:04 AM
A5 - I know that you've publicly stated that you think it's acceptable for such cases to have access to abortion. I know that you're aware of them. But you don't mention them until someone forces you to.
I mention them whenever the subject is brought up. No one has to force me. Since they are the exception and not the rule, I don't believe it is necessary to inject them into every conversation.
5117. vonKreedon - 12/2/1999 11:11:53 AM
Went to downtown Seattle after work yesterday, had a great time. Got a wiff of CS gas (I can still taste it on my coat), helped a woman who was maced get to an aid station, and did my citizenly duty of quietly observing the situation first hand. What I saw was a protest of the police/curfew rather than a WTO protest. When I first arrived the police where aggressively clearing intersections, but, in shades of Vietnam, failing to hold any ground so the crowd would simply move through the alleys and back around the police. Finally, at about 6:20PM, the police simply pulled back and mostly out of sight. The crowd stood in the intersection of 3rd and Pine for about half an hour and then suddenly moved west to 4th and then north and out of downtown. I went home.
While I was downtown, for about two hours, the closest thing I saw to vandalism was someone dragged a plastic free newspaper stand into the street. Someone else immediately dragged it back and set it up. The damage downtown is pretty minor, some of the stores, Nordstrom's for instance, have pre-emptively boarded up the whole storefront and I've seen a couple of video clips that give the impression that this is all broken.
I saw on the news today that the police again went into the Capitol Hill area and tear gassed that area until about 2AM. I fail to understand the rationale for this.
5118. CalGal - 12/2/1999 11:20:05 AM
To my mind the relevant moment of viability is not when technology can replace the womb in sustaining the fetus, but the moment that the fetus becomes capable of independent life. As long as the fetus requires an outside entity to sustain its fundemental processes its fate should remain a private decision of the mother.
I pretty much agree with that--although I'm okay with any logistical restrictions after 12 weeks, quite frankly.
However, after the viability, I don't see any reason to give the mother's life automatic precedence.
5119. Cellar Door - 12/2/1999 11:23:35 AM
I was fond of the sleek female leads.
Sleekness is All.
5120. robertjayb - 12/2/1999 11:32:05 AM
.
Dantheman,
Thanks for Message # 5106 and the link to the WTO article.
VonKreedon,
Thanks for your notes from Seattle. NPR had some fairly
tough reporting on the early-morning tear gassing. The
story was that most of these victims were behaving
themselves and that they had little, if anything, to do
with the WTO conference.
5121. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 11:32:43 AM
TS - See, I just don't get it.
There's a surprise.
If abortion is murder, then it's no less murder because the unborn child's father was a rapist.
The issue is not who the father is, but how the child was conceived. Unlike most pro-choicers I recognize that there are two individuals involved with conflicting rights. The fetus has a right to be born and the mother has a right to make choices about her own body. Neither of these rights are absolute. It is necessary to weigh these rights in order to come to a solution.
When deciding whose rights should prevail, it is useful to look at what each one must sacrifice. If the abortion is prohibited, the woman must endure the remainder of her pregnancy. If the abortion is allowed, the fetus loses its life. In most cases the rights of the fetus should prevail.
There are exceptions. If the mothers life is stake, there is no way the law can force her to make that sacrifice. Cases of rape and incest are more difficult. Rape and incest are traumatic experiences. If a pregnancy occurs as a result, it will be a constant reminder and cause further harm. I believe the mother's right to protect herself from harm should then prevail.
Another factor is that in most cases the mother already made her choice by engaging in the activities that caused the pregnancy. In the case of rape and incest, the mother had that choice taken away from her.
In what society do we permit killing the blameless child for his or her parent's crime
Our society currently permits the killing of a blameless child on nothing more than the whim of one parent. Anything is better than that.
Now if abortion isn't murder, never mind.
The subject can not be reduced to such simplistic terms.
5122. JonesAtLaw - 12/2/1999 11:46:31 AM
JJB- you're going to get flak for your positions, but I agree that the issue is not simple, and your reasoning seems sound.
It is reasonable to me to recognize that there are differences between a clump of cells not yet implanted into the womb, a fetus of 20 weeks, and one of 30 weeks. There are no easy answers to when we become human. The common law looked to "quickening", St. Thomas Moore thought that ensoulment came 40 days after conception, and medical technology pushes the envelope farther and farther with regard to viability. Yet many want this to be black and white. Unfortunately, it is a murky continuum of grey.
5123. ranheim - 12/2/1999 11:47:23 AM
I don't do abortion battles.
Just a note to both sides. I have one patient who weighed in at 2 lbs. 14 ounces at birth. Not thriving; but, still alive at 1 1/2 years, or so. Quite a few patients born weighing in the 3lb. + category. Most of those are doing less well than optimal also.
5124. cazart - 12/2/1999 11:53:26 AM
There are exceptions. If the mothers life is stake, there is no way the law can force her to make that sacrifice.
Agree.
Cases of rape and incest are more difficult. Rape and incest are traumatic experiences. If a pregnancy occurs as a result, it will be a constant reminder and cause further harm. I believe the mother's right to protect herself from harm should then prevail.
Inconsistent. What is this "further harm" you talk about? The mother's mental health? The threat of further violence or abuse?
5125. ranheim - 12/2/1999 11:55:01 AM
In today's Baton Rouge Advocate editorial page there was an editorial on the WTO : Robert J. Samuelson. Seemed pretty even handed to me.
I'm too computer illiterate to link. Should any of you technical people read it - and find that it has useful things to say - possibly you could link it.
Samuelson questions whether the powers-that-be at the WTO were wise in scheduling the meeting. He says that more and more countries are lowering tariff rates all the time - without this conferance. They see the advantages; so no conferance was necessary. Samuelson feels that there is more downside risk - due to the points made by some of the protestors - than upside advantage.
5126. Ronski - 12/2/1999 11:57:52 AM
Free the turtles.
5127. 109109 - 12/2/1999 11:58:00 AM
The issue requires, even demands inconsistency, lest you feel compelled to glom on to idiocies such as life begins at conception and/or the mother can smother her child so long as he or she is still connected to an umbilical cord. The gray areas are pronounced and thus, JJ's reading is certainly as consistent as most mainstream thought. True, it's not Dworkin or terry, but we can't have everything.
He makes a legitimate distinction between the further harm attendant to delivering and caring for a child brought about by rape or incest and delivering or caring for a child brought about by consensual sex.
5128. Ronski - 12/2/1999 12:00:27 PM
I'm utterly consistent on turtles.
5129. cazart - 12/2/1999 12:05:33 PM
109109:
Horseshit. It is a distinction that is convenient for conservatives.
If you're going to argue that abortion is murder then the means or circumstances of conception are meaningless.
5130. cazart - 12/2/1999 12:09:18 PM
Further, JJBiener talks about a "further harm" and a "constant reminder." While JJBiener has not fully explained his interpretation of these terms, they seem inconsistent with the position taken by most anti-choicers that the mental health of the mother should not be considered a legitimate medical reason to terminate pregnancy.
5131. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 12:11:02 PM
cazart - If you're going to argue that abortion is murder then the means or circumstances of conception are meaningless.
As usual you don't even understand the argument. You are obviously incapable of distinguishing anything other than black or white.
5132. 109109 - 12/2/1999 12:11:22 PM
cazart
If you are going to argue true choice, then you would support the right to abortion at 8 months, 27 days.
Which would make you a monster.
A consistent monster, no doubt, but a monster nonetheless.
The conservatives and liberals each rely on conveniences.
5133. wonkers2 - 12/2/1999 12:13:37 PM
Ranheim--good to see a fellow Moter from Baton Rouge. Last month I was there for my University High School class reunion. I hadn't been back for many years. The town and school looked good. I was disappointed, however, to learn that the school was forced to begin charging tuition ($2000). When I was there it was essentially free, and we got ticket books for all LSU athletic events. I attended the game in which Bob Pettit broke the NCAA scoring record with 55 points against Georgia and watched Y.A. Tittle, the great LSU quarterback, many times.
5134. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 12:13:50 PM
cazart - While JJBiener has not fully explained his interpretation of these terms
Niner understood the use of terms without any problem. What's your excuse?
5135. cazart - 12/2/1999 12:16:45 PM
JJBiener:
I've asked for clarification from you on the issue. You refuse to do so.
The issue is not black and white. However much the anti-choicers wish it to be.
First, you must examine the grounds for your opposition to abortion.
5136. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 12:21:33 PM
cazart - I've asked for clarification from you on the issue.
I don't clarify the meaning of 'is' either. If you can't understand simple English, don't bother commenting.
The issue is not black and white. However much the anti-choicers wish it to be.
You are the one trying to make this a black or white issue, not me.
First, you must examine the grounds for your opposition to abortion
I know why I oppose abortion and I have explained it. You have demonstrated that you are unable to understand it.
5137. cazart - 12/2/1999 12:27:58 PM
JJBiener:
I've asked for clarification from you on the issue. You refuse to do so.
The issue is not black and white. However much the anti-choicers wish it to be.
First, you must examine the grounds for your opposition to abortion.
5138. cazart - 12/2/1999 12:30:55 PM
Sorry for the double posting.
Yes, JJBiener, 109109 understands you. That is because he is simple and not given to critical thought.
What is your meaning with regard to "further harm" and "constant reminder" as it applies to rape and incest?
5139. robertjayb - 12/2/1999 12:50:02 PM
.
Here is the Robert J. Samuelson column cited in ranheim's Message # 5125:
We Don't Need This Trade Pact
5140. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 12:57:19 PM
cazart - What is your meaning with regard to "further harm" and "constant reminder" as it applies to rape and incest?
Let me see if I can put this in terms you will understand. . . .
See Mary. Mary is walking home. Walk, Mary, walk.
See Bill. Bill sees Mary. Bill has evil thoughts. Run, Mary, run!
See Bill grab Mary. See Bill beat Mary. See Bill rape Mary. See Bill leave Mary to die in an alley.
See Mary. She is in the hospital.
See the doctor. The doctor is treating Mary's injuries. The doctor tells Mary that she is going to have Bill's baby.
Mary is sad. See Mary cry.
See the baby grow. Grow, baby, grow. Mary feels the baby kick. Mary remembers Bill raping her.
Mary is sad. See Mary cry.
Is that simple enough for you?
5141. cazart - 12/2/1999 1:11:33 PM
JJBiener:
So emotional trauma should be grounds for terminating pregnancy? The mental well-being of the mother?
5142. PsychProf - 12/2/1999 1:20:41 PM
HaHa...Cazart vs Beiner...excuse me if I seem "Jaded", but isn't something familiar here?
5143. 109109 - 12/2/1999 1:24:48 PM
caz
Sure. Some emotional trauma.
Just like the civil law awards damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress that shocks the conscience.
And does not award damages for inflicted emotional distress of lesser severity.
Now, you play.
If the woman is in control of her body, and the fetus is 8 months, 27 days along, do you support the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy at that date?
5144. ranheim - 12/2/1999 1:31:28 PM
wonkers2 and Robert
Thank you.
I'm from rural LA., wonkers. But, my wife and I held season football tickets to Tiger games for roughly 15 years and it is one of our favorite cities - with New Orleans - in the state.
5145. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 1:32:12 PM
Psych - excuse me if I seem "Jaded", but isn't something familiar here?
I was thinking the same thing. Cazart is every bit as predictable and impenitrable as Jade.
5146. PsychProf - 12/2/1999 1:33:42 PM
JJ...I have always enjoyed both you and Jade...I was just remembering...
5147. cazart - 12/2/1999 1:37:54 PM
Just like the civil law awards damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress that shocks the conscience.
What does this have to do with anything?
Eye on the ball, son.
We're talking about the legalization or banning of a medical procedure.
5148. 109109 - 12/2/1999 1:40:11 PM
cazart
Answer my question, or continue your widely known practice of intellectual dishonesty, and find yourself talking to yourself. Brochures I can read. I prefer debate and dialogue.
5149. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 1:40:59 PM
"Eye on the ball, son."
Verrry Jade Gold-esque. But could Jade Gold ever refrain for so long without mentioning its military career as a Requisitioning Clerk?
5150. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 1:45:46 PM
Psych - Remember when I spent a week analyzing Jade's posts and identifying all the propaganda techniques she was using. That was fun. Maybe I should do that with Cazart.
5151. cazart - 12/2/1999 1:50:50 PM
Yo, Hitler.
What question would that be?
5152. 109109 - 12/2/1999 1:52:00 PM
5143
5153. Dantheman - 12/2/1999 1:56:07 PM
Niner,
Do you now answer to Hitler? Can I call you that, too?
5154. cazart - 12/2/1999 1:56:42 PM
Answer: yes.
See how easy that was? No deflections or attempts to frame the question differently.
5155. cazart - 12/2/1999 1:59:07 PM
DantheMan:
I only use 'Hitler' to those who make demands such as, "answer this or I'll..." and the like.
5156. CalGal - 12/2/1999 1:59:30 PM
Caz,
You frame the question differently every time you focus on the fact that "most" late trimester abortions are on dead fetuses, etc.
So you are saying that a woman should be able, if she chooses, to terminate a healthy fetus at any time before delivery?
5157. PsychProf - 12/2/1999 2:00:20 PM
Niner is Hitler!!...Chrissakes...first we out Jade, now Niner.
5158. 109109 - 12/2/1999 2:01:46 PM
cazart
Well, you are consistent, if gruesome. But I appreciate the answer
Dan
I also answer to "Belle" and "Mobutu."
5159. Dantheman - 12/2/1999 2:04:22 PM
Ka-Zart,
I'm glad to know you believe in appeasing dictators.
5160. cazart - 12/2/1999 2:04:35 PM
You frame the question differently every time you focus on the fact
that "most" late trimester abortions are on dead fetuses, etc.
At least try to accurately represent what I said, CalGal.
5161. Dantheman - 12/2/1999 2:05:05 PM
Niner,
What about "Kissyface"?
5162. 109109 - 12/2/1999 2:06:12 PM
Dan
Depends on what you're wearing? If it is an Eva Braun get-up, and you remind me of my Aunt Wudgie, you bet.
5163. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 2:06:50 PM
Was it Mobutu whose name translated meant "the cock who leaves no hen untouched"?
5164. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 2:08:38 PM
cock
Now that's funny.
Cock.
Favorite Simpsons line: Monty Burns saying about Homer, "Why, I bet he thinks he's the cock of the walk."
You know they just wrote that line to say "cock" and get away with it.
And everyone laughed just because they said "cock."
Cock.
Funny.
5165. PsychProf - 12/2/1999 2:09:26 PM
Indiana...no...I believe that is the translation for the name "Nostradumbfuck"...haha...a Niner orignal...
5166. PsychProf - 12/2/1999 2:10:35 PM
Ace...South Carolina GameCOCKS...
5167. Dantheman - 12/2/1999 2:11:38 PM
Niner,
I never met your Aunt Wudgie, and my Halloween cosutme is of Fred Flintstone, not Eva Braun, so I guess the Squirrel can relax, knowing that I will not lose my virginity to you.
5168. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 2:11:51 PM
Actually I just wanted to get away with saying Mobutu.
5169. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 2:13:40 PM
I remember seeing a picture of a brightly colored bird called "the Cock of the Rock."
It was in one of those mail-order "Animal Indexes" that used to be the rage, where "every month, you will receive twenty new Animal cards. You can organize them alphabetically, by phylum, by habitat, or by part of the world."
5170. TrialShark - 12/2/1999 2:16:34 PM
JJ --
"There's a surprise."
Tsk, tsk. Play nice.
"The issue is not who the father is, but how the child was conceived."
A issue over which the child has no control.
"If the abortion is prohibited, the woman must endure the remainder of her pregnancy. If the abortion is allowed, the fetus loses its life. In most cases the rights of the fetus should prevail."
I'm with you so far.
"If the mothers life is stake, there is no way the law can force her to make that sacrifice."
Well, actually, it could; it is legally permissible to require people to risk or even sacrifice their lives to protect other people. Leaving that aside, however, I agree that self-defense and defense of another are well-recognized defenses to the charge of murder.
"Cases of rape and incest are more difficult."
Well, yes, that was my point.
"Rape and incest are traumatic experiences."
I can think of contrary examples. If the incest is not traumatic, will you forbid the killing of the child? Or does it depend on the degree of trauma involved in the conception? If so, who gets to decide?
5171. CalGal - 12/2/1999 2:17:39 PM
Caz,
I believe that is what you said, earlier. If not, I'll go hunt it up or you can correct it.
But you didn't answer my question.
Can a woman choose to abort a healthy, viable fetus at any time prior to delivery?
5172. TrialShark - 12/2/1999 2:17:52 PM
continued ...
"If a pregnancy occurs as a result, it will be a constant reminder and cause further harm. I believe the mother's right to protect herself from harm should then prevail."
By "further harm," I assume you mean to the mother. You assume that the birth of a child will cause the mother further harm than killing her unborn child. In using the term "constant," you assume that the child's very existence will remind her of the traumatic conception, even if the child is turned over to the state for adoption.
I do not believe your assumptions would be borne out in all cases. More importantly, since you are advocating killing a human being based on your assumptions, I do not believe you can demonstrate that those assumptions always hold true.
Even if they did, it would be a novel defense to murder of a born person: "Your Honor, the so-called victim's continued existence was a constant reminder to me of a traumatic experience. So I killed him." Such reasoning would permit the mother to strangle the child after it was born.
"In the case of rape and incest, the mother had that choice taken away from her."
Again, this is not always true in cases of incest. Even assuming it were true, the person who took the mother's choice away was not the person you propose to kill.
"Our society currently permits the killing of a blameless child on nothing more than the whim of one parent. Anything is better than that."
Your proposal permits exactly the same thing. Unless you intend to mandate abortion of babies conceived by rape or incest, it's still going to be the choice of one parent that prevails. You would limit the number of murders (if abortion is such), but you would permit them just the same.
5173. CalGal - 12/2/1999 2:18:00 PM
And TS, get your ass to lunch. I'm on my way.
5174. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 2:18:45 PM
Here's a bbc link that offers a better translation: "the cock who jumps on everything that moves."
(Sheepishly, I must admit that my source indicates Mobutu preferred "the all-conquering warrior who, because of his endurance and inflexible will to win, will go from conquest to conquest leaving fire in his wake.")
5175. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 2:20:36 PM
it is legally permissible to require people to risk or even sacrifice their lives to protect other people
Ummmmm... outside of drafted soldiers, can you name a single law which requires such a sacrifice or risk? I don't think cops or firemen or paramedics can be arrested for cowardice or refusing to act.
When you say "legally permissible," do you mean that such a law has never been struck down? If so, I would suggest that may because no such law has ever existed. The "Forcible Good Samaritan" law on Seinfeld is alien to Anglo-American law as far as I know.
5176. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 2:28:22 PM
Answer: yes
It looks like cazart is possessed by the spirit of GodlessClif. Or possibly Joseph Mengele.
5177. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 2:48:22 PM
TS - A issue over which the child has no control.
As I explained, the child is not the only one involved.
I can think of contrary examples.
Real life cannot be addressed using absolutes.
If the incest is not traumatic . . .
I suppose this is possible, but I have never come across a case. I am a foster parent and I have dealt with many victims of incest. The scars may not always be readily apparent, but they are always there.
By "further harm," I assume you mean to the mother. You assume that the birth of a child will cause the mother further harm than killing her unborn child.
I am making no such assumption. I know that in some cases this is true.
In using the term "constant," you assume that the child's very existence will remind her of the traumatic conception, even if the child is turned over to the state for adoption.
I am referring only to the pregnancy.
the person who took the mother's choice away was not the person you propose to kill.
I am not proposing to kill anyone. I am saying that in certain cases the woman's rights prevail, and in others the baby's rights prevail. I am not claiming that my position is perfect. I just think it is the best way to balance the rights of both the mother and child.
5178. angel-five - 12/2/1999 3:02:03 PM
When I first asked you in 5070 if
you "knew what you were saying," I was giving you the
chance to distance yourself from the implications of
abortion's social benefits, but you seem to want to have
it both ways: i.e., abortion does society good, but that's
not why we should have it.
Indiana:
Are you, then, of the opinion that any possible benefit one can note from a practice is grounds for sponsoring that practice? Really? You ignore the several places where I explain why that's a bad idea, but maybe you just skimmed, so I'll restate them briefly: If noting that the practice of abortion lowers violent crime rates is an endorsement of abortion, then noting that polio keeps kids off the street is an endorsement of polio, and noting that police snipers prevent recidivism is an argument to shoot criminals. There's no 'having my cake and eating it too' to the argument.
Where the data comes into play is NOT at the justification stage -- i.e. what makes abortion defensible or indefensible -- but in the clash of theory and ideology over abortion, as it relates to society. Pro-life advocates argue about the way abortion dehumanizes our society -- the way it teaches us to not respect human life or each other, the way we all are silently complicit in 'mass murder' and whatnot. This is a common trend in pro-life argumentation, and -- as opposed to pro-choice advocates, who usually leave societal arguments out of the justification process -- it is seen as a valid argument against institutionalized abortion by pro-lifers.
Now, to offer up contrasting data, such as the study does -- you would paint that as an admission that the societal angle is a valid avenue to argue against or for abortion's legality.
5179. angel-five - 12/2/1999 3:02:35 PM
When I first asked you in 5070 if
you "knew what you were saying," I was giving you the
chance to distance yourself from the implications of
abortion's social benefits, but you seem to want to have
it both ways: i.e., abortion does society good, but that's
not why we should have it.
Indiana:
Are you, then, of the opinion that any possible benefit one can note from a practice is grounds for sponsoring that practice? Really? You ignore the several places where I explain why that's a bad idea, but maybe you just skimmed, so I'll restate them briefly: If noting that the practice of abortion lowers violent crime rates is an endorsement of abortion, then noting that polio keeps kids off the street is an endorsement of polio, and noting that police snipers prevent recidivism is an argument to shoot criminals. There's no 'having my cake and eating it too' to the argument.
Where the data comes into play is NOT at the justification stage -- i.e. what makes abortion defensible or indefensible -- but in the clash of theory and ideology over abortion, as it relates to society. Pro-life advocates argue about the way abortion dehumanizes our society -- the way it teaches us to not respect human life or each other, the way we all are silently complicit in 'mass murder' and whatnot. This is a common trend in pro-life argumentation, and -- as opposed to pro-choice advocates, who usually leave societal arguments out of the justification process -- it is seen as a valid argument against institutionalized abortion by pro-lifers.
Now, to offer up contrasting data, such as the study does -- you would paint that as an admission that the societal angle is a valid avenue to argue against or for abortion's legality.
5180. angel-five - 12/2/1999 3:03:48 PM
Forgive the double.
Yet it is no such admission -- any more than noting a contradiction in a religious creed is an admission that the creed is accurate or a vaible way of describing the function of the world. If the data does not support the anti-abortionists dogma WRT socialization of dehumanized ethics, then it does not, and that's that. After all, if we were all becoming callous murderers-by-proxy, you'd certainly expect to see some other trend in the violent crime rate. The position of the anti-abortionists, until they can offer a similarly unbiased hard data result which contradicts the study, is therefore stripped of an angle of attack. They're reduced to categorically arguing that abortion is murder and murder is wrong, period, and that's that.
Which more or less renders the pro-life position untenable to anyone but the hard-core fanatics, because if we can see anything in this thread's discussion, it's that moderate pro-lifers generally hold that the 'wrongness' of abortion isn't an overriding factor in all cases -- sometimes, as in the case of rape or incest, there are other factors which trump the fact that 'it's just murder'. IF you hold that the life of the fetus is not sacrosanct and inviolable in and of itself -- FOR ANY REASON, IN ANY SITUATION, NO MATTER HOW RAREFIED -- then you are compromising the entire remaining basis for being pro-life.
5181. angel-five - 12/2/1999 3:14:11 PM
Now, you of course can argue that 'well, killing isn't always a no-no, because sometimes it's permissible, but it is something that you should always take pains to avoid for pragmatic reasons (even though we've tossed out the pure moral reasons as being untenable). That's why abortion should be criminalized except in the cases of severe health risk or mental health issues, in which case the well-being of the mother is more important than the child's life.' And that, to me, is a much more reasonable position. It's just not terribly popular because it has little weight -- there's not much to use as leverage against the opposition. You've got no moral authority -- you've tossed it. You've got no sociological pragmatic authority, because the data doesn't support it. And the crux of your argument supports your opposition's argument -- that the mother's rights can trump the 'rights' of the fetus.
5182. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 3:37:59 PM
"Where the data comes into play is NOT at the justification stage -- i.e. what makes abortion defensible or indefensible -- but in the clash of theory and ideology over abortion, as it relates to society."
Call me a big hulking Mac truck, angel, but I can't negotiate the hairpin curve you wants me to. Can we drop it with the above being your final eqloquent statement on the matter?
"Now, to offer up contrasting data, such as the study does -- you would paint that as an admission that the societal angle is a valid avenue to argue against or for abortion's legality."
If you say that social impact is relevant to the argument, it seems to me you are saying that social impact is relevant to the argument.
5183. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 3:42:09 PM
A5, not intentionally dismissive of your last two posts--just thought you'd concluded with 5179. I'm a-willing to let them go unresponded to, if you is.
5184. angel-five - 12/2/1999 4:06:10 PM
Indiana: You can respond or not as is your wont, provided that you don't go about subsequently mistaking my stance on this issue.
If you say that social impact is relevant to the argument,
it seems to me you are saying that social impact is
relevant to the argument
Please try to understand that you are equating two separate arguments. Moreover, you're conveniently ignoring the difference between legitimizing someone's argument (i.e. agreeing that the argument is valid) and showing how that argument is internally inconsistent and unsupported (i.e. demonstrating that the argument is contradicted by basic evidence). That isn't a hairpin curve, Indiana, it's a straight line. It's how opposing belief systems can argue with each other even though their basic precepts are entirely different -- you examine the logical consistency of the opposing argument and speak of it in its own terms. Of course, you can just toss up your hands and tell the pro-lifers that their argument from social results isn't applicable and that's why you don't address it, but that seldom works -- because they refuse to understand why and won't accept explanations germane to the query, but rather just hammer the table and announce that they've got a point, dammit, and that's that. So you're left with hoisting them on their own petard, should they choose to press the societal argument.
5185. angel-five - 12/2/1999 4:08:12 PM
I can't help but think you're being deliberately dense, here. Don't you recognize any difference at ALL between a) suspecting that an inverse correlation between legal abortion incidents and illegal violent crime does in fact exist, and b) arguing that this in and of itself is a sine qua non reason to have legal abortion? If you answer me at all, answer that question first --and then explain to me how it is that by noting the former you could possibly assume I'm a proponent of the latter. It makes no sense to do so, but you apparently believed that you'd caught me doing it, and acted accordingly -- so I'd like the explanation why.
5186. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 4:20:02 PM
Angel:
Well said.
However, I believe you are misconfabulating Indiana's position. Moreover, you stridently obtusulate the core difference in the underlying matter of disputality when you state that one agent's modality of argumentation (let us say, to give the beast a name, so to speak, their "modus") is somehow divergulent to the intended object to which they direct their bellicosotic energies (for example, the demonstratum regarding the inherent comustuality of compensatory mismatch between form and function belies the undercurrent of kevlar whittling through their tempers (or, to put it more clearly, flagellates their overweening demeanors); and in so doing, of course, more or less militates towards a less dualisticious orgasmulation of cultivitities-- and this, by necessity, reduces nonsensically to the proposition that what is to be furthered is not necessarily what is to be proven; and I think that's quite clarificacient based on the very factum which you assiducidiously reify cornswallop nacent vector red blue green white, curiouser and curiouser-- now, were I to accept your pusilanignomious garments to be somehow germanicious to this course of reasoning, I would of course nuckle nuckle nyuck nyuck noo; but I think that, in the interest of fairness, I will rather goosum goosum tit fligwillow paunch.
Now, Angel, I must say, you can respond or not as is your wont, or even your ilk, or even a wont *and* an ilk, but-- and this is is important -- only provided that you don't go about subsequently mistaking my stance on this issue.
Because I think I've been sufficienally clear.
5187. angel-five - 12/2/1999 4:20:45 PM
Oh, I missed Biener's response to me.
Biener: Oh, come on. If that was the case, then why use language in all other cases that is specifically and unmistakably categorical? It doesn't add up.
5188. angel-five - 12/2/1999 4:22:41 PM
Ace -- Not everyone else is so afflicted with attention deficit disorder that they can't read long and complex posts without suffering brain spasms.
5189. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 4:26:28 PM
Angel:
Ah yes: The standard defense of the chronic bad writer. "I'm not a bad, dense, sloppy, meandering writer; you're just a bad reader."
There are things called called paragraphs. Look into them.
Some people find they help impose an *orderliness* and crispness to their writing. Perhaps they will do the same for you.
5190. JonesAtLaw - 12/2/1999 4:30:41 PM
Ace's channeling William Buckley on acid!
5191. angel-five - 12/2/1999 4:36:17 PM
Oh, yes, Ace, we all know, those little breaks between sentences give you a chance to west your bwain.
I know, I know, it's a frustrating problem, which is why you usually give up reading partway through and instead, by trying to heckle, shift the blame away from your comprehension to the object which eludes it. Of course, we could BOTH be right -- I might write in a manner that's cryptic and hard for you to follow, and you might have ADD and subsequently be prone to spastic defensive outbursts about my cryptic, hard to follow writing. OR maybe big words are the problem. I don't know, but drug therapy is much better these days, look into it for your own sake. HAve a nice day!
5192. angel-five - 12/2/1999 4:37:36 PM
Oh, yes, Ace, we all know, those little breaks between sentences give you a chance to west your bwain.
I know, I know, it's a frustrating problem, which is why you usually give up reading partway through and instead, by trying to heckle, shift the blame away from your comprehension to the object which eludes it. Of course, we could BOTH be right -- I might write in a manner that's cryptic and hard for you to follow, and you might have ADD and subsequently be prone to spastic defensive outbursts about my cryptic, hard to follow writing. OR maybe big words are the problem. I don't know, but drug therapy is much better these days, look into it for your own sake. HAve a nice day!
5193. janjon - 12/2/1999 4:43:15 PM
Why is everyone knocking Ace so? His 5186 is the best thing I've ever seen him write.
5194. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 4:45:28 PM
You may have a point, in the sense that, yes, upon occasion, I have been known to employ ridicule in my modus of discourse; however, I think you will grant me, and I hope I am here not being presumptuous in the least, or perhaps I am, but that is the risk one runs when one enters these sorts of discussions, after all, that, and I wish to stress this, while not putting too fine a point on it, that perhaps you are wont, if I may be so bold as to say "wont," to write rather sloppily, one thought running unpoliced into the intersection of an oncoming thought, to coin a metaphor (and I hope you understand that no offense at all is intended); and I merely am politely, nay, *constructively*, stating that, all things being considered, perhaps you ought to try segmenting separate thoughts into separate paragraphs or, more essentially, different sentences, and that, if your thoughts were so organized according the more-or-less standard conventions of prose writing, perhaps, oh, I don't know, you posts wouldn't read like Japanese VCR instruction manuals or, more charitably, like the extended, recursive footnotes of a postomodernist marxist feminist postgraduate thesis.
Note that the above paragraph is fundamentally, gramatically sound. It makes sense. I have violated no rules in writing it.
It is, however, a horrible chore to read, I'm guessing. I hope you enjoy deciphering it.
5195. TrialShark - 12/2/1999 4:46:14 PM
Ace --
Ummmmm... outside of drafted soldiers, can you name a single law which requires such a sacrifice or risk?
No, that's who I had in mind.
5196. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 4:53:29 PM
a-5, at the Mote at least, I'm never deliberately obtuse, but I do think that I've stated my position as effectively as I can without repeating myself. Re your questions a and b, I believe that scientific evidence is scientific evidence, and ideology should never disqualify it. And admitting that any particular evidence exists doesn't endorse a position that such evidence is the "sine qua non" to judging an issue. (Most pro-lifers would admit that hospital abortions are inherently safer than those conducted in back alleys.)
Where our "failure to communicate" occurs is not regarding the conclusion of the statistics--dead babies of course don't tell any tales, commit crimes, eat scarce food, or otherwise overtly affect society (I think Niner mentioned that this was self-evident without any studies last night). People already know that from common sense.
The pro-abortion rights side, however, cannot enter into the debate from this position because, no matter the statistics, they lose. Their strong argument--the basis of Roe v. Wade--is the Right to Privacy, which is predicated on "the right to be left alone." Once "you" (someone) begin arguing that it is statistically possible to predict probable outcomes for a potential fetus, you are undermining the notion that society has no compelling interest in reproduction. Once the state has a compelling interest, blanket "reproductive freedom" is dead.
Moreover, "you" will have moved the debate to a much weaker position for the pro-abortion side. Killing babies because some might become criminals is infinitely weaker in my opinion than saying the state has no business telling a woman whether or not she can reproduce.
I understand you would draw an arbitrary distinction between your well-defined "stages of argument," but I'm guessing judges are every bit as obtuse as me and might not grasp such subtleties.
5197. TrialShark - 12/2/1999 4:58:54 PM
JJ --
"Real life cannot be addressed using absolutes."
Ever?
" ...the child is not the only one involved."
No, but the child is the only one whose killing you propose to permit.
"I am not proposing to kill anyone. I am saying that in certain cases the woman's rights prevail, and in others the baby's rights prevail."
And when the woman's rights prevail, she gets to kill the baby if she wants. And you're willing to allow that -- right?
Earlier you said you'd allow the killing of an unborn child so that the mother would not be traumatized by the thought of having to carry and bear the child. If you're willing to permit abortion for therapeutic reasons, just admit it.
In no instance, however, has the baby done anything to forfeit its right to live -- assuming that it has such a right to begin with. Kill the s.o.b. who fathered the child if you thinks someone should die, but on what ground do you defend killing the innocent when their death is not necessary to save the life of another?
5198. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 5:08:08 PM
(I hate to add more after such a lengthy post, but a-5 is still ahead on the word count.) The pro-abortion side also loses psychologically by talking about predictive outcomes: it's difficult to reconcile the position that the fetus is just tissue--not a person--with the notion that it's entire life is already determinable and that at age 25 it will be holding up banks.
5199. PelleNilsson - 12/2/1999 5:21:43 PM
janjon
There are some very funny and witty writers around here. Check out this site when you have a few moments to spare.
5200. Spudboy - 12/2/1999 5:30:11 PM
Ace of Cliches lecturing others on bad writing is rather like Jesse Jackson chastising someone for crass opportunism.
5201. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 5:33:43 PM
Spudboy - Ace of Cliches lecturing others on bad writing is rather like Jesse Jackson chastising someone for crass opportunism.
I am shocked that you post such an insensitive statement. I am also LMAO.
5202. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 5:38:00 PM
TS - I have already explained my beliefs about abortion and why I believe the way I do. If you would like to comment, fine. I am not going to keep answering questions I have already answered.
5203. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 5:42:20 PM
Is it?
If my presence here is unappreciated, I can easily arrange my permanent departure.
Good luck with your pissant little website. Adieu.
5204. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 5:42:44 PM
A5 - If that was the case, then why use language in all other cases that is specifically and unmistakably categorical?
This is a online forum. The necessity to be brief and direct can make some statements seem categorical when they aren't intended to be so. When I was asked about specific circumstances, I was honest and forthcoming.
5205. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 5:43:45 PM
Ace - Is there an echo in here? One with a very long delay?
5206. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 5:44:28 PM
Hi guys! I'm back! Did you miss me?
I really, really, really meant to stay away that time, but I got soooo many e-mails during my three second absence, from fans just begging me to come back, that I just had to oblige them.
So... what's up?
Eh, fuck you guys. That's the straw that broke this wildcard's back.
Good luck and good fucking bye. So long, simps.
5207. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 5:47:02 PM
Hey, how's everybody doin'?
I decided to come back again due to the pleadings of my numerous friends here who just couldn't endure without me.
What do you guys think about Turkey? I think that's a funny name for a country. "Turkey." It's silly.
I'm sick of the incessant bitching and nastiness here. You all suck ass.
Good day and good riddance, jerkweeds.
5208. CalGal - 12/2/1999 5:48:39 PM
JJ,
I agree with TS, quite frankly. If it's murder, then how can you justify it in any situation? I mean, it's murder except when you have a really really really good JJ-approved reason?
5209. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 5:48:45 PM
Too bad Ace isn't a woman. I could really go for a psycho like that.
5210. CalGal - 12/2/1999 5:50:57 PM
Ace isn't really psycho, is he? He's kind of a wannabe.
True psychos do their best to act within the realm of normal.
I say this because I know.
5211. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 5:52:04 PM
Hey gang, what's happenin'?
You know, like they say on that show What's Happenin'-- "what's hap-pen-IN'"?
Yeah, dat's right baby. You know it.
Lookin' good there, Indiana. Hey, did you lose weight JJ? Or get a haircut?
Well, it was great seeing everybody again, but now I'm going, because you all suck and I hate you and you don't appreciate me, except for my legions of fans who keep begging me to come back.
Once I'm gone, then you'll *really* miss me. That'll show you.
Good night and godspeed, I'm outta here. I've had it up to here with you sickening losers.
5212. Raskolnikov - 12/2/1999 5:54:30 PM
Is Ace parodying someone that I don't recognize?
5213. PelleNilsson - 12/2/1999 5:55:44 PM
Please, Ace, how would we survive?
Devotedly,
A fan.
5214. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 5:55:53 PM
That's it. Now I'm going for real.
Adios, auf wiedersehen, sayanora, bye-bye. You won't have ace of spades to kick around anymore.
5215. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 5:56:38 PM
Hi!
5216. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 5:59:59 PM
rask:
I am not parodying anybody. I am emulating the drama-queenish exits of our favorite potato, who once had his back broken by a straw Niner placed on it, who has sworn to never darken this place's door again on two occasions now.
And yet here he is again.
And fuck you anyway, Guiseppe. I don't have to *justify* myself to you.
That's it. I'm off. And for good this time. I mean it.
Take care, fools.
5217. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 6:04:32 PM
Well, CalGal, if you're anywhere near as psycho as Ace, lay it on me, baby. Tell your troubles to old Indy, and then slap his face real hard right before you walk out the door.
5218. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 6:06:35 PM
CalGal - If it's murder, then how can you justify it in any situation?
I have already explained this.
5219. CalGal - 12/2/1999 6:11:15 PM
JJ,
Well, all you've come up with so far is that it's okay when the reason is JJ-approved.
5220. JonesAtLaw - 12/2/1999 6:15:32 PM
CalGal- I think that JJB has come up with something more than his feeling on the issue. He has clearly stated that it is a contest of rights requiring a balancing test. Sloppy stuff ideologically, but reality is sometimes like that. This does merely put off the values issue one step, however while not deciding precisely what we use for the balancing test.
5221. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 6:17:42 PM
CalGal - I don't believe that the issue can be dealt with using absolutes. There are times when exceptions should be made. I have said when I believe there should be exceptions and why. If you dispute my reasoning, fine. Offer something else. I haven't said that these exceptions are valid because I say so. I have given a logical basis for them.
5222. CalGal - 12/2/1999 6:20:56 PM
Jones,
Well, yes. You just put in a bunch of words for "JJ-approved". (g)
5223. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 6:23:54 PM
You just put in a bunch of words for "JJ-approved".
Ummm, what other criteria would JJ advance? TrialShark-approved criteria, perhaps?
5224. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 6:24:58 PM
Wheh! Ace is back. That was a close one.
5225. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 6:26:17 PM
Fuck you. Good bye.
5226. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 6:34:28 PM
Shane? Shane?
5227. CalGal - 12/2/1999 6:34:36 PM
Ace,
Well, it's just that when one declares that abortion is "murder" except when--and then provides an utterly arbitrary list that happily corresponds to one's own value system, I'm not sure that there is any legitimacy to it.
JJ said:
Abortion = Murder
If X, then Murder = bad
If Y, then Murder != bad
At that point, who gives a fuck whether or not he thinks it's murder? He's just completely annhilated any negative connotation it might have.
5228. TrialShark - 12/2/1999 7:33:30 PM
JJ --
"I have already explained my beliefs about abortion and why I believe the way I do."
Yes. You believe abortion is murder, except when it isn't.
It isn't murder when the mother's rights prevail over those of the unborn infant.
The mother's rights prevail over the infant's in the case of incest or rape because you think it might -- in some, but not all instances -- cause the mother emotional trauma to bear a child so conceived. However, the consent (or lack thereof) of the mother to the act of conception is not necessarily dispositive -- as in the case of incest which does not amount to rape.
The problem is that that rationale could also justify aborting an unborn child whose mother consented to the act of conception understnading that a child could result, but who now suffers severe emotional distress at the prospect of actually bearing a child. It could also apply to the mother who consented to the act expecting no child to result, but who as a result of a failure of contraception winds up pregnant anyway.
These cases are not the same as rape or incest; but I'd like to hear your thoughts on why the difference should amount to the difference between life and death for the unborn baby.
"If you would like to comment, fine."
Whew. Glad I have your permission.
"I am not going to keep answering questions I have already answered."
Well, if your position boils down to "because I said so, that's why," then you needn't bother with answers. If you have a principled reason, I'd like to hear it. I think I may be more conservative on this issue than you expect.
5229. vonKreedon - 12/2/1999 8:06:37 PM
Many people believe that killing another human is not at all times an immoral act. Soldiers and state executioners are the obvious examples of people who kill other people with societal sanction. Neither of these is allowed to kill just anyone, there are specific circumstances in which this is allowable. It is not a huge step to then include abortion under specific circumstances as a moral, or at least non-immoral act.
5230. TrialShark - 12/2/1999 8:41:14 PM
vK --
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to group an unborn child with a condemned criminal or an enemy soldier as a person who may be killed with moral impunity.
Even were the grouping valid, killing prisoners and killing the enemy in wartime are arguably justifiable as self-defense, or as acts committed in defense of another. Since we're not arguing over abortion performed to save the life of the mother (which even I will concede is permissible), these doctrines don't appear applicable.
5231. angel-five - 12/2/1999 8:53:15 PM
The pro-abortion rights side, however, cannot enter into
the debate from this position because, no matter the
statistics, they lose. Their strong argument--the basis of
Roe v. Wade--is the Right to Privacy, which is
predicated on "the right to be left alone." Once "you"
(someone) begin arguing that it is statistically possible to
predict probable outcomes for a potential fetus, you are
undermining the notion that society has no compelling
interest in reproduction. Once the state has a compelling
interest, blanket "reproductive freedom" is dead.
Indiana:
But this doesn't follow, because in our society, the protection of individual rights ARE a 'compelling state interest'. Protecting individual rights, as an act, is part and parcel of American societal dialogue, if indeed not the entire raison d'etre for our state. Correct?
This is a societal argument no matter what spin you put on it. Arguing that abortion should be legal because women have the right to control their own bodies under the spirit and letter of our law is a societal argument that concerns individual rights in a collective sense. Arguing that abortion should be legal because it weeds 'undesirable elements' from our population is a societal argument that concerns collective rights at the level of mandating individual behavior.
Nevertheless, they are both arguments relating to compelling societal interest in the issue of abortion. The only difference is the locus of overriding control that you decide upon -- individual or collective benefit.
I think what you are arguing is that pro-choice proponents cannot ethically invoke the concept of purifying society as a guiding rationale for allowing abortion, and you will get no argument from me on the issue. I don't think that we should approach abortion from a eugenic or social Darwinist perspective.
5232. angel-five - 12/2/1999 8:53:25 PM
However, what you must understand is that pro-life activists approach the abortion debate from precisely that angle, and hence -- in terms of pointing out the inconsistency and unfoundedness of some pro-life argumentation -- it is perfectly legitimate for pro-choice activists to engage pro-life positions on those grounds. It's as sensible as arguing with, say, a francophone in French as opposed to a language that person does not speak.
Examine the isse in this light: The arguments that many pro-life activists indulge themselves in center upon purported detrimental effects to society. If the data available do not support their conclusions, then it's perfectly acceptable to point that out. It doesn't mean that you yourself suddenly are arguing the validity of abortion based upon society's right to trump the individual's rights -- all it means is that you are demonstrating that your opponent's argument on that ground is contradicted by the available evidence. Do you follow that?
5233. ChristinO - 12/2/1999 9:04:16 PM
Allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest is at root about whether or not the woman had a good time during conception.
If mental trauma is to be accepted as a legitimate reason to allow abortion then the issue is not the cause of the trauma but the severity.
What I keep hearing is JJ's claim that a woman who participated in consensual sex already made her choice. That's the real point---you had sex, you enjoyed it, you pay the consequences. It has nothing to do with the life of the baby which is not at all changed by whether the mother had a good time.
5234. angel-five - 12/2/1999 9:06:06 PM
Re your questions a
and b, I believe that scientific evidence is scientific
evidence, and ideology should never disqualify it.
What we have is a cited study that correlates abortion's rise with the drop in violent crime. Correlative study means that someone has noted similar trends in two presumably linkable sets of statistics and is (not always, but sometimes) proposing that the two are related in some way. What it does NOT do is establish a cause and effect relationship, and that's critical here.
In order for us to make the leap from noting the trend to arguing for or against abortion based upon this trend, we would have to a) be able to conclusively demonstrate direct causation (as opposed to, say, the existence of a third factor which controls both the rate of abortion and the rate of violent crime) and b)we would have to then argue that the drop in violent crime is a compelling reason to keep abortion legal.
No one is doing that. Why? Because the argument for abortion is not ideologically based in social Darwinism, but rather individual freedom! This is one case where ideology trumps data. Another one, to reiterate, is the argument for, say, the use of lethal force by police officers while stopping misdemeanor offenses in action. If we were to allow officers to cap jaywalkers and shoplifters, the scientific data would most definitely show a drop in those two offenses. Why, then, should we not allow the police to do so? Because in doing so, they institute a policy that runs counter to the cornerstones of our legal philosophy. We must keep other things in mind -- such as the individual citizen's legal rights -- when we decide how police should act to stop petty crime. And so our ideology trumps the narrow conclusion which can be drawn from one scientific analysis. Do you follow, Indiana?
5235. ChristinO - 12/2/1999 9:10:06 PM
For the record I support elective abortions up until the age of viability regardless of method of conception, sexual mores of the woman, her socio-economic status, age, race or parental status.
5236. bubbaette - 12/2/1999 9:16:44 PM
Come Back, Little Sheba!
5237. angel-five - 12/2/1999 9:24:16 PM
Re: my Message # 5232
"However, what you must understand is that pro-life
activists approach the abortion debate from precisely that
angle, "
'that angle' should refer to 'the concept of purifying society' and not, as my editing would make it seem, 'eugenics or social Darwinism'. Pro-lifers would 'purify society' but in a different way.
5238. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 11:09:12 PM
"But this doesn't follow, because in our society, the protection of individual rights ARE a 'compelling state interest'."
a-5, that's not the basis of Roe v. Wade. It threw out anti-abortion laws by saying the state didn't have a strong enough reason to regulate the individual's right to privacy. Who was the Court protecting "individual rights" from in this case? The state, of course.
I'm going to stop with that nibble for now. If we get that down the hatch, I'll work on digesting some more of what you said, ere these tomes get anymore massive. (As an aside, I'll editorialize that your perception that a primary interest of the state is the protection of individual rights is a belief that distinguishes today's liberals from the classical version--and why I'm not an adherent of the modern definition. The classical version saw the state as being the greatest obstacle to individual rights, and in my opinion, rightly so.)
5239. JonesAtLaw - 12/2/1999 11:46:36 PM
ChristinO- Good point regarding whether the woman enjoyed the sex. It doesn't cover the incest issue, because no matter how unplesant the suggestion, sometimes the victims actually enjoy the relationship. It's the Stockholm syndrome I suppose.
WRT correlation between increased abortions and decreased crime, there seems to be one large confounding variable, and that is the general demographic shift where the portion of the population most likely to engage in crime has diminished. Perhaps when the echo of the baby boomers fully hits the 20's we'll have a better idea, but for now, its really difficult to say which is the causation.
5240. joezan - 12/2/1999 11:51:17 PM
You know, this correlation between decrease in crime/increase in abortions is about the silliest thing I've heard. I mean, consumption of liver and other organ meat has decreased at least as drastically as abortion has increased. Personally, I see much more of a correlation there.
5241. TrialShark - 12/3/1999 12:44:01 AM
If you make me eat that liver ...
I'll kill you and eat yours.
Yeah.
5242. CalGal - 12/3/1999 1:16:32 AM
Samuelson column on the study.
Interestingly, both sides deplore the study. "Fraught with stupidity," says one anti-abortion group. If you believe abortion is murder, the idea that it's an anti-crime device is outrageous. Consider the grim arithmetic: between 1991 and 1997, the annual number of homicides dropped by 6,500 (from 24,700 to 18,200), while abortions regularly exceeded a million a year. But pro-abortion groups also dislike the study. They promote abortion as a woman's right, not as a covert means of social control — weeding out criminals and incompetents — with racial overtones. Blacks and other minorities account for about 40 percent of abortions.
According to Samuelson, the study is well-regarded but shouldn't be considered final.
I think the reason that both pro and anti-abortion lobbies dislike the study results is simple: a definitive link between abortion and crime could cause the public to make the obvious link between abortion and welfare. Considering the public's fairly consistent support for abortion and fairly consistent distaste for welfare, I can see why they'd both be concerned.
The study isn't definitive, obviously. But it's a step on the way, which is why it gets both sides ancy.
5243. angel-five - 12/3/1999 2:46:32 AM
a-5, that's not the basis of Roe v. Wade. It threw out
anti-abortion laws by saying the state didn't have a
strong enough reason to regulate the individual's right to
privacy. Who was the Court protecting "individual
rights" from in this case? The state, of course.
(Right to privacy? Are you sure about that, Indiana?)
So why'd the Court do that? Because the protection of individual rights IS a compelling interest of the state in our system of government, Indiana. ANYthing which is legitimized and mandated by the state, including freedom from regulation by the state, can be said to fall under this heading. They may take different forms, but the source of the authority is the same. So it's just not so easily accomplished, this delineation between arguments that suggest some are collectivist and some are not.
Incidentally, both the classic and modern liberal systems are concerned with protecting individual rights. It's just that the modern system proposes a direct means of doing so and the classical system proposes an indirect means of doing so.
5244. Stumbo - 12/3/1999 3:04:29 AM
Antsy is as antsy does.
I've previously advocated, in this forum's precursor, mandatory abortion when either parent is on welfare. Thank goodness there's now some Empirical Data to validate my position.
"Grim Arithmetic" will be my new middle name, just as soon as that paperwork goes through.
5245. DaveM - 12/3/1999 4:04:18 AM
CalGal -
My memory is failing me - you were the first to mention this study on abortion, weren't you? Would you mind posting a link, if available? Thanks.
5246. PelleNilsson - 12/3/1999 6:11:51 AM
Here is the link
5247. Indiana Jones - 12/3/1999 8:25:55 AM
a5, absolutely sure--I've read the decision. That's the basis of the approximate trimester thing: first trimester, no compelling interest. Second semester, some compelling interest due to the health of the mother issue. Third semester, viability creates a compelling interest on the basis of the fetus.
And if you can't see that the Court was protecting individual rights from the state when it prohibited the state from making such laws and threw out existing ones, well, there's little basis for me to think continued arguing with you is worthwhile.
"ANYthing which is legitimized and mandated by the state, including freedom from regulation by the state, can be said to fall under this heading."
I endorse the idea of "inalienable rights," rather than the slogan "All power to the Soviets!"
5248. Dantheman - 12/3/1999 8:48:25 AM
An issue near and dear to my heart
The reason it's dear to my heart is that I work for a company that owns many shopping malls, and this is viewed as a threat, as the internet may be an unlevel playing field.
5249. Indiana Jones - 12/3/1999 9:00:08 AM
Dan, I can see the argument from the "erosion of the tax base" side, but not as clearly from the uneven playing field side, because shipping and handling usually offset sales tax. For example, although I appreciate the convenience of online shopping, if there's a local outlet for the same store, I'll usually buy there because otherwise you have to pay both (shipping and handling plus sales tax) when you mail order.
5250. JudithAtHome - 12/3/1999 9:02:25 AM
Dan:
As someone seeing their sales plummet thanks to the Internet and places like eBay, I can sympathize with retailers. My antiques business has taken quite a hit from on-line auctions.
Not only do the e-commerce sites have no sales tax but they often ship free, too. I buy off the internet myself so I can hardly carp about the good deals I get but it's easy to see I'm also being bitten by the hand that sells tax free to me.
One would think Gov. Bush would be more concerned; our state has no income tax and relies on a hefty sales tax. I guess he's too busy cleaning the air here...
5251. JudithAtHome - 12/3/1999 9:05:23 AM
IndianaJ:
Many people don't see that the S&H sometimes add up to more than a sales tax would. And you have to admit, it's easier to order from your own home wearing pajamas than getting out to the store, fighting traffic and all.
5252. Dantheman - 12/3/1999 9:06:05 AM
IJ,
For "big ticket" items, such as computers, stereos, etc., the shipping and handling is less than the sales tax, and such sales are fleeing normal stores. In a 6% sales tax state like PA, it doesn't take much to make non-overnight shipping worthwhile (often less than $100, for small items like CD's). The malls are seriously worried that they are being used as showrooms, allowing the customer to try out the goods and eventually order on-line or through catalogs.
5253. Indiana Jones - 12/3/1999 9:16:40 AM
Judith and Dan, the convenience is the big issue, but that's a legitimate advantage. The sales tax thing is more debatable, and I think it's better to argue it from the loss of revenue to the state than unfair trade. As a consumer, if you say you don't like my getting a "legislated discount" through mail order, I'm not going to sympathize very much. What's in it for me to see the price I pay online go up? On the other hand if you point out that such retailers within my own state are eroding my schools and roads, I would probably support removing their tax break.
5254. JudithAtHome - 12/3/1999 9:16:52 AM
Dan:
Did you drop a period in that example?
Our sales tax is close to 9%.
5255. Dantheman - 12/3/1999 9:27:00 AM
IJ,
I'm arging it from the retailer's (and mall owner's) perspective, who don't like people coming it and treating the stores as a place to get information, but not to buy. What's in it for you is that if bricks and mortar stores close, you won't get to try out what you buy on the internet beforehand.
Judith,
I pity you for your nearly 9% sales tax. I lived in Connecticut in the late '80's, which had no income tax and an 8% sales tax. When the last recession hit, they realized that when people stop buying big ticket items, the sales tax revenues drop faster than the economy as a whole. They have since imposed an income tax, and dropped the sales tax rate.
5256. Indiana Jones - 12/3/1999 9:34:16 AM
Dan, some people may do as you say, but I'm not one of them. If I'm already at the store and have the item in my hand, the sales tax break alone isn't going to keep me from buying. I don't like to shop, don't like crowds, don't like lines. So I do prefer the experience of sitting at home and feeling the world is my oyster (as long as I have a valid credit card).
Once I've gone to the effort of getting my butt to the store, I'm coming home with something.
5257. Dantheman - 12/3/1999 9:40:33 AM
IJ,
While many people feel as you do, many others do not. Since many stores can't afford to lose even 10% of their sales to on-line merchants and stay in business, this will start looming as a greater issue, especially as the committee Gov. Gilmore is on is preparing a report to Congress in the spring. The current exclusion for sales taxes will expire soon, and this may be a bone of contention next year.
5258. JudithAtHome - 12/3/1999 10:52:06 AM
Dan:
I know that I am considering getting out of the antiques business because of a drop in sales. I'm in a mall and have to pay rent each month; I sell enough to pay my rent and pay for what goods I sell but my profit margin has taken a dive. It's not worth the time and effort. While I'm not exactly losing money, I'm not making as much as I once did and it's like giving my things away to simply make my rent and a little over.
I've been doing this for many years and I've never seen anything like it, this drop in sales. It's amazing to me that people wouldn't want to come to the mall and touch the things they are planning to buy...antiques speak to you. They don't do that over the internet.
5259. Dantheman - 12/3/1999 10:56:34 AM
Judith,
I know. They also don't give you a sense of how clothes will fit on a real person, not a model, or whether shoes run wide or narrow. Unfortunately, once people try them on, they often go on-line.
5260. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 11:00:03 AM
I don't get the internet sales-tax exemption.
If I use the phone-lines to SPEAK to a representative on the phone, I have to pay sales tax (if he's in my state).
If I use the phone-lines to TYPE to a representative on the phone, I DON'T have to pay sales tax.
Odd.
5261. Raskolnikov - 12/3/1999 11:01:47 AM
I've never understood why items shipped out of state are exempt from sales taxes anyway. Can't states simply redefine their sales taxes as applying to any item sold by a seller physically located in the state? Currently, it seems to be based on the location of the buyer, which is weird. If I travel to Wisconsin, I pay sales tax, but if I order it via the phone, mail, or Internet from a Wisconsin business, I don't.
If I set up my business on a state border, where customers are physically located on the other side of the border at the time money exchanges hands, am I able to exempt their purchases from sales tax?
Or is there some sort of problem with the Commerce Clause which prevents a sensible law from being passed?
5262. Raskolnikov - 12/3/1999 11:02:59 AM
Ace, as I understand it, if you reside in the same state as the seller, you *are* required to pay sales tax, even if you order via the net.
5263. Raskolnikov - 12/3/1999 11:04:09 AM
Judith, are you thinking about moving your business onto the Net, trying to sell at places like Ebay?
5264. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 11:04:29 AM
I've never understood why items shipped out of state are exempt from sales taxes anyway. Can't states simply redefine their sales taxes as applying to any item sold by a seller physically located in the state? ...
Or is there some sort of problem with the Commerce Clause which prevents a sensible law from being passed?
Yuhp. States can only tax purely INTRAstate transactions. They have no power to reach across their borders to tax the citizen of another state.
Which means you only pay sales tax when BOTH buyer and seller are in the state imposing the tax.
Otherwise, you'd have situations where a New Yorker buying something from California would have to pay BOTH the New York AND California sales tax.
5265. JJBiener - 12/3/1999 11:04:59 AM
TS - You believe abortion is murder, except when it isn't.
This isn't what I said. This isn't even close.
The mother's rights prevail over the infant's in the case of incest or rape because you think it might -- in some, but not all instances -- cause the mother emotional trauma to bear a child so conceived.
Go talk to victim of rape or incest. Ask them what it would be like for them to bear a child that was conceived as a result. It is not something to be treated lightly.
However, the consent (or lack thereof) of the mother to the act of conception is not necessarily dispositive -- as in the case of incest which does not amount to rape.
I don't know of many people who consent to sexual abuse. In fact, I don't know of any. They may comply out of fear, but that is hardly consent.
The problem is that that rationale could also justify aborting an unborn child whose mother consented to the act of conception understnading that a child could result, but who now suffers severe emotional distress at the prospect of actually bearing a child.
Provide me a situation where this would exist.
It could also apply to the mother who consented to the act expecting no child to result, but who as a result of a failure of contraception winds up pregnant anyway.
I don't see where this is at all similar. When a woman consents even if she is taking precautions she knows there is a chance she can get pregnant. She has chosen to take that risk.
5266. Indiana Jones - 12/3/1999 11:05:26 AM
Judith and Dan, the other mentality is something I just can't comment on, because I'm not a real shopper. Very minimalist. About the only things I buy for myself are CDs and books. I used to enjoy bookstores very much, and that's still about the only store I'll "lounge" in.
It's the WalMart-type store, though, that I particularly loathe. People who go shopping without any purchase in mind, just to roam up and down the aisles and socialize. In such stores you can't find the thing you do want because of the chaos. And traffic. It's hard to believe how much worse traffic has become in the last 20 years where I live.
As far as profitability goes, though, aren't most online stores pretty iffy too? I saw where they have to spend gargantuan amounts compared with bricks-and-mortar establishments on advertising because they don't have the inherent ad of physical presence.
5267. ScottLoar - 12/3/1999 11:06:12 AM
Anyone who buys antiques on-line is taking a huge risk. I know, I've done it, and suffered the consequences. You've got to handle the item, you've got to see it, you've even got to smell it (which I will explain more thoroughly when I've found time to describe some of my own antiques). Sometimes you even have to taste the antique.
5268. JudithAtHome - 12/3/1999 11:07:24 AM
Scott:
You are so right.
5269. vonKreedon - 12/3/1999 11:10:18 AM
Judith - Have you considered expanding your business into the e-commerce area? It is pretty easy to do, you can auction through Amazon or E-Bay, or you can set up in Amazon's ZMall. You could still maintain your mallfront and also recapture some of the customer base that has gone online.
5270. Dantheman - 12/3/1999 11:14:54 AM
Rask/Ace,
When you receive goods shipped from out of state, you are supposed to pay use tax on them, which is equivalent in amount to sales tax. The use tax is not enforced at all. Therefore, the transaction is supposed to be taxed, but in practice is tax free.
IJ,
As yet, most exclusively "e-tailers" are losing money, because of that reason. However, many bricks-and-mortar retailers also have on-line services (many even in their stores in the mall), which will ship the goods tax free.
5271. ScottLoar - 12/3/1999 11:15:11 AM
What pushes the e-Bay sales is the immediate availability of a huge variety of items supposedly at cheap prices without the profits of a middleman. Look, pick and buy cheap. So appealing.
5272. JJBiener - 12/3/1999 11:17:49 AM
Christin - Allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest is at root about whether or not the woman had a good time during conception.
This is utter bullshit and you know it.
If mental trauma is to be accepted as a legitimate reason to allow abortion then the issue is not the cause of the trauma but the severity.
I'll ask you the same question I ask TS. Can you provide me a situation where this mental trauma would exist as a result of pregnancy?
What I keep hearing is JJ's claim that a woman who participated in consensual sex already made her choice.
I agree with pro-choicers that a woman has the right to control her own body. Once she makes a choice and becomes pregnant, there is another life that must be considered.
That's the real point---you had sex, you enjoyed it, you pay the consequences.
Enjoyment has nothing to do with it. To put it correctly, if you have sex you are responsible for the result. Or don't you believe that people should be held responsible for their actions?
It has nothing to do with the life of the baby which is not at all changed by whether the mother had a good time.
It is funny that you think you know my beliefs better than I do. The life of the baby is the primary concern, but as I pointed out it is not the only concern. You are trying to turn this into a black or white issue when it isn't. It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned for the life of the baby and still recognize that there are times when other concerns prevail. This is a complex issue which cannot be solved with simplistic solutions.
5273. 109109 - 12/3/1999 11:23:44 AM
The criticisms of JJ's position could continue ad infinitum, the less-than-exact murk of abortion being what it is.
A few questions for TS, Cal and Christin.
Do you agree that abortion should be limited? (yea or nay)
If so, how?
If so, why?
5274. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 11:23:55 AM
When you receive goods shipped from out of state, you are supposed to pay use tax on them, which is equivalent in amount to sales tax. The use tax is not enforced at all.
I didn't know that.
5275. Raskolnikov - 12/3/1999 11:26:36 AM
Ace: "Yuhp. States can only tax purely INTRAstate transactions. They have no power to reach across their borders to tax the citizen of another state. "
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I want to understand the legal logic. Was this some sort of court decision? Could it be circumvented via a redefining of the tax to be something like a value-added tax rather than a transaction tax?
And I am suddenly elaborating on that state-border business idea. I can build two stores, just on either side of the state border. Residents of Minnesota can stand in their state while handing me money while I stand on the Wisconsin side, and residents of Wisconsin can hand me money while I stand on the Minnesota side.
5276. Raskolnikov - 12/3/1999 11:28:56 AM
I've heard of the use tax, and I do wonder why if states can tax the user, why they can't find some definition which allows them to tax the seller. Maybe you can, but in doing so, you would lose the exemption for those who sell for re-sale.
5277. JudithAtHome - 12/3/1999 11:31:43 AM
I'm not interested in selling on eBay...it is too impersonal for me. I am only in this "business" as a pastime. It is fun and I like the people I associate with; my husband lists my business under "entertainment" in our budget and I must admit, it seems that way to me. I use my profits to buy our season tickets for theatre and ballet and the symphony so it's not as though I'd starve if my business folded.
I've sold a few things on eBay and gotten ridiculous amounts for things that would've gone for soooo much less at my mall. So if the bottom line were the only thing I was interested in, I would definitely go for selling on eBay.
The people I feel sorry for are the dealers who really depend on their sales to live...they are usually older and have resisted the computer or distrust it so much they couldn't avail themselves of selling on-line. These people are hurting; I'm not, I'm just sad at seeing the decline of the malls.
5278. Dantheman - 12/3/1999 11:34:20 AM
Ace #5274 -- see my link at 5248
Rask,
I think the answer is because Congress has primary responsibility for this under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and this is what its rules are. That's also why Congress can (and may next year -- see my note at 5257) change it. There's a blue ribbon commission studying this issue and holding hearings now, and will present its recommendations to Congress in the spring.
5279. theDiva - 12/3/1999 11:35:13 AM
Rask
I also think it may have something to do with where the goods are actually received by the buyer.
5280. JJBiener - 12/3/1999 11:36:51 AM
Judith - Why don't you sell a few items that you don't really like on eBay, to generate enough revenue to keep your mall location open? That way you can have the best of both worlds.
5281. JudithAtHome - 12/3/1999 11:41:18 AM
JJ:
I'm not planning to leave the mall for a few months, anyhow. See how the Christmas season goes. It's not earth shattering either way. I'm a very lucky person in that I can go or stay and it won't be drastic whatever I decide.
5282. JJBiener - 12/3/1999 11:44:06 AM
Judith - I realize it is not earth shattering, but you do enjoy it. I work a full time job to subsidize my band and songwriting projects. It would be kind of the same thing for you.
5283. Dantheman - 12/3/1999 11:46:22 AM
Judith,
You don't have a long-term lease at the mall? Lucky you to have that sort of freedom.
5284. JudithAtHome - 12/3/1999 11:53:47 AM
Dan:
When I first went into the mall, there was a 3 month required lease but after that, you can leave with only a 30 day notice. I've been there nearly 8 years. Others have been there longer. It's an established mall and our sales usually top more than a million a year. Not bad for what is basically discarded "junk".
The person to be is the owner! He gets his money no matter what the sales are like. :-)
5285. Dantheman - 12/3/1999 11:56:04 AM
Judith,
Depends on the mall. Most of the leases I deal with have percentage rent, where the Landlord gets a part of each sale over a certain base. That's why I care so much how many sales are lost to the internet.
5286. Raskolnikov - 12/3/1999 11:56:16 AM
Although I have to say that I am surprised that anyone is mourning the decline of the shopping mall, considering how much invective was thrown at its rise.
I have been using Ebay quite a bit lately in my nascent hobby of collecting movie posters. It offers a selection much more diverse, and much better, than any I have seen at any given poster web site or store that I have seen. And it is easily searchable. I haven't shelled out more than $25 for a poster yet, since the family budget is a bit too tight to justify spending $200 for that Kiss Me Deadly poster, but I hope that will change in a few years.
5287. JudithAtHome - 12/3/1999 12:00:47 PM
Dan:
My mall is owned by one man, free and clear. He takes our rent but no portion of our sales and that's it. He's a writer and has a list of very nice books he's managed to pen while raking in our monthly rents and living in Texas and at his summer place in Maine. Nice guy, good sense of humor.
5288. CalGal - 12/3/1999 12:22:50 PM
Niner,
Do you agree that abortion should be limited? (yea or nay)
If so, how?
If so, why?
No abortions that involve taking the fetus' life after the fetus is viable.
There isn't really any "how" involved. The situations in which this even becomes an issue are extremely limited.
Why? Because I see no reason for a mother's wellbeing to take precedence over a fetus who is only a technicality away from being a child.
5289. 109109 - 12/3/1999 12:30:50 PM
Cal
"No abortions that involve taking the fetus' life after the fetus is viable."
Fair enough. I assume you mean independently.
"Why? Because I see no reason for a mother's wellbeing to take precedence over a fetus who is only a technicality away from being a child."
For you, why can't a mother's will being always take precedence over a fetus who is only a technicality away from being a child?
(for JJ, it is because he believes that such precedence in certain circumstances is murder)
5290. CalGal - 12/3/1999 12:37:27 PM
Niner,
Well, I thought I'd made it perfectly clear that I think JJ's
"in certain circumstances" reasoning is bullshit. I am a binary lass.
In fact, I explained a few tens of posts ago why JJ's reasoning basically takes you to Caz's position.
5291. 109109 - 12/3/1999 12:43:22 PM
Cal
But you haven't answered my question.
For you, why can't a mother's will being always take precedence over a fetus who is only a technicality away from being a child?
Obviously, the answer is because, at the juncture of independent viability, killing the child becomes something different than at a prior juncture.
5292. CalGal - 12/3/1999 12:56:52 PM
Niner,
For you, why can't a mother's will being always take precedence over a fetus who is only a technicality away from being a child?
In most states, the fetus is already considered to be a life at what--20 weeks? 24 weeks? If someone shot and killed the mother, the killer would be charged with two counts of murder. In fact, the mother can be prosecuted for murder of her fetus if she doesn't involve a doctor in the killing.
Clearly, the state already considers itself responsible for the life of the fetus, regardless of the mother's will. I'm just looking for consistency.
5293. janjon - 12/3/1999 1:02:06 PM
Whoa. Loss of a fetus in the manner described by CalGal is deemed to be a murder in most states?
5294. CalGal - 12/3/1999 1:05:19 PM
Gosh, I thought it was most states. I just read a column about it in the past couple of months. But I should have checked before saying "most".
If the objectionable word is "murder", rather than "manslaughter" or some lesser charge, then I stand corrected.
5295. 109109 - 12/3/1999 1:07:10 PM
Cal
I don't know the criminal law. But I was asking you: Why can't a mother's will being always take precedence over a fetus who is only a technicality away from being a child?
Is your answer: "Because that's the law?"
Or are you just looking for consistency, because it is perfectly consistent to take cazart's position: killing a child at 8 months, 27 days is allowable because cazart believes that it is the mother's choice until birth.
5296. janjon - 12/3/1999 1:11:23 PM
CalGal - I guess I would be surprised to learn that the destruction of a fetus under the circumstances you describe would constitute a criminal act, be it mruder, manslaughter or whatever.
I am thinking, for instance, of that horrible situation involving the kids in Delaware where there was so much emphasis on determining that the fetus had actually been born and had been alive for at least a brief period in terms of deciding whether there was a crime involved.
5297. Dantheman - 12/3/1999 1:15:13 PM
janjon,
That's because if, as they claimed, the baby was stillborn, there would have been no crime relating to its death (although I think there may still have been one relating to how they disposed of the dead body).
5298. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 1:17:21 PM
I guess I would be surprised to learn that the destruction of a fetus under the circumstances you describe would constitute a criminal act, be it mruder, manslaughter or whatever.
Then prepare to be surprised. It's the law.
I am thinking, for instance, of that horrible situation involving the kids in Delaware where there was so much emphasis on determining that the fetus had actually been born and had been alive for at least a brief period in terms of deciding whether there was a crime involved.
If you'd read carefully, you would have seen that Delaware would have counted the fetus as a person if the charge had been MURDER. But there was no law covering that case when the charge was Manslaughter, which is what the man in question was charged with.
Without a law to guide him, the judge ruled according what he deemed to be precedent.
5299. janjon - 12/3/1999 1:19:44 PM
dantheman. Exactly. No crime against a fetus. No crime having the gravity of murder or manslaughter against a still-born.
5300. CalGal - 12/3/1999 1:21:33 PM
Hmm. I thought the link was obvious, but maybe not.
I see no reason for the mother's will to ever take precedence over the interest of another life. I see no difference between saying that a mother can kill her viable fetus and that a mother can kill her three day old infant.
That seemed obvious, so I was moving to the next step--that since the fetus is alive, the state has an interest in protecting that life. The state already does protect this life. It seems unlikely that the state would protect a life and then say--but the mother's interests override our own in protecting this life. I see no other time when the state does that.
And yes, btw, Caz's position is perfectly consistent. I think his belief is loathsome, but sound. It is JJ's position that I find unsound and, consequently, even more disgusting. Christin dealt with the problems nicely.
5301. Dantheman - 12/3/1999 1:22:57 PM
janjon,
I think you're misunderstanding me. I thought the parents' position was that the baby was naturally stillborn and they took no action that killed it, either in the womb or after its birth.
5302. CalGal - 12/3/1999 1:23:38 PM
Jan,
No crime against a fetus. No crime having the gravity of murder or manslaughter against a still-born.
I think the determining factor is that the infant was dead. If the kids had stabbed the girl in the belly to kill the fetus, they would have been charged with killing that fetus.
5303. robertjayb - 12/3/1999 1:24:15 PM
.
Mars Polar Lander Landing
Watching The Landing Events Over The Internet
5304. CalGal - 12/3/1999 1:24:51 PM
And Jan, I thought your surprise was more specific. If you are merely surprised that killing a fetus counts as murder, then you need to get caught up.
5305. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 1:29:44 PM
Cal:
Since you're so big on "consistency," do you think a minor should get parental consent to get an abortion?
5306. 109109 - 12/3/1999 1:31:37 PM
Cal
"I see no reason for the mother's will to ever take precedence over the interest of another life. I see no difference between saying that a mother can kill her viable fetus and that a mother can kill her three day old infant."
Why?
I mean, you would say that a mother's will would always take precedence over a tumor.
So why the arbitrary line of independent viability?
I assume because we don't want to sanction murder.
Your position is in any many ways synonymous with that of JJ. He says "precedence except BECAUSE of X and Y." You say "precedence except AT X and Y." He choose CIRCUMSTANCES that strike you as arbitrary. You choose TIMES/CIRCUMSTANCES (i.e., viability without the aid of medicine) arbitrarily.
Cazart gets the only prize for pristine, gruesome consistency.
And you should be commended for not receiving that prize.
5307. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 1:32:35 PM
Incidentally, your position is as inconsistent as JJ's. You claim a *False* consistency only.
Cal gal's position: It's sometimes okay to kill a fetus. Sometimes it's not.
Inconsistent.
And then here comes the false consistency: But my dividing line is *viability*!
Um, so what? Who cares if it's viable outside the womb? Why is that particularly relevant?
Why is *your* little dividing line any different than JJ's "it depends on if it's rape" dividing line?
5308. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 1:33:03 PM
um.
5309. 109109 - 12/3/1999 1:34:32 PM
Oh, just kiss me fool.
5310. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 1:34:48 PM
um.
Anyway, your dividing line is arbitrary. So is JJ's.
But you *like* your arbitrary dividing line, unsurprisingly, and JJ likes his.
Arbitrary rules are like farts. Only your own smell sweet.
5311. CalGal - 12/3/1999 1:37:51 PM
???
Don't be absurd. There is nothing arbitrary about my line.
Once the fetus is viable, we can ensure that the mother's rights aren't subordinate to those of the fetus.
I thought that was a given. Apparently you need it spelled out.
5312. CalGal - 12/3/1999 1:38:31 PM
And no, Ace, parents should not have to give consent for a minor to have an abortion.
5313. JonesAtLaw - 12/3/1999 1:39:03 PM
The issue of whether one can be charged with murder for killing of a fetus, viable or not, is not dispositive on the issue of abortion. What may be life for purposes of criminal law may not be true for civil law etc. Remember the magic formula- "Is x a y for purposes of z?"
5314. CalGal - 12/3/1999 1:39:46 PM
Who cares if it's viable outside the womb?
Because at that point, the fetus can be born and the mother isn't forced to carry the child. Again, I didn't realize this wasn't understood as the baseline for the discussion.
5315. 109109 - 12/3/1999 1:40:23 PM
"Once the fetus is viable, we can ensure that the mother's rights aren't subordinate to those of the fetus."
This answers what we can do, and JJ's concomitant statement would be "Once we determine the fetus is not the product of rape or incest, we can ensure that the fetus' rights aren't subordinate to those of the mother."
5316. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 1:40:24 PM
"There is nothing arbitrary about my line.
Once the fetus is viable, we can ensure that the mother's rights aren't subordinate to those of the fetus."
Ohhhhh... I see. Your line isn't arbitrary, because at viability we can "ensure the mother's rights aren't subordinate to the fetus," whatever that might mean.
And how did we chose this, um, arbitrary point at which the fetus will suddenly have rights he didn't have one nanosecond before?
Como se dice, "arbitrary"?
Cal, magic lines are always arbitrary.
5317. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 1:41:37 PM
And no, Ace, parents should not have to give consent for a minor to have an abortion.
Really?
But Cal-- every state requires parental consent for EVERY OTHER elective surgery sought by minors.
I assume you think that's a rather good idea.
What accounts for your inconsistency?
5318. 109109 - 12/3/1999 1:42:07 PM
I'm off to a meeting.
5319. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 1:44:40 PM
And Cal:
Given that "viability" is so important, what if I wish to make sure that no viable fetus is ever killed, by stating: "As some fetuses will, of course, become viable at a faster rate than others (some babies, like some people, simply grow quicker, and are hardier) I propose we set the dividing line at TEN DAYS BEFORE "typical time of viability," in order to GUARANTEE that no quick-growing, hardy fetuses are ever killed.
Now tell me why my viability minus ten days rule is less arbitrary than your viability rule.
5320. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 1:46:28 PM
Or, rather than viability:
Let's say we declare a fetus unabortable at the time when its brain begins functioning at a certain low threshhold-- say the threshhold of detecting pain.
Aritrary. Just as arbitrary as yours.
5321. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 1:48:58 PM
Your viability rule doesn't even make much sense.
It might make sense if you were proposing that, post viability, a mother could have the child SURGICALLY REMOVED from her body and placed on incubators rather than aborting it.
Is this what you're proposing? That mothers can instead elect surgical removal which will most likely kill the fetus anyway?
5322. CalGal - 12/3/1999 1:52:49 PM
It might make sense if you were proposing that, post viability, a mother could have the child SURGICALLY REMOVED from her body and placed on incubators rather than aborting it.
Well, yes. I've discussed this before--again, I didn't realize you didn't understand it.
Is this what you're proposing? That mothers can instead elect surgical removal which will most likely kill the fetus anyway?
Bingo. Except it won't generally kill a viable fetus. Certainly not one after 27 weeks. It's called a C-section, silly.
But you can see the issues that start to arise. If the mother can't afford the medical care needed for the fetus and her life is not in danger, should she be allowed to do this? Or should she be forced to wait until the fetus can be born without requiring extensive medical care?
5323. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 1:54:51 PM
"Except it won't generally kill a viable fetus."
Oh, no. It'll just kill 75% of them, and put the others at risk of mental retardation and the like.
5324. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 1:57:03 PM
And don't avoid the earlier questions.
Why does a minor NOT need consent for abortion, wheras she needs consent (rightly) for every other kind of elective surgery?
What precisely is "viability" preferable to "threshhold of brain functions"?
And a new question:
What gives a mother the right, post "viability," to inflict possible death and likely retardation and other complications on her fetus at her whim?
5325. CalGal - 12/3/1999 1:58:44 PM
Are we agreeing on the term "viability"?
Right now, fetal survival rates after 30 weeks are extremely high. Far higher than 25%--closer to 100%. Fetal survival rates after 27 weeks are very high--also far higher than 25%. 60-70% runs to mind, but I'm not completely sure.
As I said, the issues then become the standard in which we allow an elective pregnancy termination. Healthy mother, fetus at 27 weeks? Hey. Can you afford the health care required to ensure that this baby will live and not be handicapped for life? Any reason why you can't give this pregnancy three more weeks?
5326. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 1:59:30 PM
Here's how things work:
"I feel X way about Y issue."
"Oh? Why?"
"Because of Z reason, which I consider paramount."
"What makes Reason Z paramount?"
"OF COURSE it's paramount, silly."
You and JJ choose different Z's. Both of your Z's are equally arbitrary.
5327. CalGal - 12/3/1999 2:07:10 PM
Why does a minor NOT need consent for abortion, wheras she needs consent (rightly) for every other kind of elective surgery?
Pregnancy is extremely dangerous for minors. It is the only situation I can think of where the elective surgery is safer than the condition it ends.
It also gives the parent the ability to force another human being into having a child, which is considerably different from from forcing her to live with smaller breasts than she'd like until she is 18.
What precisely is "viability" preferable to "threshhold of brain functions"?
I think you mean "why"? Because until the fetus can live outside the womb, there is no clear and compelling reason to subordinate the woman's rights to the fetus.
What gives a mother the right, post "viability," to inflict possible death and likely retardation and other complications on her fetus at her whim?
She doesn't have that right unconditionally. I've mentioned the grey areas already.
5328. JJBiener - 12/3/1999 2:09:16 PM
Ace - The difference is that I will agree that my position is somewhat arbitrary. I believe I have a good reason for my beliefs, but I recognize that others could come to different conclusions. I believe the decision is a balancing act between the mother's rights and the child's. When weighing the relative strength of those rights, opinions can and will vary. What I reject is the position that one or the other has no rights and should not be considered in the decision.
5329. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 2:18:59 PM
It is the only situation I can think of where the elective surgery is safer than the condition it ends.
1) There are certainly others, 2) childbirth is not particularly dangerous in this day and age, and certainly isn't much more dangerous than abortion, and 3) why should your profferred reason matter in the least?
It is an arbitrary reason. Quite frankly, you're reasoning backwards. You haven't thought FORWARD from this reason; I asked a question and you thrashed about for a reason to justify your position--thinking BACKWARDS. Your "reason" follows your position; your positon does not lead to your position.
Finally, abortion results in a GUARANTEED DEATH of one person. 99% of pregnancies don't result in ANY deaths. A tiny amout result in one death and a smaller amount result in two.
So your math is in error. Or rather, it's not, simply because you have decided that the death of the fetus "doesn't count" and doesn't figure into the equation. Which is arbitrary, of course.
It also gives the parent the ability to force another human being into having a child, which is considerably different from from forcing her to live with smaller breasts than she'd like until she is 18.
Okay. That's your reason. What are the reasons for your reason?
Allow someone to dictate what the relevant criteria are in a debate are, and you will dictate the outcome of that debate.
Time and time again you say, "I think Y because of Z Reason." You never explain (nor could you) why Z Reason is preferable to any other reason.
It's just because that's how you "feel."
Which is arbitrary.
5330. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 2:19:08 PM
JJ Re: 52725272
Christin - Allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest is at root
about whether or not the woman had a good time during
conception.
JJ: This is utter bullshit and you know it.
No, JJ, I do not know it. Nothing has changed about the baby. It's still a baby. The only thing that has changed is whether or not the woman wanted to have sex. Your position insists that the mother's desire to engage in sex is the determining factor over whether she can kill her baby or not. That makes the crux of the issue consent NOT human life.
I'll ask you the same question I ask TS. Can you provide me a situation where this mental trauma would exist as a result of pregnancy?
JJ, I'm wondering why you think there is no trauma involved in pregnancy. It's a major undertaking even for a woman who wants a child and has the means to support it. For a woman who didn't plan to have a child, who maybe cannot support it, who may have to raise it alone or go through the pain of adoption, who may lose any number of things by giving up a year of her life and undergoing the lingering stigma of being pregnant out of wedlock there can be a great deal of trauma. Bearing a child doesn't just go away. It's not some magical easily dismissed phenomenon where you just get fat for 9 months and then walk away as if nothing happened. Your body is irrevocably changed. There are health issues involved that are not life-threatening but are still traumatic and some of these as well never go away. Women willing to throw themselves down stairs to avoid bearing unwanted children doesn't strike me as trauma-free.
cont.
5331. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 2:19:26 PM
cont. to JJ
I agree with pro-choicers that a woman has the right to control her own body. Once she makes a choice and becomes pregnant, there is another life that must be considered.
But that life is only important based on her having made a choice. Why is that so, JJ? Why is it an important life if she consented and not as important if she didn't? A life is a life is a life, right? In the case of a threat to the mother's life then you have two nearly equal things to weigh. In a case where the mother's life is not threatened why is the life of the child devalued because the mother chose to have sex?
Enjoyment has nothing to do with it. To put it correctly, if you have sex you are responsible for the result. Or don't you believe that people should be held responsible for their actions?
Yes, people are responsible for their actions. I consider it a responsible act not to bring a child into the world that you cannot or will not support.
It is funny that you think you know my beliefs better than I do. The life of the baby is the primary concern, but as I pointed out it is not the only concern.
I understand and agree that it is not the only concern, but frankly I don't think emotional trauma rates above human life. I can' t think of a single other case where this argument is made. Life is hard, there is trauma. How can you argue that killing people is a legitimate antidote to emotional trauma?
cont.
5332. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 2:19:35 PM
cont. to JJ
You are trying to turn this into a black or white issue when it isn't.
No, JJ, I recognize all kinds of shades of gray in the abortion issue at large, but you are insisting that the value of a child's life be based on the choices of his parents. You have decided that rape and incest are always sufficiently traumatic to allow abortion but nothing else is. The deciding factor isn't really the trauma, which varies from person to person and case to case. You would legislate an absolute about emotional well-being effectively saying that Baby Timmy is a valuable child and has a right to life because his mother was forced, but Baby Joey is a less valuable child because his mother was unchaste.
There is no way around this, JJ. You are assuming absolutely consistent and predictable results where none are possible. Emotional trauma can be guessed at according to observable patterns, but it cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to claim that any victim of rape or incest (this is a real stickler as Jones pointed out) will always have significantly more trauma than any woman who becomes unwontedly pregnant
It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned for the life of the baby and still recognize that there are times when other concerns prevail. This is a complex issue which cannot be solved with simplistic solutions.
Yes it is reasonable but in the end there must be a value determination. It's how we decide things. We weigh them out until one thing is more valued than another. We are all pretty much agreed that the life of the mother is valued over the life of an unborn child. What you want us to agree to is that the emotional well-being of the mother is valued over the life of the child BUT ONLY IF she didn't consent to the sex act.
5333. CalGal - 12/3/1999 2:21:23 PM
Incidentally, where did I say that my problem with JJ's position was that it was arbitrary? That's nonsense. I've been focusing on yours and Niner's questions to me, but I just read your comparisons.
JJ says that abortion is murder except when--and then provides an arbitrary list. Please note the difference--the list is arbitrary. Not his position.
In other words, people, it was his use of the word "murder" that causes me to feel contempt for his reasoning.
Had he said, instead, "I don't like women using abortion as birth control. I see no need for it. I consider it unacceptable to terminate a fetus at any point in the pregnancy--unless the woman became pregnant in conditions that had little to do with her own choices."--I would have disagreed with him, but not found his position or his reasoning inconsistent.
5334. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 2:21:26 PM
JJ:
Yes, I know; I don't believe that ANY position on abortion is NOT inherently arbitrary.
In fact-- I don't think many decisions at all aren't arbitrary.
People can annunciate REASONS for any position; but then we ask, what are the REASONS for the REASONS; and then we can ask about the Reasons for the Reasons for the Reasons.
Ultimately it will devolve into an arbitrary preference for one value over another, or one party's right over another, or one virtue over another.
5335. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 2:22:31 PM
Please note the difference--the list is arbitrary
Your list is arbitrary as well.
Here's your list:
LIST OF FETUSES THAT CAN BE KILLED: nonviable fetuses
LIST OF FETUSES THAT CANNOT BE KILLED: viable fetuses
5336. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 2:23:56 PM
Here's JJ's list:
CAN'T BE ABORTED: fetuses who are not the product of forcible interourse
CAN BE ABORTED: fetuses who are
Forgive me if I'm not savvy to the universal truth which favors "viability" over "not produced by rape."
5337. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 2:27:45 PM
"Murder" is any unjustified intentional killing of a human being.
If there's no justification, if there's intent, and it's a human, it is, in fact, "murder" of a kind.
Personally, it's murder I can live with, to an extent. But getting all hopped up about a choice of words is silly, frankly.
We all know what abortion is: It's killing a fetus which will, with 99% likelihood, become a viable baby if just left to its own devices. By a certain point it is undeniably a small baby, whether or not it's viable or not.
The problem isn't with the term "murder"; it's with the procedure itself, which is an ugly response to an ugly situation.
5338. CalGal - 12/3/1999 2:31:27 PM
Ace,
First off, your statistics are incorrect. Pregnancy is extremely dangerous, statistically speaking, for teenagers. And it is always more dangerous than not being pregnant, for all women.
Second--abortion does not result unequivocally in the death of another human being if the fetus can not survive outside the womb. Some people think it is a life from conception, others do not. The only truly objective standard is viability. That's why I use it. Otherwise, we are in the position of forcing women to burden their bodies and take risks (remembering that pregnancy is always a risk) on a nebulous notion that the fetus might be a life.
But if the fetus can survive outside the womb, two things become clear: it is, indeed, a life. And the woman does not have to be burdened by carrying it if the burden of carrying it will cause more damage to her than to the life inside her. Left is the grey area when the woman is healthy but wants to abort--yet the fetus would be unduly harmed by her choice. At that point, it becomes a legitimate issue--is this an undue burden to a woman who has gone this far, and has rejected all other options when it was possible to abort? To me, it's not. But that is an open question.
Again, where on earth do you think I've pretended that my position isn't about values? I think you are inventing an argument to go with your rebuttal. JJ offered reasoning in support of his values that I found contemptible.
5339. CalGal - 12/3/1999 2:33:04 PM
Ace,
No, you again miss the point. JJ's list is not about when the fetus can and can't be aborted.
His list defines when it is or isn't murder.
5340. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 2:35:08 PM
"The only truly objective standard is viability. That's why I use it."
Hahahahahhahaha. I see. You use it because it's the "only truly objective standard."
And how did you come to this conclusion, praytell? Where is this written in the Bible or the Constitution or in the constellations of the sky which makes it the "objective standard" it is?
Funny, no one told me this was the Supreme Objective Standard.
Let's play CalGal games:
"Some people think viablility is the Supreme Objective Standard, others do not. Thus, we must resort to the REAL objective standard-- does it have a heartbeat and brain activity? If so, we cannot abort. THAT'S the only truly objective standard there is. That's why I use it."
5341. CalGal - 12/3/1999 2:35:13 PM
Forgive me if I'm not savvy to the universal truth which favors "viability" over "not produced by rape."
Actually, there is a huge difference, which Christin and TS have both been dealing with nicely. But that's not the point.
5342. TrialShark - 12/3/1999 2:35:50 PM
JJ --
"This isn't what I said. This isn't even close."
I described your position by stating the general rule -- abortion is murder except when it isn't -- and then the specific details in which you believe it is not murder. Since you did not claim that my desriptions were inaccurate, I believe I fairly summarized what you said.
"Go talk to victim of rape or incest. Ask them what it would be like for them to bear a child that was conceived as a result. It is not something to be treated lightly."
As a prosecutor I've spoken to dozens of victims of rape and incest; it's entirely possible I've spoken with more than you. I do not treat their situations lightly. Nor would I treat the life of their unborn child as lightly as you apparently would.
"I don't know of many people who consent to sexual abuse. In fact, I don't know of any. They may comply out of fear, but that is hardly consent."
Then you need to meet more people whose children you propose to permit killing. Failing that, you need merely look to the definition of the terms in this discussion.
"Rape," by definition, is an unconsented act of sexual intercourse. It may require an element of force in some jurisdictions, but this element is often met by the mere fact of penetration. Since (absent medical or divine intervention) you cannot conceive a child without intercourse, all unconsented-to sexual abuse that might lead someone to seek an abortion are by definition rape.
You, however, would allow abortion in the case of "incest," a term which does not include an element of lack of consent. Therefore, it appears that you would allow the killing of an unborn child even if the mother consented to the act which led to conception. If this is incorrect, please say so.
5343. CalGal - 12/3/1999 2:36:15 PM
Ace,
Are you reading? Yes. That's why I use it. I do not require that anyone else use it.
Please, pay attention. You are manufacturing my objection to JJ's reasoning and not making any sense at all.
5344. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 2:37:20 PM
His list defines when it is or isn't murder.
Oh? You mean like this:
MURDER: Intentionally killing a human being without justification
NOT MURDER: Killing a human being WITH justification (self-defense, during war, stopping a violent criminal fleeing from a crime or arrest, OR killing a fetus who is the product of rape)
Distinctions, alas, without difference.
5345. TrialShark - 12/3/1999 2:37:54 PM
continued ...
Your rationale is simply that you believe having a child conceived as the result of nonconsensual intercourse, or intercourse which was consensual but occurred in circumstances amounting to incest, would be so psychologically traumatic that the unborn baby should be killed if the mother feels like it.
If "trauma" is your standard of life and death for unborn children, then why should the mother not be able to kill her fetus if she simply becomes overwrought at the prospect of carrying the child to term? What if the mother of a child conceived as a result of rape or incest is not especially traumatized? Why shouldn't we then let the baby live?
5346. CalGal - 12/3/1999 2:38:42 PM
So Ace, figure it this way:
Go ahead and mock away, but I'm ignoring you until you manage to figure out what my problem is with JJ's position. That is, of course, what you are arguing about--you think you've caught me in an inconsistency. You may have--but it sure as hell isn't the one that you're describing thus far.
5347. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 2:43:16 PM
"Go ahead and mock away, but I'm ignoring you until you manage to figure out what my problem is with JJ's position."
I will. And when YOU can figure out what your problem with JJ's position is-- and how his decision-making is any less arbitrary and "gut feeling" than your own -- you tell me.
You say over and over again: But MY position is "objective."
When I ask what leads you to believe this, I hear crickets chirping.
5348. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 2:47:33 PM
And Cal:
Why didn't you take into account the guaranteed death of the fetus in your consideration of the relative dangers of pregnancy versus abortion?
You claimed abortion was safer than pregancy. But of course it isn't: It results in ONE guaranteed death.
So what accounts for your refusal to include this death in your accounting?
Because, you said, "of course you can't count the FETUS. It's not a human being!!!"
It isn't?
Says who?
Oh, wait, I know: It's not a human being until it's viable.
But why, precisely, is that?
5349. angel-five - 12/3/1999 2:48:33 PM
And if you can't see that the Court was protecting
individual rights from the state when it prohibited the
state from making such laws and threw out existing ones,
well, there's little basis for me to think continued
arguing with you is worthwhile.
Indiana, of course that's the case. What you have to realize is that in doing so the state was just imposing one compelling interest in the place of another. Whether or not you view rights as 'inalienable' or 'god-given' or 'state-given' or whatnot is irrelevant. The source is irrelevant. The body which guarantees and supports those rights is not, when you are talking about the state's recognition of 'rights'.
5350. angel-five - 12/3/1999 2:53:38 PM
BTW: The Roe V Wade decision, indeed, does use the word 'privacy'. You're right.
5351. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 2:53:40 PM
Me: [why] precisely is "viability" preferable to "threshhold of brain functions"?
Cal: Because until the fetus can live outside the womb, there is no clear and compelling reason to subordinate the woman's rights to the fetus.
All this is is:
Why?
Because, that's why.
It's tautological or arbitrary or both.
*I* ask, why should we chose viablity as the point at which we no longer subordinate the fetus' rights to the mother's?
And what is YOUR answer?
"Because until the fetus can live outside the womb, there is no clear and compelling reason to subordinate the woman's rights to the fetus."
In other words:
"We should chose viability as the point at which the we no longer subordinate the fetus' rights to the mothers', BECAUSE at that point there is no clear and compelling reason to subordinate the woman's rights to the fetus."
Am I missing something, Cal? Or did you just tell me that "Viability is the correct point to disallow abortions because abortions should be disallowed at the point of viability"?
Because that sure SOUNDS like what you said.
5352. angel-five - 12/3/1999 3:07:33 PM
Ace is correctly pointing out that these are arbitrary decisions.
But then again so is the decision to vilify 'murder' in the first place. Our standards are arbitrary; the decision that one must make a hard stand and not deviate from it is also arbitrary.
5353. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 3:12:32 PM
Ace,
By your reasoning any situation in which a human being dies at the hand of another is murder. Our courts and most people don't see it that way why do you?
5354. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 3:15:10 PM
By your reasoning any situation in which a human being dies at the hand of another is murder.
Huh?
I said nothing remotely like this.
5355. PsychProf - 12/3/1999 3:25:08 PM
MARS LANDER
click on image
5356. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 3:25:41 PM
I must have misunderstood your example then. You appear to be claiming that CalGal's position is no different than JJs except in the wording. You offered up Murder and Not Murder as an example----no difference except in the wording. I'd never heard a sane person claim that all killing is essentially murder. I understood murder to be specifically killing without justification. Killing with justification is not murder. What justifies killing is the question that we bicker over, but I wasn't aware that anyone disputed the root definition of murder.
5357. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 3:27:55 PM
Ace,
I've got an arbitrary question for you. You claim that abortion results 100% in the death of a person as opposed to pregnancy wich is somewhere around 10% I believe. How did you decide that a fertilized egg is a person?
5358. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 3:30:30 PM
What justifies killing is the question that we bicker over, but I wasn't aware that anyone disputed the root definition of murder.
Precisely.
I don't dispute the "root definition" of murder. I am saying that what to include as "justified homicide" and therefore "not murder" is, ultimately, arbitrary, yes, but no more and no less arbitrary to saying "Fetuses can be indescriminately butchered before viability, but after that, you can't butcher them."
You guys are simply DELAYING the ultimate question.
JJ says: "They're humans, so killing them is murder, EXCEPT if it's justified, and I include rape as justification."
You and Cal say: "They're not humans until viability," and then you say "Consistent and non-arbitrary."
Except you've failed to explain why "Not human until viability" is any less arbitrary to "Human always, but justified killing in cases of rape."
5359. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 3:34:00 PM
How did you decide that a fertilized egg is a person?
A) I didn't.
B) I could care less if its a "person" or not. That's just a semantic word game. "It IS a person!" "No it's NOT a person!" It doesn't freakin' matter what the fuck you call it, it's still the same thing. If you want to claim it's not a "human being" until "viability," that's your choice, but that means absolutely nothing to me. It is what it is.
C) If I DID make such a decision, I would say my decision was ultimately arbitrary.
5360. PsychProf - 12/3/1999 3:35:25 PM
Sorry to bust the discussion, but isn't this an awesome adventure... 
5361. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 3:51:05 PM
Ace,
I never claimed that my view was more consistent or less arbitrary. I have stated that I utterly reject the value system that allows a child to be aborted based on the supposed moral caliber of the mother.
5362. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 3:51:54 PM
edit: Let's make that "supposed moral caliber of the sex involved" since we're including incest which may or may not be consentual.
5363. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 3:53:41 PM
Ace,
Then if it's not a person what is your objection to abortion?
5364. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 4:17:36 PM
Then if it's not a person what is your objection to abortion?
1) I don't have any particular objection to abortion. I'm pro-abortion. Not pro-choice, pro-abortion. But I do think there comes a time when the baby is simply too developed to kill.
This is an arbitrary decision, ultimately.
2) Using silly semantics like "person" or "Not a person" doesn't solve anything. You use those terms AFTER you've made your decision-- if you're pro-choice, you sayh "NOT A PERSON!" and if you're pro-life, you say "PERSON!"
The fetus/baby is what it is. It is a fetus/baby. What you think about the fetus/baby will inform your semantics when you discuss the issue; but your choice of semantics ought not to determine what you think about the fetus/baby itself.
5365. Dantheman - 12/3/1999 4:24:34 PM
Ace,
"I'm pro-abortion. Not pro-choice, pro-abortion."
Does this mean you go around encouraging as many people as possible to have abortions? Or do you cause people to have abortions against their will?
5366. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 4:36:54 PM
I support every woman's Constitutional right to be forced to have an abortion, yes.
5367. Raskolnikov - 12/3/1999 4:38:39 PM
I found that my views on abortion became considerably fuzzier during the time my wife was pregnant. I don't think you can look at an ultrasound photo, listen to a heartbeat, see a tiny hand clenched in a fest, or feel the fetus kick without really considering it as a person. No one calls a wanted fetus a fetus. Its always "the baby".
I still support the Roe v Wade decision, for all of the commonly stated reasons, but I loathe abortion, with my comfort level increasing the closer you get to conception (I can't sensibly see much of a difference in killing individual sperm and eggs, and killing them one second after they combine). I think it is incredibly repugnant. It requires making the arbitrary distinctions about what constitutes murder that have been discussed on this thread. I look forward to a time when technology can pretty much render it a moot point.
5368. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 4:38:50 PM
Ace,
Then what is the beef? I don't understand what your problem is with my argument. It doesn't appear to be any different than yours. My objections to JJ's view have nothing to do with whether or not it is arbitrary or consistent and everything to do with a difference in value systems.
JJ claims that his position is based on emotional trauma rather than consent but he has failed to argue this effectively. It's not an inconsitent argument it's just fallacious.
5369. Dantheman - 12/3/1999 4:47:56 PM
Ace,
Presuming your response in #5366 to be facetious, why are you stating that you are pro-abortion and not pro-choice?
5370. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 4:53:41 PM
I said it that way because I believe abortion is often a good thing. I'm a utilitarian.
Christin:
My squabble is with CalGal's claim of non-arbitrariness. I assumed you shared this claim, since you seemed to be arguing on CalGal's side on that point.
5371. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 4:55:25 PM
I don't think you can look at an ultrasound photo, listen to a heartbeat, see a tiny hand clenched in a fest, or feel the fetus kick without really considering it as a person.
Rask:
I agree completely. I felt exactly the same way after I knocked your wife up.
There's just something magical about knocking up a guy's wife, then shooting over to his parent's house to kick his dogs and fuck his father.
5372. Raskolnikov - 12/3/1999 5:06:52 PM
Luckily then, the kid takes after his mom. But you got the other parts mixed up. You kicked my dad, and fucked his dogs. But you were drunk, so I can forgive you.
5373. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 5:12:09 PM
Ace,
I do share her belief that viability should be the terminating point for permitting abortion. As Angel pointed out almost all human decisions are arbitrary so I don't see that it is a particularly valuable factor in this argument.
5374. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 5:15:36 PM
"As Angel pointed out almost all human decisions are arbitrary so I don't see that it is a particularly valuable factor in this argument."
Uh, I thought I pointed that out, and then Angel said "he's right."
As for "valuable factor": Cal believes it is a "valuable factor."
Personally, I have nothing particularly againg viability, and nothing particularly *for* it, either. I'd just say no third term abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM to the mother.
Not 'mental'. And not "Ohh, it'll hurt my back."
Actually, I don't really care either way.
5375. Raskolnikov - 12/3/1999 5:15:55 PM
I am becoming more of the opinion that viability is too late (and viability will be moved further and further forward as technology improves, and I suspect that pro-choice people will eventually abandon it as a standard. I am quite uncomfortable with anything beyond the first couple of months.
5376. Ronski - 12/3/1999 5:20:05 PM
I stay with my personal bias towards ensoulment as the cutoff point, whenever that may be.
5377. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 5:20:25 PM
...oh: And in cases of physical/mental defects.
"Every child is special" is just bullshit. Is that harsh and awful?
Maybe it is. But I sure the hell am not going to stand in the way of a couple seeking to abort a fetus with severe defects.
"Love" only takes you so far, and "God has a plan" only works if you believe in God, or, for some reason, don't ever consider the possibility that "God's plan" consists of aborting the baby, calling it a Mulligan, and trying again.
5378. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 5:34:29 PM
Yes, Ace you said it first but I've agreed with you one too many times this week and didn't want anyone to suspect how I lust for you. It's embarassing.
Why allow third term abortions in cases of rape or incest? I think five months is plenty long enough to decide whether or not you can deal with the trauma of bearing such a child.
5379. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 5:56:26 PM
"Why allow third term abortions in cases of rape or incest?"
You might not know you're pregnant, and I'm not going to stand in your way just because you didn't monitor your reproductive status after you were raped or fucked by a close relation.
Or:
You might decide "God loves all children" and then begin throwing up about it in the sixth month.
5380. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 7:15:36 PM
Ace,
I'm tempted to declare that any woman who doesn't realize she's pregnant after seven months is too stupid to breed and ought to be forcibly aborted and then sterilized ------ for good measure we should sterilize her whole family to stop the spread of inferior genes.
But you didn't really answer the question. Why allow rape and incest victims to change their minds so late in the pregnancy but not others? What's the difference?
5381. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 7:16:38 PM
'Why allow rape and incest victims to change their minds so late in the pregnancy but not others? What's the difference?"
Ummmm... The difference is they were raped or had incest?
Is that a trick question?
5382. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 7:21:34 PM
I'm tempted to declare that any woman who doesn't realize she's pregnant after seven months is too stupid to breed and ought to be forcibly aborted and then sterilized
maybe, but it happens. I also included the other possibility: That a woman could initially decide to carry a rapists' baby to term, thinking "God has a plan," and then in the sixth month decide "Fuck that shit."
for good measure we should sterilize her whole family to stop the spread of inferior genes
Yes, "Three generations of imbeciles is enough," as Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes wrote, and the liberals haven't forgiven him since.
Although, of course, the point is eminently debatable. YES, of course, it's horrible to forcibly sterilize a retarded woman; but it's also horrible for a retarded child to come into the world.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The failure of liberal "thinking" is that it stubbornly focuses ONLY on state action versus the individual versus whom the action is taken -- the DIRECT results of the action. They never seem to consider, nor even admit the existance of, the the secondary effects of the action. Such as, in Carrie Buck's case, giving birth to a third generation of mental defective.
5383. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 7:26:53 PM
No, I'm serious. What is the difference?
5384. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 7:29:19 PM
I'm serious too:
That the woman was raped or had incest. Raped, because she was raped, and she shouldn't be forced to forcibly bear her rapists' child; incest, because incest often leads to birth defects, and even where it doesn't lead to birth defects, will almost certainly result in a very fucked up kid.
You say it's based on the woman's "morality." Nonsense. An immoral woman may be raped. It has nothing to do with the woman's morality; it has to do with the fact she was raped.
5385. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 7:48:01 PM
I think six months is plenty long enough to decide whether or not you can handle bearing a child of rape. You're two thirds of the way through the process at that point. If you're so wishy washy that you can't make this decision in that amount of time then likely even once you do decide you won't be firm about it. Tough it out another two or three months. I'm not dead set firm on this but my inclination is to uphold the side of the child at this point. It's not that I'm indifferent to the mother, but six months is a long time.
As for incest, do you have statistics on the liklihood of birth defects resulting from a single generation encounter? I mean, my brother is a hottie and not only aren't there any congenital disorders in our family of any great consequence, but we tend to be intelligent, good looking, healthy and long-lived. I think my brother and I would likely produce quite a superior little specimen. If in the seventh month I had a perfectly healthy fetus in there but all of a sudden got creeped out what's the rationale for allowing me to abort?
5386. Cellar Door - 12/3/1999 7:49:47 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The failure of liberal "thinking" is that it stubbornly focuses ONLY on state action versus the individual versus whom the action is taken -- the DIRECT results of the action. They never seem to consider, nor even admit the existance of, the the secondary effects of the action. Such as, in Carrie Buck's case, giving birth to a third generation of mental defective.
And you have no understanding of liberal thinking (note the absence of quotation marks.) It deals with a lot more than the state and the individual.
But there's no point in trying to have a serious conversation about this with the likes of you.
5387. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 7:52:16 PM
I think six months is plenty long enough to decide whether or not you can handle bearing a child of rape.
If the decision is to abort: That decision can be made quickly. IF the initial decision is to "Give the Child a Chance," it just might happen that she changes her mind in the seventh month, and I for one don't want to force her to have the kid. I'd prefer, actually, that the kid not be born.
I mean, my brother is a hottie and not only aren't there any congenital disorders in our family of any great consequence, but we tend to be intelligent, good looking, healthy and long-lived.
You've obviously got some issues, but I think the problem is with recessive genes, which will not express themselves UNLESS mated with their counterparts, and that's obviously much more likely to happen if you screw your brother.
5388. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 7:54:18 PM
But there's no point in trying to have a serious conversation about this with the likes of you
Cellar, I hate to tell you this, but I almost always ignore you, because I find you to be superficial at best. I don't respond to you; I barely read you.
And yet you repeatedly try to draw me into little chats with you, if only to tell me, "And I shan't discuss this with the likes of you!"
Well, you know: No one really asked you to, dude.
5389. DaveM - 12/3/1999 7:58:28 PM
Ace:
Do you think that "liberal thinking" focuses more on state action than "conservative thinking?"
It is a trait common to all political ideologies born of Classical Liberalism - any conceptualization of power as derived from sovereignty is going to be constrained in what it deems to be "liberating."
5390. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 8:01:05 PM
I'll just have to disagree with you on the rape issue. Seven months is too late unless the mother's life is threatened or the child is hopelessly deformed.
It's not impossible for siblings or other close relatives to bear healthy children. The risks are much higher for birth defects, but not a certainity. If I became pregnant by my brother (okay, pause for big creepy shudder, blegh!) IF I were to carry into the seventh month a perfectly normal, healthy child then what would be the rationale for allowing me to abort at that point?
5391. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 8:05:06 PM
Dave:
I don't really know what you're trying to say.
I will say that Liberals-- and I'm not talking classic liberalism, I'm talking about today's reactionary stooges-- will get all hot and bothered that a kid gets expelled for rioting. "But every child deserves a second chance! And a third! And a fourth!" And they cast the argument purely in terms of Big School versus Little Kid.
They do not think about Little Bastard versus Other Little Kids. Which is why we essentially got rid of reform schools-- an essential part of schools -- and why teachers cannot teach in the cities.
If Liberals didn't demand that we give Little Lifer in Training thirty strikes before he was out, we wouldn't have classes filled with thugs. They'd be expelled. True, we would be denying them an education.
Under the Liberals' preferred solution, we don't expel them, at the cost of denying EVERYONE ELSE an education.
But, when you're focusing myopically only on State versus Individual, you can pretend that such pernicious secondary effects do not exist.
Crime is another example. People's liberties are much more circumscribed by criminals than they are by the police; in high-crime areas, you are denied, basically, the freedom to leave your apartment at night. But liberals focus ONLY on state versus criminal, and conveniently ignore the simple fact that were the state to be tougher on crime, freedom as a whole would be increased.
5392. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 8:06:35 PM
IF I were to carry into the seventh month a perfectly normal, healthy child then what would be the rationale for allowing me to abort at that point?
No offense: The reason would be that you'd be a sick person, that you will probably raise a sick, twisted child, and that if you choose to terminate the pregnancy, we should give you a medal, not attempt to stop you.
5393. arkymalarky - 12/3/1999 8:06:44 PM
Sometimes you don't know until late. An acquaintance of mine had an amniosyntesis(sp) after a disturbing ultrasound or somesuch late in her pregnancy and decided to terminate it after it was confirmed that the abnormalties in the fetus were very severe.
5394. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 8:10:07 PM
5392:
I mean you'd be sick if you deliberately screwed your brother, and then ALSO thought it would be a terrific idea to give birth to your brother's child.
5395. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 8:22:49 PM
Arky,
No question or disagreement there. I'm talking about a normal healthy child, though.
Ace,
It's okay to abort if the pregnancy offends someone's sensibilities? Is that what it comes down to? Incest is grody sex so it's okay to abort in the third trimester. How about people who think doggie style is offensive sex? "Sorry, it's just too, too nasty that this child was conceived while my husband was wearing a clown suit, singing Barry Manilow tunes and covering me like a dog."
5396. AceofSpades - 12/3/1999 8:28:37 PM
It's okay to abort if the pregnancy offends someone's sensibilities? Is that what it comes down to?
Reductio ad absurdum.
No, I'm saying the kid will be collossally psychologically fucked up, possibly retarded and riddled with congenital defects, and born to nutjob parents.
I will be doing him a favor by allowing his mother to abort, so I will let her.
5397. DaveM - 12/3/1999 8:28:39 PM
Ace -
Its kind of an interesting distinction. First, I have been studying property, nuisance, and takings all day, so I feel a bit random. Take anything I say with a grain of salt.
There was a seminal article written on nuisance law in the early 70s by Calabresi and Melamed - it sort of established the bifurcated (arbitrarily bifurcated, of course) framework for analyzing a nuisance case. They argued that a judge should first award a party an entitlement, based totally on considerations of fairness (did the plaintiff "come to the nuisance," etc.). Second, the judge should consider the efficient outcome, and award a remedy that is commensurate. If the source of a nuisance lacks entitlement to continue the nuisance but an injunction is inefficient, award damages to the plaintiff to compensate the injunction (like Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Company).
I think that this dualism closely remedies the ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats abhor state action when it is contrary to their particular notion of fairness. Republicans abhor state action when it is contrary to their particular notion of efficiency.
Obviously, though, this is a false distinction, for "efficiency" is fundamentally a normative term when used in political debate. "Efficiency" is only a positive thing if the end to which the particular state of affairs is efficiently progressing to is desirable. Or fair, perhaps?
5398. DaveM - 12/3/1999 8:28:51 PM
Basically, I think that the rhetorical difference between Republicans and Democrats can be explained by how they justify their particular policies. The Republican party has attempted to ground the normative appeal of its end goals by writing them into history - making them appear to be essential, or natural, parts of our common "civic religion." I would actually like to know if people like Bork, Scalia, and Goldwater consciously decided to tell our history in these terms (not to imply that such a telling is "incorrect"), or if they had always viewed the world in those terms. Democrats, more nebulously, tend to attempt to ground their normative claims on a particular vision of the future, etc. That, I think, is why Republicans endorse "efficiency," while Democrats endorse "fairness."
So: who decries "Big Government" more? It gets the same answer as "who decries judicial activism more?".
Sorry about the bloviation.
5399. ChristinO - 12/3/1999 8:38:51 PM
Reductio ad absurdum.
No, I'm saying the kid will be collossally psychologically fucked up, possibly retarded and riddled with congenital defects, and born to nutjob parents
Ace, you're making pronouncements about things that you can't predict with certainity. If having nutjob parents is reason enough to allow abortion in the third trimester then why restrict it at all? There are plenty of other personality defects besides a tendency to incest.
I'm assuming that you're in favor of restricting abortion in the third trimester because the kid is really pretty much a kid at that point. How does the personality of the parents mitigate whether or not the kid has any rights?
5400. CalGal - 12/3/1999 10:08:30 PM
Ace,
I think this began from a combination of your misunderstanding of my posts and my misunderstanding of the true intent of Niner's question. So I'll throw out a few statements and see which might have caused the problem.
5401. Indiana Jones - 12/3/1999 10:23:03 PM
Rask, somewhere back there you said some things I agreed with. I think anyone who has close contact with or knowledge about developing fetuses realizes they're "child-like" earlier than most people think--or at least want to believe. I understand what Ace means by the utility of abortion, and I think what's at the real heart of this issue is the very thing no one wants to address. It also explains, I think, why he harped so much about the arbitrariness of the viability, rape, and incest escape hatches. And it also ties in with mine and a-5's long-winded debate about the longterm social effects of abortion.
No one wants to admit it, but...
Abortion is good!
In the heart of darkness, the simple answer is awfully appealing, and sometimes the simple answer is abortion. It's just a question of where and when you opt for the quick fix. And much of the time, it's easier to expect other people (that is, other pregnant people) to deal with complexity that you would yourself rather avoid.
I consider myself ardently pro-life but am not convicted that my beliefs on this issue should determine the behavior of others. In the future, however, I fear my bolded statement above will move from subtext to talking point.
5402. angel-five - 12/4/1999 12:35:21 AM
I wouldn't say it's good, but rather neutral. I think that there are worse things that can result from a troubled pregnancy than aborting a fetus --something that only differs from any other sort of life form we kill for our own purposes in that it can grow into the sort of animal we identify with -- a thinking human.
There are better things, too. The children can grow up healthy and loved and be given a chance to taste life as we have. Many do not, sometimes because of congenital and genetic fault, more often because of lacking parenting and support. We cannot say with certainty beforehand which will be the case, so we cannot adopt the potential outcome of live birth as a raison d'etre for abortion and maintain a semblance of fairness and morality in the process, even though our ability to judge the odds can make that a tempting proposition.
People who want to maintain that semblance and defend abortion are thus forced to adopt a different locus of argument -- themselves. Their rights. Their inconveniences and sacrifices, which are pretty damned significant once you consider the lengthy and demanding process of carrying, birthing and raising a child. That is what is weighed in the balance in the decision to have an abortion -- your significant inconvenience against the potential life of a child. A lot of people think that it's shallow and selfish for someone to choose their own convenience over that potential, even when the parents are in a very poor position to raise a child and stand to lose a lot of opportunities for themselves. They're actually right. But while it may be distasteful, it's no less defensible than a lot of other things we do. You're killing a fetus, but we do as much and worse every day.
I believe a fetus can feel pain. So does a cow in a squalid stockyard, both before and when we convert it into hamburger.
5403. angel-five - 12/4/1999 12:36:34 AM
A fetus carries human DNA. So do the people we pull off of life support, even when there is still a chance they'll once again begin displaying the behavior we identify as being human. So do the civilians that die in warfare; so do the innocents we execute. Most fetuses will grow into healthy animals and live their lives. All the other animals we kill, most of which are more mentally developed than even a late-term fetus, have lives too, as would all the animals we deny life to when we destroy their own habitat to build and maintain ours. Most fetuses will grow into healthy human beings, capable of behavior we deem sufficiently human and like ourselves to identify with and protect. So will the sperm and eggs we kill on a daily basis, should we let them unite instead.
It's a blurry line, to be sure, and indeed if it weren't we wouldn't be pouring so much energy into the discussion. We are terminating the development of something that, regardless of viability, is still very much alive within the womb. But there are no sustainable moral and logical arguments which can successfully differentiate our human lives and the potential 'human' lives of the fetus from the life of anything else we kill every day. There are only pragmatic social arguments. Those arguments are far from conclusive when applied to abortion.
To me, abortion is one of those things which ought to demonstrate to us that our moral standings on human life are arbitrary, ill founded, full of holes, and above all else malleable. Instead it demonstrates something else to us -- the fury with which otherwise rational human beings will argue that their moral beliefs are NOT arbitrary, NOT ill-founded, NOT solid, and NOT malleable. The furor over abortion teaches us far more about the value we place on our own moral constructs, and the energy we'll waste trying to make them seamless, than it ever could about the value we place on the protection and nurturing of life. Which is a shame.
5404. angel-five - 12/4/1999 12:45:19 AM
This is of course all my opinion. I like to think of it as a reasoned one, but it's an opinion all the same, as is what follows: I don't think it's possible to have a seamless stance on abortion, unless you either have no value for life at all, or else have never used the death of a living thing for your own benefit, and the fact that you have an immune system rules that out. The only non-arbitrary position one can have is to value life not at all, and if that's what it takes to have a solid position, I'll pass. For me, I can examine all the losses and gains, and draw a sum that is in favor of allowing abortion -- I can weigh reproductive and economic freedom against a fetus's life, which is all potential and undetermined, and decide that while it's a wrenching decision, it's still one I think people should be allowed to make. I wish I had a magic wand to wave, to differentiate between the people for whom abortion will turn out to be the best choice and the people who abuse abortion or would, if they could look ahead and see their child's life, realize that they did indeed make a mistake. No one has that sort of power, and I will as ever err on the side of choice rather than err on the side of choicelessness.
5405. angel-five - 12/4/1999 1:08:24 AM
Incidentally, my brother and his wife, before they were married, accidentally conceived a fetus. Hell, a child. I do mean accidentally, because they took redundant precautions -- she was on the pill, he used condoms or she used a spermicidal jelly. And she got pregnant anyway, even though there had been no lapse in their precautions.
She developed some serious problems stemming from endometriosis, was hospitalized and the doctors told them that the child would in all probability not be viable and that carrying it would put her life in real danger. They elected, after no small amount of agonizing and soul-searching, to have an abortion rather than put her life in any more danger on the off chance that she would be able to have a living child.
Though my brother is three years older than I am, much shorter and has brown hair, we're enough alike that many people regard us as you'd regard fraternal twins. The only difference between us is that he possesses much more of the milk of human kindness than ever I had. Imagine someone like me who was actually kind, somewhat more mature, and a lot more polite, and you have a fair picture of him.
He's not by any stretch of the imagination a flighty or easily wounded person, and although that abortion took place a decade ago he still is wracked by it, it still eats away at him even though he has long since made his rational peace with it. He has dreams that wake him cold and shaking, like the one where he met the daughter he might have had, and sometimes when we stay up nights drinking he'll talk about her in a quiet voice, guarded emotions, that's like a knife twisting in me when I listen, because I can see his daughter, my niece, too, what she might have been to us all and more importantly to herself.
It is this reason, perhaps more so than any logic I can summon, that reminds me what an awful thing it is to have to choose, and why I cannot take either choice lightly.
5406. RosettaStone - 12/4/1999 1:13:44 AM
If this Marsian space lander doesn't start talking back to us my next door's neighbor is in big trouble.
He works for NASA/Goddard and has been at work for the last 30 hours.
It's almost like someone has died in his family the way they're acting about the silence from the fourth planet.
My girls made their family brownies this evening. The food left our house so fast I didn't even get one.
5407. AceofSpades - 12/12/1999 1:45:12 AM
***DRUDGE REPORT-- WORLD EXCULSIVE 11:43:26***
-Must Credit-
IF ANYONE WANTS TO PLAY THE POOL THIS WEEK, THE SPREADS ARE UP AND YOU HAVE TO PICK BY KICKOFF TIME SUNDAY.
I'm going to Spam this on every thread. Sorry, but I'm sure most people have forgotten about it by now.
5408. msgreer - 12/13/1999 12:50:24 PM
Former NYPD Officer Volpe got 30 years plus 5 years probation today.
Sorry, I didn't get all the money he has to pay for restitution.
5409. PsychProf - 12/13/1999 1:03:21 PM
GIVES HIM TIME TO CONSIDER HIS ACTIONS
click on photo 
5410. ChristiPeters - 12/13/1999 1:10:00 PM
I think the kind of person capable of performing actions such as his, may be incapable of considering them.
5411. msgreer - 12/13/1999 1:39:24 PM
CP
Point well taken.
5412. Ronski - 12/13/1999 1:46:01 PM
The judge received tons of mail asking for Volpe not to receive the maximum sentence.
5413. ChristinO - 12/13/1999 1:51:15 PM
If Volpe spends even one night in prison I have a feeling he'll have good reason to contemplate his actions. I don't know that he'll ever really comprehend that he was in the wrong, but he'll better understand the victim's mindset.
Racist cops aren't particularly popular in prison.
5414. ChristinO - 12/13/1999 1:57:19 PM
That people are asking for leniency for Volpe makes me ill.
Something I'm curious about though is what the sentence was for the guy who cut off his victim's arms after raping her. I think he was recently paroled or up for parole and it wasn't that many years ago that he was put away.
Is the length of Volpe's sentence because he is a cop, because he is white and his victim was black or because he raped a man as opposed to a woman? Or maybe it's some combination of them all. I just wonder if rapists get longer sentences in general for assaulting men than for assaulting women. I don't know that there's enough data to even compare.
5415. ChristinO - 12/13/1999 1:58:17 PM
jeez, that's disjointed. sorry.
5416. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 5:02:46 PM
Christin - I think the length of the sentence is because he was a cop and he used the power of his position to victimize a person. I also think the brutality of the attack played a large part. I doubt the other things were considered. Race might have been, but it is hard to know for sure.
5417. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 5:04:28 PM
From the article linked above:
Vinegard called Volpe's initial assertions of innocence a "cowardly, shameful and humiliating fraud he tried to perpetrate on the court, fellow officers of the city police department and the city of New York."
I wonder how he felt about Clinton's initial assertions of innocence?
5418. ChristinO - 12/13/1999 5:05:25 PM
JJ,
Sounds reasonable.
5419. ChristinO - 12/13/1999 5:06:30 PM
5418 does NOT refer to 5417 as I'm sure you know
5420. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 5:08:42 PM
Christin - Snicker, snicker.
5421. EricCartman - 12/13/1999 5:09:02 PM
Christin Message # 5414:
Something I'm curious about though is what the sentence was for the guy who cut off his victim's arms after raping her.
Lawrence Singleton served 8 years in San Quentin for mutilating Mary Vincent, and was basically harassed out of California. He got busted again in Florida a couple of years ago for first-degree murder. I can't recall offhand if he got life or death for his sentence.
Incidentally, the laws have been changed in CA since Singleton's crime. In response to his unbelievably lenient prison term (I believe it was originally 15 years for the rape/torture; he got out in 8 for good behavior), the penalties are much more stringent now. He would now face something like 40-to-life for the same crime.
I also recall that when Singleton was picked up in FL for the murder, covered in blood, and with the dead woman in his apartment, he said that he'd been framed for the Vincent crime, but that he had done this one.
Maybe they should have put a bullet in his head after the first crime.
5422. EricCartman - 12/13/1999 5:11:38 PM
JJ:
Did Clinton deny holding down a man and reaming him with a toilet plunger?
Which is exactly what a guy like Volpe has coming to him. Let's start a Volpe pool. I say he gets cornholed the second night in there. Any takers?
5423. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 5:13:36 PM
Cartman:
Jesus Christ, don't you realize how irrelevant that is?
Either one perpetrates a fraud on the court by brazenly lying about one's guilt or innocence as to the charges or one doesn't.
5424. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 5:13:40 PM
Eric - Some people say that longer prison terms and capital punishment are deterrents. If Singleton had been kept in jail or executed he would have been deterred from killing that woman in FLA.
5425. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 5:15:34 PM
I'll take the bet. Volpe will be in federal prison, and will be in protective custody faster than a New York cab passes up Danny Glover. He'll cultivate guards who are sympathetic, and half will believe that he was set up to protect his fellow officers within the week. He'll blame sissy pants politicians and black activists and will whine for the rest of his life how he got a raw deal. In general, he'll act like the sociopath he is.
5426. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 5:16:46 PM
Eric - Did Clinton deny holding down a man and reaming him with a toilet plunger?
I never heard him admit to it. But then that really wasn't the point, was it?
Let's start a Volpe pool. I say he gets cornholed the second night in there. Any takers?
I think it will be the first night. The only part I am not sure of is if it will be the guards or the inmates who get to him first.
5427. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 5:20:57 PM
The only part I am not sure of is if it will be the guards or the inmates who get to him first.
I seriously doubt that the guards will get him anything other than a welcome to prison cake.
5428. EricCartman - 12/13/1999 5:21:25 PM
JJ Message # 5424:
I completely agree. I seriously think Singleton should have been executed for what he did to Mary Vincent, not to mention for murdering the other woman. If ever a guy deserved to fry like an egg in Old Sparky, it's Singleton.
I understand what your point was about Clinton lying. I'm just saying that the seriousness of the actions which Volpe and Clinton lied about committing are not even comparable, imho.
5429. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 5:29:40 PM
Eric - I could draw some rather disgusting comparisons between the two, but I think I'll just let it drop. The point has been made.
5430. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 6:12:02 PM
Eric --
I'm pretty sure ol' Larry Singleton received a death sentence. Mary Vincent testified against him during the penalty phase of the Florida trial.
5431. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 6:19:19 PM
Speaking of recent testimony -- anyone think Jackie Bennett ought to be investigated?
***
At a pretrial hearing that may determine whether Mrs. Tripp must stand trial, [Former Deputy Independent Counsel] Bennett... also said he informed Ms. McLendon that Starr's office had given Mrs. Tripp immunity in exchange for her testimony and more than 20 hours of tapes. "We had the tapes and we weren't going to give them to Maryland," Bennett said.
Ms. McLendon responded that if Maryland had to get its own evidence independent of what Mrs. Tripp provided Starr's office, she didn't believe Mrs. Tripp would be prosecuted, according to Bennett.
Outside the courtroom, Ms. McLendon disputed some of Bennett's testimony.
"I never led him to believe that she would not be prosecuted," Ms. McLendon said in an interview. "We never had any substantive discussion on immunity. I never would have done that."
... Ms. McLendon, a Republican, eventually turned the wiretapping matter over to the Maryland state prosecutor, Stephen Montanarelli, who got the tapes from Starr's office after a federal court battle.
***
Read the entire article here.
5432. CalGal - 12/13/1999 6:25:14 PM
Did anyone read the Time cover story on the Columbine massacre?
I think the most horrifying thing, for me, is that everyone thinks that there is something that can be done to stop this sort of event.
The second most horrifying thing is that the cops just stood around outside, protecting the perimeter. Why the hell not send the SWAT teams in? Hell, they're armed. But I suppose it's bad PR value if a cop gets killed.
Maybe it's just that their procedures need updated. Surely they can update their procedures so that the cops aren't waiting around outside until the dangerous part is over.
5433. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 6:27:43 PM
Cal --
Maybe the SWAT guys just came from a screening of Escape From New York?
5434. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 6:39:58 PM
Maybe they were worried about the headlines, "Armed SWAT Team Mows Down Children In School Massacre".
I am so sick of how everyone is using this kid from Cuba....everyone is dining out on this story.
5435. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 6:43:40 PM
CalGal - I think the cops were afraid that in the confusion, they would accidentally kill an innocent kid. A dead cop is bad for PR, but a cop killing an unarmed child is a PR disaster of unimagined proportion.
5436. CalGal - 12/13/1999 6:44:04 PM
Yes, Judith, that's another possibility. It is definitely a case of damned whatever you do. I don't mean to imply that the cops willingly sat there. But I've really noticed for a number of years now that crisis management involves keeping the cops as safe as the victims inside. If that's to be the priority, fine. In that case, if my kid is locked inside a school with maniac killers on the inside and cops bound by management doctrine on the outside, I'm taking one of their guns and going in myself.
As for the kid in Cuba--I'm actually a bit heartened by the response. For all the fuss, it looks like all the legal mechanisms are on the dad's side. In fact, a good percentage of Cuban Americans quietly support the father as well.
5437. CalGal - 12/13/1999 6:47:15 PM
JJ,
Yes, I know what you mean. But we are now at the point where cops are so hamstrung that their action in nearly all crisis situations is to sit outside and wait until the maniac has finished killing everyone--including himself.
This new trend will probably force a change in procedures.
5438. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 6:53:23 PM
CalGal - We have come to expect unrealistic outcomes, bloodless wars, safe hostage situations, etc. If a cop misjudges the situation, he could be looking at a murder trial and life in prison. There used to be a presumption of innocence, especially for cops in a dangerous situation. Those days are gone.
5439. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 7:02:37 PM
CalGal:
I don't mean the childs situation; I meant the number of people making hay out of reporting the story; taking it upon themselves to "protect the childs rights" and then the reportage of THAT story; taking him to Disneyland and reporting on all the stuff he's experienceing....it seems as though theres a small business springing up called "The Cuban Child and His Story".
5440. CalGal - 12/13/1999 7:07:51 PM
Judith,
Oh, I didn't make it clear-I was agreeing with you about the hype. But given all the hype, what I find kind of neat is that the underlying reaction is pretty sensible. Even among those you'd think would be most radically against sending him back, the reaction is pretty much "hey, let the kid go home to his dad."
5441. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:10:58 PM
Cal --
That's "The Cuban Child and His Story TM" to you.
5442. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 7:14:41 PM
Oh hey...did you trademark that for me, Trial? Thanks! :-)
Cal:
L & O repeat with Sada Thompson on right now on A&E
5443. spudboy - 12/13/1999 7:56:13 PM
Woddamoron. I didn't say Barnes' word was absolutely to be believed. I simply used his deposition to point out that there was at least some substance --contrary to your claims that it was "groundless" -- to the accusation that Bush had gotten help to get his position in the Air National Guard. I offered no judgment on the ultimate truthfulness of his deposition. However, the word of a retired speaker of the Texas House probably should carry more weight than that of a campaign flack.
As for rumors: You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between stories about the existence of rumors and questions about whether the rumors themselves are well-grounded. I can tell you that I never believe a rumor as truth (e.g., the recent Bush cocaine rumors), but I'm willing to look into its truthfulness. A rule of thumb that most reputable journalists use is to refuse to report on a rumor until it has been substantiated independently. However, the mere existence of the rumors often takes on a life of its own, and can become a story in itself. As in the case of the recent McCain rumors.
You, on the other hand, reflexively report any nasty rumors about Democrats as though they were factual. And then, without a hint of irony, accuse liberals of mirror behavior, covering your own hypocrisy with a trumpet of flatulent bluster. Quite a performance, really.
5444. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 8:01:28 PM
Spud --
Wrong thread, man.
5445. ChristinO - 12/13/1999 8:01:56 PM
JJ,
If a cop misjudges the situation, he could be looking at a murder trial and life in prison. There used to be a presumption of innocence, especially for cops in a dangerous situation. Those days are gone.
With cops like Volpe on the force it's no wonder.
Snarkiness aside, the problem is two-fold: The super-letigious nature of modern America combined with the monstrously low caliber of so many police officers these days have severely limited the effectiveness of any local peacekeeping force.
I'm sick to death of people who want to sue everyone around them just because life isn't perfect, HOWEVER it is of utmost importance that police officers be held accountable for their actions. It is reasonable to hold them to a higher expectation of accountability for the simple fact that they have such tremendous power over the average citizen.
I don't know that there is any quick solution to the problem we face living in a nation of whiny, blame-throwers. Unfortunately this makes a cop's job more difficult, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I don't think just anybody ought to be able to be a cop.
5446. ChristinO - 12/13/1999 8:45:14 PM
Okay, now I have another question. Kevin Lee Green went to prison for beating his wife nearly to death and causing her to miscarry their baby. He served 17 years of a life sentence before DNA evidence proved him innocent of the crime and showed Gerald Parker to be the real assailant.
What I want to know is why the hell didn't Green's wife clear him? She wasn't in a coma. She must have testified, right?
5447. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 11:25:37 PM
Cops do not fear lawsuits as a rule, or if they do, they're irrational. The chance of success is slight. The awards are usually small and juries are every bit as skeptical and cop favoring as the recent posters. They do what they do as a result of department policy which is more attuned to local politics than lawsuits. Besides, the chances are the blue wall will protect them before it ever gets to trial.
5448. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 11:30:58 PM
There used to be a presumption of innocence, especially for cops in a dangerous situation. Those days are gone.
There used to be one for civilians, too.
The reality is that cops tend to come out pretty well on sentencing. Stacy Koon did criminals a favor by getting his big sentence reduction, it opened the door for criminals to seek reductions beyond the sentencing guidelines as he did. Volpe got a big reduction as well. The judge mentioned something about how prison was going to be unsafe for Volpe and blamed the media attention. It would be nice to see if the same consideration was given any other defendant, say a imfamous rapist, like Volpe.
5449. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 12:45:02 AM
Jonesy --
"Volpe got a big reduction [from the sentencing guidelines] as well. The judge mentioned something about how prison was going to be unsafe for Volpe and blamed the media attention."
Good thing he only got thirty years, then. Anything more than that might give the other inmates time to really hurt him.
5450. PsychProf - 12/14/1999 1:08:01 PM
SO MUCH FOR "WE STOLE IT FAIR AND SQUARE"
click on photo 
5451. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:23:51 PM
The judge in Maryland has ruled that Linda Tripp did not have immunity from prosecution during the period in which she is alleged to have violated the state's wiretap law. Now the prosecution has to prove their case was not tainted by evidence obtained when the immunity deal was in force. This is a difficult burden, but not insurmountable; prosecutors have to cope with immunity issues pretty routinely.
Still, there's a point at which this all becomes perverse. It's like prosecuting Julie Hiatt Steele: bringing the power of the state to bear on a bit player in what amounts to a squabble between two former friends. You can argue (as the state will argue and Starr's office did argue) that the system will crumble if anyone is allowed to get away with any violation of the law -- but I'm not buying. Let the poor woman go.
5452. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 2:01:37 PM
TS - Let the poor woman go.
That is the most reasonable thing you have said all day.
5453. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 2:17:16 PM
JJ --
I rather thought my statement that I don't believe the rumors about Senator McCain -- regardless of their source -- was reasonable, too.
Apparently, you disagree.
5454. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 2:27:01 PM
TS - I rather thought my statement that I don't believe the rumors about Senator McCain -- regardless of their source -- was reasonable, too.
I suppose that would be reasonable if any such rumors actually existed.
5455. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 2:29:10 PM
You know, it's gotta be the season -- I saw this headline and thought "some sick s.o.b. is trying to spoil my kids' Christmas."
ATF Chief Believes Rudolph Is Dead
Obviously, the story has nothing to do with reindeer.
5456. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 2:33:10 PM
JJ --
Oh, yes, for a moment there I forgot -- you don't want there to be any rumors about Senator McCain, therefore there aren't any rumors. No matter what Senator Hagel says.
5457. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 2:40:24 PM
TS - Take it back to Politics. FWIW, When Hagel claims that a Senator approached him personally with a statement about McCain's stability, I will believe him. Until then it is just someone said someone said.
5458. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 2:48:54 PM
JJ --
Senator Hagel said the rumors about Senator McCain were repeated to him by campaign contributors, who claimed they were being spread by GOP senators. I believe Hagel is telling the truth about what he heard, and have no reason to believe he was lied to.
5459. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 3:02:21 PM
TS - I believe Hagel is telling the truth about what he heard, and have no reason to believe he was lied to.
You also have no reason to believe the way you do, but since it apparently makes you all warm and fuzzy to believe in these fantaies, far be it for me to try to dissuade you. And far be it for me to expect anything resembling consistency from you.
5460. msgreer - 12/14/1999 4:06:55 PM
Charles Schultz of Peanut fame has "put down his pen". No more Charlie Brown, Lucy the terror with her football.. Mr. Schultz was dx. with colon cancer recently.
5461. msgreer - 12/14/1999 4:09:07 PM
January 3, 2000 will be the last Peanuts 'episode'.
5462. Dantheman - 12/14/1999 4:21:33 PM
I hate to speak ill of the deceased, but Peanuts, which was truly great and insightful in the '60's, has been resting on its laurels for at least 20 years. It makes me respect more people like Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes), who knew when to hang it up.
I have twice been to the Cartoon Museum in Boca Raton, Florida (which is only a few miles from the Squirrel's parents). It is amazing how that generation of cartoonists (including Mort Walker and Dik Browne) have created a shrine to themselves. The only cartoonist in their Hall of Fame under 60 is the lady who draws For Better or For Worse.
5463. CalGal - 12/14/1999 4:28:29 PM
You're right. I read every great Peanuts strip I can think of before I was 15.
5464. Raskolnikov - 12/14/1999 4:52:36 PM
I won't miss the Peanuts one bit. It lost any of its value decades ago.
I just wish that Hagar, BC, Blondie, Beetle Baily, Wizard of Id, Ziggy, Family Circus, Hi and Lois, and all of those other eternal, yet horrible, comic page mainstays would join him.
They crowd out Mark Trail, Mary Worth, Steve Roper, and Judge Parker.
5465. Raskolnikov - 12/14/1999 4:52:59 PM
"They crowd out Mark Trail, Mary Worth, Steve Roper, and Judge Parker."
This was a joke by the way.
5466. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 4:59:22 PM
Family Circus is the worst (at least of those I see regularly). It's only redeeming value is that it's limited to one panel.
5467. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 5:01:40 PM
JJ --
"You also have no reason to believe the way you do..."
Certainly I do. I believe Senator Hagel is telling the truth. If he was lying, it would have been far easier (and far safer) to pin the rumors on anti-McCain forces in Texas or Arizona -- or the Democrats.
"And far be it for me to expect anything resembling consistency from you."
Oh, that's rich, JJ.
Let's see ... in your message #4602, you wrote "I think the Democrats wanted to float the story that McCain is unstable but they knew they would look mean spirited if they did. So they passed it off as coming from the Republicans."
In your message #4612, you even ascribed a motive for the Democrats: "It is a bit of early character assassination in case they have to face him in the fall."
You repeated the charge in your message #4641: "Therefore the accusers are likely Democrats."
But now you claim there were never any rumors at all.
5468. Ronski - 12/14/1999 5:02:02 PM
"It contains a priceless Mary Worth in which she counsels a friend to commit suicide."
--The Simpsons
5469. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 5:03:20 PM
Spoken in the Android's Dungeon?
5470. Ronski - 12/14/1999 5:03:59 PM
And Steve Roper was hot, as I recall.
5471. Raskolnikov - 12/14/1999 5:06:14 PM
"Family Circus is the worst (at least of those I see regularly). It's only redeeming value is that it's limited to one panel."
Although one of the most frightening aspects of parenthood is that I now find family oriented strips like Family Circus, Baby Blues, and Jump Start funnier than I used to. Don't get me wrong, Family Circus still sucks, but I think I actually smiled 2-3 times at it in the past year. Prior to that, I can only recall one slightly funny Family Circus strip: the mom is running full speed down a store aisle displaying various models of toilets, while screaming "no Jeffy, it isn't plugged in!"
5472. LadyChaos - 12/14/1999 5:08:03 PM
I loved the line from "Go," where the drug dealer says:
"And I just know that the Family Circus is down there at the bottom of the page, waiting to suck."
5473. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 5:09:02 PM
Rask, you have to be making that up. 5474. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 5:10:25 PM Rask, my last post had a (grin) in it after "making that up," but the Mote decided to scarf it. 5475. Raskolnikov - 12/14/1999 5:11:54 PM Not making it up. A genuinely funny Family Circus strip. I couldn't believe it either. 5476. Ronski - 12/14/1999 5:13:01 PM 5477. Ronski - 12/14/1999 5:13:04 PM 5478. angel-five - 12/14/1999 5:15:19 PM I suppose that would be reasonable if any such rumors Christ, Biener, doesn't it make you dizzy when you do that? Remember arguing to me that the Democrats had started the rumors? 5479. LadyChaos - 12/14/1999 5:15:20 PM I loved the line from "Go," where the drug dealer says: 5480. LadyChaos - 12/14/1999 5:15:55 PM I loved the line from "Go," where the drug dealer says: 5481. LadyChaos - 12/14/1999 5:16:45 PM What the hell happened? 5482. angel-five - 12/14/1999 5:17:34 PM The only funny Family Circus I've seen was a pornographic parody where Not Me opened the parent's bedroom door to the kids while Mom and Dad were rigged up in some sadomasochistic gear. 5483. Dantheman - 12/14/1999 5:24:21 PM Rask #5464, 5484. angel-five - 12/14/1999 5:30:01 PM Favorite comic strips of all time: 5485. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 5:32:34 PM A5 Message # 5482: 5486. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 5:33:16 PM Those are all good strips, a-5. Of the five, I favor Dilbert, the Far Side, and Calvin & Hobbes, though, over your other two. And even though Doonsbury is lefty, I used to think it was funny. 5487. angel-five - 12/14/1999 5:34:31 PM No, ( laughing) it was just the parents. Apparently there's quite a range of Family Circus S&M comics out there. 5488. angel-five - 12/14/1999 5:36:17 PM Naw, Bloom County is the bomb. You conservative types just don't appreciate its fine humor because all the cool characters were liberals and all the losers were conservatives. 5489. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 5:37:36 PM Yep, "Bloom County" and "Calvin and Hobbes" were far and away the best to ever come down the pike. "Doonesbury" has its moments (the recent Trump series was funny), but not even close to "Bloom County". 5490. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 5:40:48 PM Christ. I can't belive I actually typed this phrase out, without editing it: 5491. angel-five - 12/14/1999 5:43:06 PM There's like five strips in Cathy. The strip with the boss, the strip with her mom, the strip where she tries on clothing, the strip where she eats too much food, and the strip with men. They all suck eggs. OF course, there were losers like Binkley and dorks like Opus in Bloom County and they were both liberals, and the arguably coolest character -- Milo -- was more of a cynical moderate than anything else. But all the conservatives were tools. 5492. robertjayb - 12/14/1999 5:43:13 PM . 5493. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 5:43:41 PM "Bloom County" was indeed da bomb. I loved the Bill the Cat & Opus Presidential campaign, with the slogan, "This time, why not the worst?". And of course, Bill's Belushi-esque demise, with him free-basing Little Friskies. Very high-concept stuff.(g) 5494. angel-five - 12/14/1999 5:45:00 PM Well, I read Pogo when they hired someone to do it, and found it hilarous. But I never read the original. 5495. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 5:47:10 PM There's like five strips in Cathy. The strip with the boss, the strip with her mom, the strip where she tries on clothing, the strip where she eats too much food, and the strip with men. 5496. Dantheman - 12/14/1999 5:51:43 PM I loved Bloom County's music festival: 5497. angel-five - 12/14/1999 5:53:43 PM Hello, mister lead singer? Mister Van Halen Lead Singer? Could you quiet down a little? 5498. Raskolnikov - 12/14/1999 6:00:01 PM Calvin and Hobbes was better than Bloom County. Bloom County was too inconsistent. I think Breathed took the "Doonesbury copy-cat" criticisms too seriously, and shifted his focus toward consumerism, or something. In the end, there were way too many strips where "deodorant" was the punchline. But it was still an excellent strip. 5499. Raskolnikov - 12/14/1999 6:02:56 PM Bloom County discarded too many of its best characters, as well. "The Major", who hunted liberals and commie ducks, and Senator Bedfellow, were particularly missed. 5500. CalGal - 12/14/1999 6:10:51 PM Agreed about Calvin and Hobbes. Watterson was a persnickety pain in the ass about his work--you'll know what I mean if you followed any of the reporting on his syndication demands. But the man delivered. As Rask points out, he's the only cartoonist who kept his work fresh for the entire run. That's probably why he quit, of course. 5501. Stumbo - 12/14/1999 6:14:18 PM I may have posted this before, but anyway: 5502. arkymalarky - 12/14/1999 6:27:48 PM Pogo is my all time favorite. I have a large book of Kelly's Pogo cartoons and commentary, "Ten Ever-Lovin' Blue-Eyed Years With Pogo," and he was a very perceptive man with a unique ability to gently tap readers on the shoulder with humorous yet sensitive observations on subjects that were hot-button at the time. He had some great cartoons on Joe McCarthy (Simple J. Malarky), censorship, etc, in that book. 5503. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 6:34:08 PM 5504. robertjayb - 12/14/1999 6:39:47 PM . 5505. robertjayb - 12/14/1999 6:42:15 PM Pogo celebrates... 5506. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 7:02:47 PM 5507. angel-five - 12/14/1999 7:03:28 PM Shark: That was Binkley. 5508. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 7:06:29 PM 5509. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 7:17:23 PM TS - I believe Senator Hagel is telling the truth. 5510. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 7:37:37 PM 5511. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 7:39:32 PM 5512. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 7:44:00 PM 5513. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 7:44:44 PM 5514. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 8:09:11 PM Rask Message # 5498: 5515. ChristinO - 12/14/1999 9:17:10 PM The Neighborhood delivers fairly often but I wish I could see Bizarro and Tom Tomorrow in a daily. 5516. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 9:20:17 PM Good point, Christin(). A-5 and I agree on almost nothing, but we both like Calvin & Hobbes and despise Family Circus. 5517. angel-five - 12/14/1999 9:31:55 PM Comics which Suck: 5518. angel-five - 12/14/1999 9:33:31 PM Oh, I forgot Frank and Ernest. Some powerful suction there. 5519. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 9:36:22 PM Is Nancy carried anywhere anymore? I thought it sucked even when I was a kid. 5520. robertjayb - 12/14/1999 9:36:31 PM . 5521. angel-five - 12/14/1999 9:41:39 PM God, I remember this comic paperback that we had in the house when I was a tot, called 'Super Boy and the Legionnaires of the Thirtieth Century' or some such stuff. When I think of the worst that comics have to offer, I think of that book. IT actually had Superman say the line 'You'll never use the principle of equal and opposite reactions for your diabolic purposes again, Doctor Morgo!' 5522. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 9:47:09 PM Okay, let's test a theory: who'd do you like better, Spiderman or Superman? And what's that say about your politics? 5523. angel-five - 12/14/1999 9:52:41 PM They were both tools. 5524. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 9:55:00 PM 5525. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 10:03:59 PM Batman is definitely a Republican. Don't forget he's "billionaire playbody Bruce Wayne." So he's a Republican except when running for the Reform Party nomination. 5526. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 10:04:24 PM playbody=playboy 5527. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 10:05:35 PM 5528. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 10:07:46 PM 5529. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 10:10:38 PM DC heroes are Republicans because they keep their personal lives out of their business. None of this, "I can't web-sling today because Aunt May's sick," crap. And Superman never worries what his girlfriends think. Spidey's always bent out of shape about Mary Jane or Gwen Stacey or whoever. When Lois Lane gets uppity, Clark Kent just looks at the reader and winks. 5530. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 10:11:20 PM 5531. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 10:13:27 PM Even a good immigration authority would have sent Brainiac's ass packing a long time ago. 5532. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 10:13:34 PM 5533. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 10:14:21 PM 5534. angel-five - 12/14/1999 10:16:23 PM Batman is an Independent. I refuse to accept that he's a Republican, though he might be a libertarian. 5535. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 10:16:49 PM 5536. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 10:17:36 PM Now the classic case of leftist thinking in the Marvel Universe is Dr. Doom. He's untouchable because of "diplomatic immunity." 5537. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 10:23:20 PM 5538. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 10:24:05 PM 5539. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 10:28:43 PM Yeah, when you get him out of his suit, Dr. Doom looks like he's been through hell and back a couple of times, face first. 5540. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 10:34:11 PM The Lizard Has Ally in Clinton 5541. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 10:53:37 PM Ace: 5542. Dantheman - 12/15/1999 9:47:33 AM I prefer most of the Marvel heroes to the DC ones, as the DC ones have too much power to hold my interest. I mean, if you're Superman, and can do pretty much anything as long as you don't come near little green rocks or Green Lantern and can do anything as long as you stay away from yellow objects, you're mostly left with battling yourself. Compare Iron Man's gadgets with Batman's or Flash's speed with Quicksilver's and you get the idea. The Marvel heroes are more human. Then again, I usually vote Democratic. 5543. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 10:06:38 AM Bloom County was absolutely the most hilarious comic strip of all time. I'll never forget the "Bill the Cat for President" campaign - "Ack! Pfft!" Calvin and Hobbes was a very close second. 5544. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 11:52:40 AM As long as they don't hurt anybody,I'm rooting for the inmates. 5545. Ronski - 12/15/1999 12:13:59 PM Batman is a Libertarian. 5546. Indiana Jones - 12/15/1999 12:18:24 PM Ace and Eric, but has Hillary said anything about ending mutant discrimination in New York City? And what about the Moleman's minions? Note: mole people are people too! 5547. PelleNilsson - 12/15/1999 12:34:23 PM I'm devastated by seeing Calvin and Hobbes talked about in the past sense. I had no idea (manly sob). 5548. Dantheman - 12/15/1999 12:59:41 PM IJ, 5549. theDiva - 12/15/1999 1:02:00 PM Pelle 5550. CalGal - 12/15/1999 1:13:38 PM The last strip was a gem. 5551. TrialShark - 12/15/1999 1:14:01 PM 5552. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 1:14:26 PM Batman a Republican? 5553. Indiana Jones - 12/15/1999 1:15:10 PM Dan, I understood your point. But you have to remember, I'm a Yankees fan. Besides, Marvel's aren't really weaker--they're just morally unsure. 5554. Dantheman - 12/15/1999 1:32:14 PM IJ, 5555. CalGal - 12/15/1999 1:43:48 PM snagging a cool number 5556. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 2:00:50 PM Dan: Far and away the best parody comic of all time was "Cerebus the Aardvark." "Normalman" was fun but pretty limited. "Cerebus," on the other hand, grew into one of the finest political/religious satires I've ever read. 5557. Dantheman - 12/15/1999 2:03:36 PM Spudboy, 5558. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 2:31:56 PM Dan: 5559. EricCartman - 12/15/1999 4:31:20 PM This just in -- Spreads are now up in the Pool Thread. Get 'em while they're hot! 5560. Dantheman - 12/16/1999 1:16:38 PM Should we emulate the Chinese? 5561. ChristinO - 12/16/1999 3:41:04 PM Parker is a puss, sorry to say. Superman has always struck me as a missionary position only kind of guy. Batman, Green Arrow and the Nightcrawler head up my list of faves. 5562. PsychProf - 12/16/1999 3:41:21 PM MUD WRESTLING NEXT 5563. ChristinO - 12/16/1999 3:46:54 PM DanTM, 5564. Dantheman - 12/16/1999 4:12:41 PM ChristinO, 5565. ChristinO - 12/16/1999 5:12:10 PM DanTM, 5566. JJBiener - 12/16/1999 5:48:03 PM DanTheMan - Banning one form of expression while permitting other, equally extreme ones is simply choosing which forms of expression one allows, i.e. tyrrany. 5567. JJBiener - 12/16/1999 5:57:47 PM Christin - What surprises me is that most often those in favor of an amendment to ban flag burning are the loudest about how evil the federal government is. 5568. TrialShark - 12/16/1999 6:02:13 PM 5569. DaveM - 12/16/1999 6:17:20 PM JJ - 5570. ChristinO - 12/16/1999 7:07:35 PM JJ, 5571. Stumbo - 12/16/1999 7:23:25 PM "Rich folks have no legally protected interest in avoiding the poor." 5572. TrialShark - 12/16/1999 7:25:51 PM Speaking of cows, I have to admit to being amused by PsychProf's picture of Monica Lewinsky (okay, it was a cheap shot, I know)arriving at the courthouse to testify against Linda Tripp. I'd be willing to bet that the divine Ms T never dreamed that she would be the one standing trial for breaking the law ... even though, according to the witnesses, she knew full well that was exactly what she was doing. It's almost poetic -- though I don't think it's justice. 5573. CalGal - 12/16/1999 7:31:40 PM . I'd be willing to bet that the divine Ms T never dreamed that she would be the one standing trial for breaking the law 5574. TrialShark - 12/16/1999 7:43:23 PM 5575. robertjayb - 12/16/1999 7:47:49 PM . 5576. TrialShark - 12/16/1999 8:02:11 PM 5577. TrialShark - 12/16/1999 8:03:40 PM 5578. Domino - 12/16/1999 8:41:30 PM Isn't Monica's memory just 5579. robertjayb - 12/16/1999 8:48:42 PM . 5580. robertjayb - 12/16/1999 8:50:28 PM . 5581. ChristinO - 12/16/1999 9:03:13 PM Domino, 5582. Cellar Door - 12/16/1999 10:23:05 PM I'd sentence Linda Tripp to be Bill Clinton's love slave. 5583. EricCartman - 12/17/1999 12:45:11 AM Cellar: 5584. JonesAtLaw - 12/17/1999 12:48:19 AM Cellar- only if Monica videotapes it and Starr, and the HJC watch it "Clockwork Orange" style, given the "heroic" porportions of the players, they could use the same soundtrack. 5585. arkymalarky - 12/17/1999 6:39:01 AM I mean this in the nicest possible way, but y'all are sick, sick, sick. 5586. Dantheman - 12/17/1999 8:43:00 AM JJ #5566, 5587. JJBiener - 12/17/1999 11:08:29 AM DaveM - I see nothing wrong with your little allegory about Democratic "tyranny." 5588. JJBiener - 12/17/1999 12:02:01 PM Dantheman - Do you have a cite for this story? I have a feeling there's another side to it. 5589. Dantheman - 12/17/1999 12:10:01 PM JJ, 5590. OhioSTOPAS - 12/17/1999 12:34:12 PM JJ: HUD's actual policy is, as it should be, that mere petitioning and protesting is not a Fair Housing Act violation. The actions of the local HUD officials in Berkeley were, as you point out, repudiated by higher-ups in HUD. Your Virginia story, if it happened at all, was likewise contrary to HUD policy. So where do you get off making broad statements about "Democrats" on the basis of these anomalies? 5591. jonesatlaw - 12/17/1999 12:38:57 PM JJB- some bureaucrats have advanced interpretations that some protests can be fair housing rights violations. The theory has been rejected by higher ups when its been used, for the most part. The problem is that some opposition goes beyound free speech and into intimidation and other forms of coercion that a principled libertarian would object to as well. 5592. EricCartman - 12/17/1999 4:54:05 PM Onion Infographic on what went wrong with the Mars Polar Lander 5593. Ronski - 12/17/1999 6:03:35 PM Very funny, the Dec. 15 issue. Our Dumb Century also is very good. 5594. AceofSpades - 12/17/1999 6:43:47 PM 5595. TrialShark - 12/17/1999 7:09:19 PM 5596. AceofSpades - 12/17/1999 7:34:01 PM 5597. TrialShark - 12/17/1999 7:40:58 PM 5598. OhioSTOPAS - 12/18/1999 6:23:20 AM And, in any event, Tripp's taping began well before Lewinsky's testimony was sought in the Jones case. Tripp wants us to think she began taping only after Lewinsky said she would lie, but that isn't so. 5599. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 8:43:05 AM I just wish Lucianne could be charged with something, too. She was the one who showed Linda the Ace of Hearts and pointed her toward Monica. 5600. Cellar Door - 12/20/1999 10:15:25 AM Today's "Power People" -- according to the "Evening Standard" 5601. ScottLoar - 12/20/1999 10:46:45 AM Great Expectations 5602. PsychProf - 12/20/1999 11:27:59 AM GOOD LUCK 5603. TrialShark - 12/20/1999 11:39:45 AM 5604. PsychProf - 12/20/1999 11:43:17 AM 5605. TrialShark - 12/20/1999 12:36:11 PM 5606. bubbaette - 12/20/1999 12:37:34 PM Do they get many hurricaines in Vermont? 5607. Cellar Door - 12/20/1999 12:47:38 PM 5608. TrialShark - 12/20/1999 12:50:41 PM 5609. PsychProf - 12/20/1999 12:59:13 PM Cellar...try the town of Woodstock, VT and the Inn there known by the same name. 5610. CalGal - 12/20/1999 1:15:29 PM Hey, Dusty--if you're around: 5611. 109109 - 12/20/1999 1:17:31 PM cllrdr 5612. Cellar Door - 12/20/1999 1:19:51 PM Well in that case, take 'em here first. 5613. JJBiener - 12/20/1999 4:15:59 PM Dantheman - How about: 5614. JJBiener - 12/20/1999 4:37:31 PM Jones - some bureaucrats have advanced interpretations that some protests can be fair housing rights violations. The theory has been rejected by higher ups when its been used, for the most part. 5615. Dantheman - 12/20/1999 4:38:37 PM JJ, 5616. JJBiener - 12/20/1999 4:50:47 PM Dantheman - These were middle-class suburbanites. They weren't marching around with signs threatening violence. They were holding meetings, sending letters of protest to HUD and sending letters to the editor of the local paper. I will try to find a cite, but most news archives don't go back that far. 5617. JJBiener - 12/20/1999 6:02:24 PM Dantheman - The one article I could find is not online. It is called Suburban Guerrilla, by James Bovard. It is in the September 94 issue of American Spectator. 5618. dusty - 12/20/1999 6:22:07 PM CalGal 5619. CalGal - 12/20/1999 6:31:44 PM No, I know you'd never said so--but you would have, if we'd ever discussed it! (g) 5620. Cellar Door - 12/20/1999 9:28:31 PM Here we go, Niner! 5621. spudboy - 12/20/1999 10:37:14 PM Here's a story I found very interesting that moved on my wires today: 5622. spudboy - 12/20/1999 10:38:09 PM "This provision would make it a federal crime, for example, to provide to medical marijuana patients information on how to cultivate marijuana, even in those states where it is legal for patients to grow marijuana under state law," says a NORML statement. 5623. spudboy - 12/20/1999 10:39:10 PM Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the measure would outlaw protected speech. 5624. spudboy - 12/20/1999 10:39:29 PM Richard Cowan, editor and publisher of marijuana.com, an online magazine, believes the bill is likely to win approval. 5625. 109109 - 12/20/1999 10:41:18 PM Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude! That is soooooooooooooooooo bogus! 5626. spudboy - 12/20/1999 10:41:40 PM Forgive me for posting it in its entirety. Normally I'd just link to it, but no one seems to have picked the story up yet. 5627. EricCartman - 12/20/1999 10:57:29 PM Yep, when bongs and crank recipes are outlawed, only outlaws will have bongs and crank recipes. Way to go, Reverend Hatch. 5628. 109109 - 12/20/1999 10:59:11 PM Duuuuuuuuuuuuude! 5629. EricCartman - 12/20/1999 11:12:39 PM Niner: 5630. JJBiener - 12/20/1999 11:25:48 PM Eric - Nice proposal. Freedom to pass drug information is sacrosanct, but religious freedom can be violated on a whim. 5631. EricCartman - 12/20/1999 11:33:13 PM JJ: 5632. CalGal - 12/20/1999 11:34:01 PM Really. One at a time surely ought to suffice. 5633. JJBiener - 12/20/1999 11:40:49 PM Eric - You said teenage, not underage. They aren't the same thing. Besides, it is up to the State of Utah, not the Senate to regulate marriage. 5634. EricCartman - 12/20/1999 11:47:13 PM JJ: 5635. EricCartman - 12/20/1999 11:53:48 PM JJ: 5636. JonesAtLaw - 12/21/1999 12:06:48 AM How you going to keep 'em pregnant and in the compound after they've succumbed to reefer madness? 5637. JonesAtLaw - 12/21/1999 12:10:57 AM Speaking of dope (Sen. Hatch) probably just made the Journal of the American Forensic Society, JAMA, several law enforcement web sites, and numerous law resources, including appeals court opinions, a federal violation. Who shall we arrest first, the head of the DEA, AMA or a few lab technicians and professors? 5638. EricCartman - 12/21/1999 12:56:38 AM Jones Message # 5638: 5639. Spudboy - 12/21/1999 1:34:45 AM JJ: Freedom to pass drug information is sacrosanct, but religious freedom can be violated on a whim. 5640. Stumbo - 12/21/1999 1:44:33 AM EC, re saving the children: 5641. Spudboy - 12/21/1999 1:45:45 AM However, Cart, I must point out to you that any law-enforcement crackdown on polygamy is going to have violent consequences. Which explains why Utah officials have done nothing about it. Occasionally a crusader type gets elected attorney general in Utah vowing to clean up the mess, and it becomes his tar baby. So it's overlooked. 5642. Stumbo - 12/21/1999 1:48:17 AM Spuds: 5643. Spudboy - 12/21/1999 2:01:18 AM Stumbo: 5644. EricCartman - 12/21/1999 2:12:00 AM Spuds Message # 5641: 5645. Stumbo - 12/21/1999 2:16:24 AM Spuds: 5646. EricCartman - 12/21/1999 2:19:11 AM Stumbo Message # 5642: 5647. EricCartman - 12/21/1999 2:21:38 AM In case it sounds like I'm overstating the case a bit, check out this website: 5648. Stumbo - 12/21/1999 2:27:56 AM EC: 5649. EricCartman - 12/21/1999 2:37:25 AM Getting to know your polygamist cults -- SLC Tribune reprint of an AP profile on the major clans 5650. EricCartman - 12/21/1999 2:44:54 AM Stumbo Message # 5648: 5651. Cellar Door - 12/21/1999 9:34:15 AM 5652. Ronski - 12/21/1999 10:19:28 AM The Vermont legislature will have to write a law that gives exactly the same rights as heterosexual marriage to homosexual couples. If they write one that falls short of it, as the Times story correctly points out, they will be in violation of the state constitution's common benefits clause, and the law will be challenged and overturned. The anti-gay marriage crowd will favor this, because it will give them time to try to post a ballot initiative amending the Constitution. But Vermont's constitution, a classic-liberal document of great beauty, makes mucking around with it a difficult process at best, and the homophobes may not succeed in getting what they want. 5653. AceofSpades - 12/21/1999 10:21:21 AM 5654. Ronski - 12/21/1999 10:47:48 AM Ace, 5655. Ronski - 12/21/1999 10:51:08 AM (Of course, the Vermont legislature could decide that soiled sheets be provided to the local magistrate 24 hours after the ceremony, but as is the case in Morocco, a chicken could always be sacrificed for that purpose.) 5656. JudithAtHome - 12/21/1999 11:37:44 AM Eric or anyone who can answer my question: 5657. Ronski - 12/21/1999 12:25:43 PM 5658. JudithAtHome - 12/21/1999 12:30:46 PM Thanks...I'm ordering the memory herbs right now.... 5659. Ronski - 12/21/1999 12:37:29 PM 5660. AceofSpades - 12/21/1999 1:53:31 PM 5661. Ronski - 12/21/1999 2:11:42 PM Ace, 5662. AceofSpades - 12/21/1999 2:16:58 PM 5663. Cellar Door - 12/21/1999 2:20:25 PM Why should I have to *fuck* my friend to name him as a domestic partner? Is fucking a man required to reap the benefits of your ideal system? 5664. AceofSpades - 12/21/1999 2:20:33 PM 5665. Cellar Door - 12/21/1999 2:24:08 PM Why should Niner and I have to declare ourselves "lovers" at all? Why do you insist on priviledging a heterosexual friendship over a homosexual one? 5666. Cellar Door - 12/21/1999 2:26:08 PM Let me guess: Two gays living together is "just different" from two straight men living together. 5667. Ronski - 12/21/1999 2:27:41 PM Ace, 5668. AceofSpades - 12/21/1999 2:34:27 PM 5669. Ronski - 12/21/1999 2:38:11 PM Ace, 5670. AceofSpades - 12/21/1999 2:42:32 PM 5671. PelleNilsson - 12/21/1999 2:42:49 PM For the benefit of an ignorant foreigner. What are the benefits to be reaped from a gay marriage or a hypothetical straight marriage? 5672. 109109 - 12/21/1999 2:43:11 PM And therein lies the Achilles Heel of gay marriage. In essence, marriage as defined in the law is expanded based on the political clout of the group who naturally wants certain rights and advantages, and who wants those rights and advantages in the same existing package as afforded the majority. Since friends will never achieve such clout, it is not necessary to take them into consideration (as with bigamists and other potential unions). 5673. Ronski - 12/21/1999 2:43:50 PM 5674. CalGal - 12/21/1999 2:46:23 PM Pelle, 5675. Cellar Door - 12/21/1999 2:46:30 PM All well and good. But it strips the veneer off of "constitutional" (even state) protection and reveals muscle. 5676. Cellar Door - 12/21/1999 2:47:25 PM Is it hot in here or is Niner just flexing his "muscle"? 5677. AceofSpades - 12/21/1999 2:47:29 PM 5678. Cellar Door - 12/21/1999 2:48:39 PM The "penalty" is a Conservabot progpaganda fantasy. 5679. Ronski - 12/21/1999 2:52:08 PM Ace, 5680. AceofSpades - 12/21/1999 2:52:22 PM 5681. Ronski - 12/21/1999 2:54:28 PM 5682. Cellar Door - 12/21/1999 2:54:41 PM No, it's not, Cellar-who-is-frightfully-dim-yet-has-a-glib-and-shallow-response-to-everyFUCKINGthing. 5683. Cellar Door - 12/21/1999 2:56:43 PM But Cellar has redeeming qualities. He is notoriously kind to young men new to the City. At least, that is my guess. 5684. AceofSpades - 12/21/1999 2:57:02 PM 5685. Cellar Door - 12/21/1999 2:57:42 PM Getting a tad desperate, Bobo. 5686. AceofSpades - 12/21/1999 2:58:08 PM 5687. Cellar Door - 12/21/1999 2:59:03 PM Really? You've tried it? 5688. Cellar Door - 12/21/1999 3:00:01 PM Ohmygod -- can Bobo be on the verge of . . .coming out? 5689. AceofSpades - 12/21/1999 3:00:17 PM 5690. bubbaette - 12/21/1999 3:03:34 PM There is a marriage tax penalty. DH and my tax bill went up considerably when we married. That's because the tax law anticipates the type of marriage where there is one breadwinner and one homemaker. In that type of situation, the standard deducation is larger for the single earner in a "traditional" family, but smaller for each partner in a typical marriage with both partners working full time. 5691. Cellar Door - 12/21/1999 3:03:57 PM Predictable? Maybe. Trite? Not at all. 5692. AceofSpades - 12/21/1999 3:05:45 PM 5693. Cellar Door - 12/21/1999 3:06:47 PM That's because the tax law anticipates the type of marriage where there is one breadwinner and one homemaker. In that type of situation, the standard deducation is larger for the single earner in a "traditional" family, but smaller for each partner in a typical marriage with both partners working full time. 5694. Raskolnikov - 12/21/1999 3:07:20 PM whether or not marriage is penalty or a bonus depends on the employment of the couple. If one is unemployed, stays home to watch the kids, suffers from a disability, or doesn't have a job which pays well, marriage will *help* the tax burden. Its when the couple makes approximately the same amount of money, or when the couples combined income knocks them into a higher tax bracket, that there is a marriage penalty. 5695. Raskolnikov - 12/21/1999 3:11:16 PM Marriage also makes a lot of property, inheritance, estate, medical, and insurance issues a hell of a lot easier. I am automatically my wife's next of kin for all of those issues, and she is mine. While I imagine these rights can be legally granted to domestic partners via living wills and beneficiary statements, I would bet they are a lot easier to contest, and may not be legally recognized in all circumstances. 5696. CalGal - 12/21/1999 3:11:25 PM Add to Rask's list the fairly common situation where one person makes considerably more than the other. 5697. Ronski - 12/21/1999 3:15:56 PM 5698. EricCartman - 12/21/1999 4:03:51 PM Judith Message # 5656: 5699. CalGal - 12/21/1999 4:07:13 PM Eric, 5700. EricCartman - 12/21/1999 4:21:41 PM Cal: 5701. Raskolnikov - 12/21/1999 4:24:32 PM For one thing, it is tough to file separately under certain circumstances, and filing separately does not allow you to use the "single" tax table. 5702. CalGal - 12/21/1999 4:28:16 PM Cart, 5703. CalGal - 12/21/1999 4:29:21 PM Cart, 5704. Ronski - 12/21/1999 4:31:53 PM And, in another state court ruling in New England yesterday, the Connecticut justices said that the legislature could not prohibit banks from charging non-customers ATM fees. 5705. JudithAtHome - 12/22/1999 11:47:30 AM Did anyone hear about the idiot restauranteur in Dallas who "sold" a $35,000 bottle of wine to a regular customer (someone he knew, in other words). The customer ordered the bottle as a special treat for his party over the weekend and when it was opened, he tasted it and sent it back, refusing to pay because it had gone bad. 5706. Ronski - 12/22/1999 11:50:24 AM 5707. JudithAtHome - 12/22/1999 11:57:10 AM Okay, the guy who owns the place....I guess I've never actually written the word and you might know I'd goof it. I should've looked it up. 5708. AceofSpades - 12/22/1999 11:58:07 AM 5709. JudithAtHome - 12/22/1999 12:02:12 PM Yes indeedy, Ace...but thanks for admitting you didn't know either!:-) 5710. arkymalarky - 12/22/1999 12:13:19 PM "...but thanks for admitting you didn't know either!:-)" 5711. rasheed - 12/22/1999 12:33:04 PM The "marriage penalty" is real. Married people with incomes should be allowed to file as individuals; married people who support their spouses should be able to claim them as dependents. If this scheme were enacted tomorrow, the Treasury would take a big hit -- so the rates might have to be raised. In all, I think this scenario would be alot fairer. 5712. Cellar Door - 12/22/1999 12:38:57 PM Why are you playing the "vitim card"? 5713. Dantheman - 12/22/1999 12:45:44 PM rasheed, 5714. rasheed - 12/22/1999 2:56:37 PM Dantheman: "People who support their spouses are able to take them as dependents." 5715. rasheed - 12/22/1999 3:02:22 PM I don't remember the specifics, but on a TV newsmagazine show a while back, a reporter calculated the benefits of both spouses in a lower-to-middle middle class family working. The couple thought they both had to work to make ends meet. But after taxes, day care, transportation (to and from the wife's job), and the other miscellaneous expenses that come with having a full-time job, they weren't really coming out that far ahead. By the time the reporter tallied the figures, the wife was practically in tears at this realization. 5716. CalGal - 12/22/1999 3:11:01 PM But after taxes, day care, transportation (to and from the wife's job), and the other miscellaneous expenses that come with having a full-time job, they weren't really coming out that far ahead. 5717. Raskolnikov - 12/22/1999 3:30:38 PM Also, the stay-at-home spouse may go slowly insane from boredom, and if you think day care is pricey, check out a sanitarium. 5718. rasheed - 12/22/1999 3:35:49 PM All true -- but it was a powerful moment of television. The first counter-argument I thought of was, what is she just WANTS to work? Whether it's for future "financial viability" or to stave off insanity or just because she enjoys it. I realized immediately that this program could be seized upon by the "woman's place is in the home" crowd -- and that would go against everything I believe about equality. However -- as I said -- this is a little off-topic. The TV show I saw wasn't a "current event". 5719. CalGal - 12/22/1999 3:41:26 PM Actually, I think it was pretty shitty of the TV show to do that to a lower-income woman, who isn't likely to think all this out on her own. On the other hand, neither is the TV show likely to think this all out on their own. 5720. janjon - 12/22/1999 4:32:22 PM Right on. I grew up in a home where my mother was home but it would have been a lot better - a lot - for both me and my sister and our mother, had she not. Grass is greener syndrome in terms of all the excitement etc. she was sure her working friends were having (which in turn created more than a bit of frustration directed towards us. Those happy Betty Crocker cookie making scenes weren't.) 5721. EricCartman - 12/22/1999 4:56:30 PM Sorry to interrupt, but: 5722. Cellar Door - 12/22/1999 4:58:20 PM Cellar Door, whats a "vitim"? 5723. marshame - 12/22/1999 5:03:16 PM How can we talk about the marriage tax penalty without taking the notion of alimony or spousal support into account? It seems that the only way to fairly talk about marriage is to also talk about the dissolution of marriage. And alimony is deductible, where child support is not. Odd, no? 5724. CalGal - 12/22/1999 5:26:38 PM Alimony is deductible because it is income to the ex-spouse. 5725. marshame - 12/22/1999 5:33:06 PM CG I have filed in every single category at one time or another. Unmarried Head of Household was a life-saver to me back in to olden days when Jenerator was a little whipper snapper. But the very best category I ever claimed was Married Filing Separately, when I was separated from No. 2 but the divorce wasn't final yet. Regardless of the additional tax, it was worth it to not have the liability of his tax cheating. The day we passed the statute of limitations on audits for the last year we filed jointly was the day I heaved a huge sigh of relief! Now, I only have one more year to live down *his* bankruptcy (filed after our divorce was final, but that doesn't matter to some creditors). Oh yeah, gays should have it so good. 5726. CalGal - 12/22/1999 5:38:53 PM Well, yes. They should. Give them the pain and the glory. 5727. marshame - 12/22/1999 5:43:42 PM My best friend has a good friend who is lesbian, and she "married" a young woman. About a year later, they split up, but no divorce, just - poof, the young one moved out and now the old one wants to "marry" another one. Legitimizing "gay marriages" will certainly put a wrinkle in this practice of just playing married. As the old adage goes, marry in haste repent/divorce for a real long time. 5728. Cellar Door - 12/22/1999 5:51:08 PM And it'll make Niner a bundle if he goes into divorce law -- as I hope he will. 5729. CalGal - 12/22/1999 6:01:35 PM I think it's quite possible that gay divorce rates would be substantially higher than straight ones at first. Keep in mind that we would be giving social approval to relationships that haven't received any formal acknowledgement at all throughout Western history (at least to the best of my knowledge). 5730. Cellar Door - 12/22/1999 6:10:34 PM Quite true, CG. That's why the whole prospect of Gay marriage (or whatever it is they'll call it to make it legal and official) is so fascinating. A specified format denotes presence in a way that hasn't existed heretofore. Few same-sex relationships that i know began with a "Cats"-like ("Now and Forever") intent. We made it up as we went along. Vermont moves us toward the dreaded spectre of "commitment." 5731. CalGal - 12/22/1999 6:14:06 PM Whereas the joke about lesbians and second dates suggests that they aren't any different from straight women. And in both cases, times two. 5732. joezan - 12/22/1999 7:35:22 PM 5733. TrialShark - 12/23/1999 12:43:10 AM 5734. ScottLoar - 12/23/1999 12:49:54 AM Clever. I'll repeat it. 5735. Candide - 12/23/1999 1:28:54 AM I haven't read very far back so you may already have discussed this. 5736. Dantheman - 12/23/1999 8:33:38 AM A Funeral Banquet Fit for King Midas 5737. JudithAtHome - 12/23/1999 10:54:35 AM Candide: 5738. Cellar Door - 12/23/1999 11:38:59 AM Very true, Judith. But wills should be composed with care lest a greedy blood relative armed with unscrupulous lawyer more in and break it. 5739. Cellar Door - 12/23/1999 11:40:37 AM that's: move in and break it. 5740. Ronski - 12/23/1999 11:49:09 AM And to think it was my humble self who first alerted Elliot to the strong possibility of the Vermont court ruling the way it did, and now he never shows up any more to contest my views on the ill effects of creeping socialism. Sigh. 5741. JudithAtHome - 12/23/1999 11:59:00 AM Can someone tell me if it's true you can write up a basic will and have it notarized and it will be legal? Without having a lawyers involvement, I mean. 5742. Dantheman - 12/23/1999 12:09:02 PM Judith, 5743. ScottLoar - 12/23/1999 12:39:26 PM Dantheman; 5744. JudithAtHome - 12/23/1999 1:06:56 PM Well, guys, I don't have to be told twice. Definitely on the list for the New Year: contact an attorney for our will. 5745. CalGal - 12/23/1999 1:30:01 PM Oh, I should definitely handwrite a will, then. Since it will be a million years until I get to a lawyer--by which point I'm thinking I'll be dead. 5746. Dantheman - 12/23/1999 1:39:20 PM CalGal, 5747. CalGal - 12/23/1999 1:53:16 PM Do you know, I never knew a lawyer before I went online? I got divorced, so I must have actually met one before. But I don't even remember his name and I only saw him once or twice. 5748. Ronski - 12/23/1999 1:54:24 PM 5749. CalGal - 12/23/1999 2:02:16 PM Ha. You laugh. But seriously, when people IRL ask me what on earth is different about the Internet, I tell them, "Well, I know a lot more lawyers than I used to." 5750. OhioSTOPAS - 12/24/1999 4:42:20 AM Cal and Judith: My two cents on wills is that a bad will is better then no will. Get a do-it-yourself will book (is there an "Estate Planning for Dummies"?) and get the basics taken care of (designate an executor, direct disposition of assets). You can revoke the do-it-yourself will later when you consult an attorney and execute a better one, but you shouldn't be without any will at all. 5751. OhioSTOPAS - 12/24/1999 4:43:11 AM A bad will is better THAN no will. Sheesh. 5752. ScottLoar - 12/24/1999 11:53:37 AM Recalling an argument earlier posted in this thread - 5753. greystoke - 12/24/1999 8:20:50 PM Should you talk to the pigs or the media? 5755. concerned - 12/26/1999 3:39:57 AM Is this wishful thinking from Helen Thomas, or proof that supporting the WH Rapist lowers your IQ? 5756. CalGal - 12/26/1999 4:18:32 AM Is post #5755 proof that concerned is obsessed and delusional, or proof that he's just had a bit too much Christmas cheer? 5757. concerned - 12/26/1999 4:27:45 AM Gee, thanks for the Holiday insult, CalGal. Guessed you missed the date in my post: Jan 20, 2000. Or, don't tell me, is it that I'm not supposed to criticize Clowntoon in this forum? 5758. concerned - 12/26/1999 4:43:10 AM Here's where if I say anything whatsoever that reflects negatively in any way on CG, that is considered grounds for shunning me as a horrible, detestable person, but any swipe is considered fair play against me. 5759. concerned - 12/26/1999 5:16:13 AM Is this wishful thinking from Helen Thomas, or proof 5760. concerned - 12/26/1999 5:51:18 AM Nascent American Fascism paid for with taxpayer dollars: 5761. concerned - 12/26/1999 5:53:03 AM " And, there is the nub of the issue. Do we, as a nation, uphold the U.S. Constitution and the inspired notions of the Declaration of Independence, that all of us are created equal, and are 5762. concerned - 12/26/1999 5:53:51 AM "That was written before the impeachment, and before the Senate of the United States of America agreed with Barney Frank that President Clinton was in a different class where lying before a grand 5763. concerned - 12/26/1999 5:54:52 AM "A case in point is the legal morass Linda Tripp is now in. As Jay Ambrose of Scripps-Howard News said a few days ago: 5764. concerned - 12/26/1999 5:55:45 AM "For starters, the law she is accused of breaking - taping private conversations without the other party's knowledge - does not even exist in 39 states. That's a clue, it would seem, that there 5765. concerned - 12/26/1999 5:57:16 AM "So, where exactly are all the rest of those of the American media who were so quick to defend Bill Clinton against prosecution and conviction on such inconsequential a charge as perjury? Perjury 5766. msgreer - 12/26/1999 10:00:56 AM Time magazine names Albert Einstein as Person of the Century. 5767. Cellar Door - 12/26/1999 10:04:25 AM A safe choice. 5768. Greystoke - 12/26/1999 11:01:07 AM concerned 5769. JudithAtHome - 12/26/1999 11:12:58 AM Linda Tripp made her bed and now she can LIE in it. 5770. joezan - 12/26/1999 11:18:42 AM 5771. Greystoke - 12/26/1999 11:52:22 AM Joe 5772. Greystoke - 12/26/1999 12:06:07 PM Volunteer to get drunk with a Pittsburgh area police department in February. 5773. JJBiener - 12/26/1999 1:57:41 PM Grey - In this case, I applaud vengeful politics. . . Ruin the bitch. 5774. Greystoke - 12/26/1999 2:10:52 PM JJ 5775. TrialShark - 12/26/1999 2:11:12 PM 5776. JJBiener - 12/26/1999 2:16:09 PM Grey - He left a lump of coal and a Bush bumper sticker in my stocking. 5777. JJBiener - 12/26/1999 2:17:24 PM TS - Or for those who display some compassion themselves 5778. TrialShark - 12/26/1999 2:19:43 PM 5779. TrialShark - 12/26/1999 2:24:47 PM 5780. JJBiener - 12/26/1999 2:27:37 PM TS - Ditto 5781. TrialShark - 12/26/1999 2:36:06 PM 5782. JJBiener - 12/26/1999 3:11:57 PM TS - You make yourself laugh? 5783. TrialShark - 12/26/1999 4:20:17 PM 5784. JudithAtHome - 12/26/1999 4:27:33 PM JJ: 5785. CalGal - 12/26/1999 6:04:19 PM Oh, I could happily exist in a world where Tripp got punished more than Clinton. But then, that's the world we're living in now. Tripp has already suffered more than Bill. 5786. JudithAtHome - 12/26/1999 6:09:53 PM I wonder what he ex looks like...her son is pretty cute; must look like his dad. 5787. Candide - 12/26/1999 10:59:56 PM A foreigners impression of recent events. 5788. Candide - 12/26/1999 11:01:15 PM "If he had insisted in his original denial, Clinton would have been tried in any case because that was the issue, but it is much more worthy to perjure one’s self defending one’s internal being, than it is to be absolved by going against love. Tragically, with the same determination with which he had denied his guilt, he later admitted it and continued to admit it on every form of media, up to the point of humiliation. 5789. Candide - 12/26/1999 11:01:40 PM "The enemies of Clinton, not having found the reasons they wanted in order to put him on trial, have hounded him with insidious interrogations until they have caught him in minor traps. Then they obliged him to accuse himself in public and repent, even about things that he had not done, in person on a universal information technology that is no other than the third millenium’s tambourine that persecuted Hester Prynne. 5790. Candide - 12/26/1999 11:04:24 PM Just checking on toys 5791. CalGal - 12/26/1999 11:08:23 PM God, that's pretty nauseating. What moronic little shit would delude himself into the notion that Clinton was "defending" his marriage to Hillary with (gag) "Homeric dignity"? 5792. joezan - 12/26/1999 11:46:39 PM 5793. TrialShark - 12/26/1999 11:50:38 PM 5794. Candide - 12/27/1999 12:23:52 AM Interesting! 5795. Candide - 12/27/1999 12:33:07 AM CalGal#5791 5796. Candide - 12/27/1999 12:39:46 AM was very interestED to see.... Gawd. 5797. CalGal - 12/27/1999 12:46:23 AM He meant, that Clinton defended the privacy of his personal understanding with Hillary. 5798. Candide - 12/27/1999 12:46:44 AM You see, what interests me now about the Clinton case is the degree of hatred I perceive in other forums besides this one. I am trying to understand what, leaving aside sexual prudery, motivates the broad spectrum of people who express this hatred. 5799. Candide - 12/27/1999 12:48:40 AM CalGal 5800. CalGal - 12/27/1999 12:50:07 AM I don't hate Clinton at all. I'm a big fan. I just don't see any value in delusions--particularly those stated in public. 5801. CalGal - 12/27/1999 12:52:17 AM No, I wasn't thinking of his "macho" qualities. 5802. Candide - 12/27/1999 12:58:33 AM CalGal, it's so nice to hear someone be brave enough to say something good about Clinton. I certainly didn't enjoy witnessing the humiliation of Hillary. 5803. CalGal - 12/27/1999 1:12:20 AM CalGal, it's so nice to hear someone be brave enough to say something good about Clinton. 5804. CalGal - 12/27/1999 1:13:11 AM And I'm being a lazy poster--repeated the word "dubbed". I'm so ashamed! 5805. Candide - 12/27/1999 1:24:55 AM CalGal 5806. Candide - 12/27/1999 1:41:46 AM Greystoke 5807. concerned - 12/27/1999 1:53:12 AM Re 5787 - 5808. Candide - 12/27/1999 1:55:24 AM I recommend that Moties look up the essay by Christopher Hitchens entitled "Our Rigged Elections" in The Nation Nov. 15 1999. It's still available in the side panel of the current home page. 5809. Candide - 12/27/1999 1:57:12 AM Concerned. 5810. EricCartman - 12/27/1999 1:58:27 AM It's not the issue of "sexual prudery" as much as Clinton's unctuous way of dealing with issues of truth and honesty. 5811. EricCartman - 12/27/1999 1:58:52 AM Toni Morrison...has summarised it with a clever brush stroke: "They have treated him like a black president". 5812. EricCartman - 12/27/1999 2:04:51 AM Excellent Hitchens essay. He's right. 5813. concerned - 12/27/1999 2:15:06 AM Re. 5802 - 5814. EricCartman - 12/27/1999 2:19:24 AM Concerned: 5815. Candide - 12/27/1999 2:19:50 AM Marquez saw it as the clinical public deconstruction of the man that used to be Clinton. Marquez was bitterly opposed to the military bombardments. So was I. So AM I. 5816. concerned - 12/27/1999 2:22:16 AM Re. 5768 - 5817. Candide - 12/27/1999 2:32:15 AM EricCartman 5818. concerned - 12/27/1999 2:38:07 AM Re. 5817 - 5819. CalGal - 12/27/1999 2:41:02 AM The rest of us, not fortunate enough to have a democratic voice in your country, feel somewhat interested in our own survival and would like you folks to get on with it and leave the president's private zone alone. 5820. Candide - 12/27/1999 2:42:23 AM Concerned 5821. CalGal - 12/27/1999 2:42:24 AM You should not support such vicious small-mindedness. It should be opposed. 5822. concerned - 12/27/1999 2:54:11 AM On a different note, while I don't necessarily agree with the choice, Time's choosing Albert Einstein as 'Man of the Century', has the merit of being 'safe', avoiding possible political and religious overtones. 5823. TrialShark - 12/27/1999 2:56:26 AM 5824. TrialShark - 12/27/1999 2:57:19 AM 5825. EricCartman - 12/27/1999 3:03:38 AM Candide Message # 5815: 5826. EricCartman - 12/27/1999 3:04:29 AM Message # 5817: 5827. Candide - 12/27/1999 3:04:54 AM CalGal 5828. concerned - 12/27/1999 3:04:56 AM Whatever, Trialiar. You sound a bit jealous. 5829. Candide - 12/27/1999 3:09:21 AM EricCartman 5830. TrialShark - 12/27/1999 3:10:23 AM 5831. EricCartman - 12/27/1999 3:23:16 AM Candide Message # 5829: 5832. Cellar Door - 12/27/1999 4:05:11 PM 5833. JudithAtHome - 12/27/1999 4:39:06 PM Cellar: 5834. EricCartman - 12/27/1999 5:33:24 PM From the AP article: 5835. wonkers2 - 12/27/1999 5:49:33 PM Candide, Garcia Marquez's analysis is no doubt accepted in most of the rest of the world and by many Americans, including myself. The public interest was ill served by the near-destruction of Clinton, Gingrich and Robert Livingston over what should remain private matters as was formerly the case. It's unseemly to treat our politicians in a tabloid fashion as if they were Hollywood figures. Linda Tripp is a despicable excuse for a human being who deserves everything she's getting and more. 5836. Candide - 12/27/1999 9:43:03 PM wonkers2 #5835 5837. JJBiener - 12/27/1999 9:58:08 PM Wonkers - Linda Tripp is a despicable excuse for a human being who deserves everything she's getting and more. 5838. Cellar Door - 12/27/1999 9:59:10 PM What was the message? 5839. Candide - 12/27/1999 10:04:48 PM The message was "Grow up". 5840. JJBiener - 12/27/1999 10:05:16 PM Cellar - The message was "Clinton is a liar and a sleeze." Tripp is reviled because she dared to say the Emperor had no clothes and could prove it. 5841. CalGal - 12/27/1999 10:06:50 PM No, Tripp is reviled because she fucked over a friend. 5842. Candide - 12/27/1999 10:09:38 PM My 'grow up' was directed at those who concentrate on salacious crap while the world is in pain. I don't think Cellar Door was arguing with me. 5843. JJBiener - 12/27/1999 10:09:46 PM CalGal - Enough of the "shoulds". Really, you might as well be a liberal. 5844. CalGal - 12/27/1999 10:11:41 PM No, liberals are far worse about "shoulds" than conservatives. Although both groups have a track record they can be proud of. 5845. Candide - 12/27/1999 10:12:09 PM And allow me to chortle a little over the fact that Tripp declared that she was unable to stand people who were 'common'. 5846. CalGal - 12/27/1999 10:12:51 PM My 'grow up' was directed at those who concentrate on salacious crap while the world is in pain. 5847. CalGal - 12/27/1999 10:13:44 PM Fortunately, Tripp isn't as common as all that, the disgusting worm. 5848. Candide - 12/27/1999 10:14:23 PM A thunderstorm is achieving what little else can. I am about to shut up. 5849. JJBiener - 12/27/1999 10:14:51 PM CalGal - Tripp is reviled because she fucked over a friend. 5850. CalGal - 12/27/1999 10:17:40 PM No, I don't, JJ. She is loathed, and the main reason she is loathed is for the reason I said. There is something calculating and disgusting about what she did. 5851. JJBiener - 12/27/1999 10:25:59 PM CalGal - She is loathed, and the main reason she is loathed is for the reason I said. There is something calculating and disgusting about what she did. 5852. CalGal - 12/27/1999 10:31:05 PM If that is what you want to believe, I won't try to change your mind. 5853. JJBiener - 12/27/1999 11:16:49 PM CalGal - You apparently haven't seen her polls. 5854. CalGal - 12/27/1999 11:33:44 PM All they show is how easily the public can be led when they are only presented with one side. 5855. CalGal - 12/27/1999 11:34:57 PM Without the benefit of hindsight, would you really walk out on your friend, your job, and your career on the basis of a rumor? 5856. concerned - 12/28/1999 12:17:36 AM Re. 5835, 6 - 5857. concerned - 12/28/1999 12:20:18 AM 5841 - 5858. CalGal - 12/28/1999 12:21:53 AM Yes, "optimist" is the first word that leaps to mind when I think of you, Concerned. Right after "obsessed" and "rabid". 5859. concerned - 12/28/1999 12:26:04 AM Oh, so *now* the WH Rapist didn't do anything to 'fuck over' Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Englishwoman whom he raped, the female Secret Service agents who he harassed, ? Is that the latest Lefty line? 5860. concerned - 12/28/1999 12:27:00 AM CalGal - 5861. CalGal - 12/28/1999 12:31:12 AM Concerned, 5862. ChristiPeters - 12/28/1999 12:38:42 AM I have never understood how one person's reprehensible behavior is somehow mitigated by another person's reprehensible behavior. 5863. Cellar Door - 12/28/1999 12:48:25 AM Christi -- Such a reasonable attitude will get you nowhere with the likes of concerned. You must DEMAND Clinton be executed in public. 5864. concerned - 12/28/1999 12:50:45 AM Re. 5861 - 5865. ChristiPeters - 12/28/1999 12:54:02 AM Celler - 5866. ChristiPeters - 12/28/1999 12:59:19 AM I enjoy reading a lot of threads that I don't contribute to. Many times I vehemently disagree with either what is presented as fact or the interpretation of facts which I read. Cool! that's what makes it interesting! However, I hate it when the only reaction I have is "huh? what the hell has that to do with any point?" 5867. concerned - 12/28/1999 1:03:51 AM Didn't I say that what Tripp did wasn't admirable? Of course I did. What I'm also saying was that what she did was absolutely not grounds for the governmental vendetta being launched against her, by supposedly responsible publiv officials. That behavior by the WH and Democratic minions in Maryland is unacceptable and far more reprehensible than anything Tripp could be accused of becauses it perverts the American Legal system and diminishes the stature of American justice, truth and freedom. 5868. CalGal - 12/28/1999 1:06:03 AM Concerned, 5869. EricCartman - 12/28/1999 1:14:14 AM Cal: 5870. TrialShark - 12/28/1999 1:17:53 AM 5871. TrialShark - 12/28/1999 1:19:09 AM 5872. CalGal - 12/28/1999 1:23:48 AM TS, 5873. TrialShark - 12/28/1999 1:36:00 AM 5874. CalGal - 12/28/1999 1:44:20 AM No, no. Wrong answer. 5875. TrialShark - 12/28/1999 1:45:27 AM 5876. CalGal - 12/28/1999 1:50:01 AM Yeah, but you could have typed it, dammit. 5877. TrialShark - 12/28/1999 1:52:02 AM 5878. bubbaette - 12/28/1999 9:16:33 AM I am deeply concerned about Concerned. What with Bill Clinton going out of office next year about this time, how will Concerned deal with his pent-up hostility? The cold war is over, so it's not like he can readily transfer it to the Communists. Who will the haters hate after Clinton's gone? 5879. Ronski - 12/28/1999 9:29:00 AM 5880. ChristiPeters - 12/28/1999 9:30:56 AM bubbaette - 5881. bubbaette - 12/28/1999 9:51:50 AM Ronski 5882. bubbaette - 12/28/1999 9:52:56 AM Oh! And don't forget about gypsy hexes and curses, which can be a useful target for anything else that's been going wrong in one's life. 5883. JudithAtHome - 12/28/1999 10:35:28 AM I couldn't believe my eyes last night on the news at all the destruction in Europe. The spires on Notre Dame cathedral were bent and hundreds of trees throughout Paris were uprooted. That storm must have been brutal...Paris looked like a war zone. 5884. Cellar Door - 12/28/1999 2:28:54 PM 5885. JudithAtHome - 12/28/1999 2:45:03 PM Thanks, Cellar...of course, nothing like this made my local paper; they are too busy describing Jennifer Lopezs harrowing night of being arrested with PuffDaddy. 5886. msgreer - 12/28/1999 3:04:53 PM It seems to be people will continue to hate Clinton after he leaves office. But look at the bright side now they have Hillary R. CLINTON to hate. A simple tranferance of Clinton hate if Bill is not enough. The haters will go on for ever. 5887. wonkers2 - 12/28/1999 5:33:28 PM JJBiener, #5837 "Kill the messenger." No, exterminate the rat." 5888. greystoke - 12/28/1999 6:04:31 PM Clinton wants to crack down on Internet sales of prescription drugs. 5889. JudithAtHome - 12/28/1999 6:07:22 PM wonkers: 5890. JudithAtHome - 12/28/1999 6:07:52 PM ...and surely you jest, too! 5891. JudithAtHome - 12/28/1999 6:14:39 PM Gulianni on the news just now: "there are no guarantees in life"; c'mon, let's party in Times Square and hope the terrorists have another party to go to... 5892. greystoke - 12/28/1999 6:35:44 PM Monica now working for Jenny Craig to hawk the new "sausage and semen" diet. 5893. TrialShark - 12/28/1999 6:38:04 PM 5894. CalGal - 12/28/1999 6:38:34 PM Hahahaha. 5895. Stumbo - 12/28/1999 6:48:57 PM To the ones in Politics, perhaps. (That's where the Mother Jones link belongs, too, for that matter.) 5896. CalGal - 12/28/1999 6:49:35 PM Okay, I'll mention that to Niner and Arky. 5897. arkymalarky - 12/28/1999 7:10:09 PM I tried to put the links in Politics and got an error message. 5898. CalGal - 12/28/1999 7:11:15 PM What error message? (post in Technical, in case it's something Alistair needs to check out) 5899. greystoke - 12/28/1999 8:16:20 PM CalGal 5900. Stumbo - 12/28/1999 9:00:18 PM Grey: 5901. CalGal - 12/28/1999 11:03:15 PM I'm not sure there's any harm in having them in both places, is there? 5902. Stumbo - 12/28/1999 11:26:31 PM Not the end of the world, no. But then, at least, there should be separate categories. It just seems odd to stick partisan publications (of any stripe) along with ostensibly-unbiased news sources. 5903. ChristiPeters - 12/28/1999 11:27:59 PM IMNSHO, there is no such thing as an unbiased news source. 5904. Stumbo - 12/28/1999 11:47:21 PM Note the adverb, CP. 5905. ChristiPeters - 12/28/1999 11:53:46 PM noted, simply adding my $0.02 5906. Greystoke - 12/29/1999 12:01:04 AM Stumbo 5907. CalGal - 12/29/1999 12:07:34 AM BTW, Grey, I missed you. Good to see you back. 5908. Stumbo - 12/29/1999 12:10:40 AM Grey: they are. Thanks. 5909. Greystoke - 12/29/1999 12:12:29 AM CalGal 5910. Greystoke - 12/29/1999 12:19:25 AM This thread redecorating has worn me out. I'm off to bed. Goodnight all. 5911. Candide - 12/29/1999 12:22:21 AM ChristiPeters #5903 5912. ChristiPeters - 12/29/1999 7:36:10 AM Candide - yep. I always use multiple information sources, then use my best judgement, always being aware that I don't really know what happened unless I saw it myself and also aware that even what I see myself is being filtered by my own personal biases and viewpoints. 5913. KuligintheHooligan - 12/29/1999 8:29:18 AM Then I thought to myself, "Why not post in every thread?" 5914. TrialShark - 12/29/1999 4:26:27 PM 5915. CalGal - 12/29/1999 4:30:20 PM I never know what to make of that stuff. For younger kids, especially, I can't help but think you could design a great game that wouldn't kill people. 5916. JudithAtHome - 12/29/1999 4:40:44 PM Okay, the old fogey report: 5917. EricCartman - 12/29/1999 4:41:32 PM The final spreads of the season are up and ready in the Pool! Get your picks in before the holiday weekend! 5918. EricCartman - 12/29/1999 4:44:24 PM Judith: 5919. JudithAtHome - 12/29/1999 4:54:50 PM His father left when he was about 3; working mom who seems to be very involved with the 2 boys extracircular sports, clubs, etc. These 2 go to private schools and aren't being ignored. My husband and another male friend take them places, and pay attention to them when we're all together for holidays, etc. 5920. JudithAtHome - 12/29/1999 4:56:18 PM NOT extra "circular", tho they do run in circles quite a bit.:-) 5921. CalGal - 12/29/1999 5:09:36 PM It is not uncommon for second children to have attachment problems. Their mothers will quite often not enjoy them as much as their first child and unconsciously treat them differently. Second kids are often likely to have problems sleeping when they're young, which is a sign that they are having trouble soothing themselves. Which indicates some sort of attachment problem. 5922. EricCartman - 12/29/1999 5:10:24 PM Ha! "Extracircular", yes. I was going to ask if that meant tetherball or something like that. 5923. TrialShark - 12/29/1999 5:18:33 PM 5924. JudithAtHome - 12/29/1999 5:20:13 PM I think he already does that, Eric. He is very large for his age and a bully. Last year, I walked into the kitchen at out friends house and saw him trying to switch presents with another kids which was laying there opened. I asked him what he was doing and he slouched off, looking back to glare at me. 5925. CalGal - 12/29/1999 5:26:08 PM I get a bit protective of Kinkel's dad. The man didn't shrug off the situation. He was very aware that his son was deeply disturbed and did his best to figure out ways to help him. The kid was obsessed with guns, and he had apparently been advised that one way to alleviate the obsession was to give the kid a gun and allow him to use it in controlled circumstances. 5926. CalGal - 12/29/1999 5:27:27 PM This one never wants to be touched and isn't affectionate at all. He is definitely not attached... 5927. JudithAtHome - 12/29/1999 5:43:05 PM CalGal: 5928. CalGal - 12/29/1999 5:45:19 PM Judith, 5929. JudithAtHome - 12/29/1999 5:53:51 PM Well, I feel it's only a matter of time before the kid does something really obvious...I've talked about it with one of our guy friends, who has more interaction with the boys and he thinks I'm overreacting. We'll see, I guess. 5930. TrialShark - 12/29/1999 5:58:35 PM 5931. JudithAtHome - 12/29/1999 6:02:06 PM CalGal: 5932. CalGal - 12/29/1999 6:02:38 PM No, I'm not arguing he did the right thing. I'm only saying that he didn't make the decision lightly. He didn't just go out and get his already screwy kid a gun; he was advised to do it after all other efforts to dissuade the kid from the fixation didn't work. It was lousy advice. But it's also pretty clear that Kinkel is deeply fucked up and I don't think it can be argued that his actions are sourced in his father's decision. 5933. TrialShark - 12/29/1999 6:09:26 PM 5934. CalGal - 12/29/1999 6:10:22 PM Judith, 5935. CalGal - 12/29/1999 6:14:31 PM TS, 5936. TrialShark - 12/29/1999 6:40:29 PM 5937. PincherMartin - 12/30/1999 12:13:58 AM I don't know if a discussion of Time's magazine's Persons of the Century for the last millenia belongs here, but I don't know where else to put it. 5938. PincherMartin - 12/30/1999 12:14:20 AM 16th century: 5939. PincherMartin - 12/30/1999 12:18:01 AM My first impressions: 5940. Candide - 12/30/1999 1:51:43 AM Beethoven yes, but where's Mozart? I see they're taking the 'humanist' approach but the seeds of humanism in music were in Mozart. Beethoven developed it. 5941. PelleNilsson - 12/30/1999 2:57:17 AM Like all such lists it is highly debatable. I don't think Galileo belongs there and definitely not Columbus, nor Edison. 5942. PincherMartin - 12/30/1999 12:13:04 PM Pelle 5943. marjoribanks - 12/30/1999 12:18:31 PM "Giotto: the first artist to paint man as man. " 5944. CalGal - 12/30/1999 12:21:25 PM No, I'm with Candide. Hell, I'd put any number of composers before Beethoven. With the exception of his symphonies, his work is rather dull. 5945. PincherMartin - 12/30/1999 12:30:35 PM Marjori -- 5946. JudithAtHome - 12/30/1999 12:37:46 PM Pincher: 5947. CalGal - 12/30/1999 12:39:49 PM Pincher, 5948. Cellar Door - 12/30/1999 12:40:37 PM Very funny, Judith. 5949. PincherMartin - 12/30/1999 12:44:43 PM Hahaha! 5950. ChristiPeters - 12/30/1999 1:06:39 PM Has anyone here an opinion on the couple who left their 10-yr-old disabled son at a hospital saying they couldn't cope with him anymore? 5951. ChristiPeters - 12/30/1999 1:10:48 PM More on the case 5952. PincherMartin - 12/30/1999 1:14:06 PM Yeah, my opinion is that it's pretty fucked up. 5953. JudithAtHome - 12/30/1999 1:18:41 PM These people are lower than dirt. 5954. Cellar Door - 12/30/1999 1:24:00 PM Watch for wall-to-wall meat puppet blather about this couple and their unfortunate child. 5955. JudithAtHome - 12/30/1999 1:26:42 PM Perfect story for the end of the century...or at least, the decade. 5956. CalGal - 12/30/1999 1:26:48 PM They had a chance when he was born to let him die. They probably should have taken it. 5957. Cellar Door - 12/30/1999 1:28:54 PM Hee the psychological cost, rather than the medical cost, would appear to be at issue. These folks are financially well-off. They apparently "snapped," for reasons that will shortly be explained to death. 5958. Cellar Door - 12/30/1999 1:29:17 PM Hee=Here 5959. ScottLoar - 12/30/1999 1:30:48 PM The father, Richard Kelso, is CEO "of a successful $500 million-a-year chemical company", who will remain in place just a long as an emergency meeting of the Board of Directors is called, then will he be dumped. So will the wheels of justice grind exceedingly fine. Oh yes, he'll feel it. 5960. SnowOwl - 12/30/1999 1:34:40 PM While I don't in any way condone what these parents have done, I do understand at least some of the stresses families faced with the constant care of a disabled family member are subject to. One of our daughters has a serious mental illness. She is one of the unfortunate 5961. JudithAtHome - 12/30/1999 1:37:11 PM Yes, they snapped when they had to handle the kid themselves for a few days but have little sympathy for the nurses and others who cared for the kid the rest of the time... 5962. CalGal - 12/30/1999 1:42:58 PM Snow, 5963. TrialShark - 12/30/1999 2:37:24 PM 5964. CalGal - 12/30/1999 2:38:35 PM Yeah, I heard that. 5965. ScottLoar - 12/30/1999 3:21:31 PM You would not be willing to judge them until you knew more? What do you need to know? That life is sometimes unfair? That burdens are placed upon us seemingly without cause? You yourself have experience of a similar situation, and yet you want to know more? 5966. ScottLoar - 12/30/1999 3:24:28 PM They deserve what's coming. Loss of income, loss of sympathy and respect, interminable court dates and meetings with counselors and attorneys, a court record and perhaps conviction. 5967. Ronski - 12/30/1999 3:29:32 PM 5968. 109109 - 12/30/1999 3:31:10 PM There is the fleeting moment when you are fed up and frustrated and a child is near you crying, and you feel violence for a moment, only in your head. 5969. ScottLoar - 12/30/1999 3:32:28 PM What is hell? The boy at Misericordia here in Chicago who every Sunday waits for the Daddy who never comes. What can he understand? What reason can cool his hope, how much time will pass before his enfeebled mind can encompass the truth that his father will never come? How many years before the Daddy in his mind can fade? Too long, for his feeble mind can hold onto that hope and that image much, much longer than we with strong, healthy minds open to reason. 5970. Ronski - 12/30/1999 3:33:03 PM 5971. ScottLoar - 12/30/1999 3:34:52 PM Our minds can reel from the monstrosity of our thoughts but self-respect, conscience, shame stay our hand. 5972. CalGal - 12/30/1999 3:39:43 PM Actually, I don't think it would make any difference if they were well off or not. In fact, I don't think this situation can occur except to parents who are relatively well off. No one else would have the money to have kept the kid alive this long. 5973. PelleNilsson - 12/30/1999 3:50:23 PM ScottLoar 5974. CalGal - 12/30/1999 3:51:10 PM Pelle, 5975. CalGal - 12/30/1999 3:52:12 PM From the article Christi linked in: 5976. Ronski - 12/30/1999 3:53:04 PM Nowadays, federal and state monies are available to keep alive severely disabled children. With that safety net, however, comes the expectation that the parents or guardians will provide the setting for the care, and that makes it much harder for parents to place a child in a home, which is what used to be done by many people in this situation. Doing so, incidentally, was generally not considered harsh or unloving; on the contrary, it was popularly considered in the best interest of the child. Times have changed. 5977. 109109 - 12/30/1999 3:54:05 PM There is always the Mafia. A couple grand, a bullet to the head, a nearby body of water and iron tied to the ankles. 5978. Ronski - 12/30/1999 3:56:16 PM What advocates are mostly talking about is the extra help and support that make caring for the child not so much of an emotional burden as to preclude a normal life for the caregivers (parents). The State helps, yes, but it never helps very much. 5979. CalGal - 12/30/1999 3:57:26 PM Ronski, 5980. CalGal - 12/30/1999 3:58:30 PM 5979 is to 5976. I actually don't think that additional support for the home caregivers is the best approach in severe cases--and I don't think the less than severe cases are causing all that much trouble. 5981. msgreer - 12/30/1999 4:03:32 PM I have a severly handicapped daugher. Let me share realities of what this means to a parent/caregiver. To begin my daughter was born into great wealth. She got the best medical care this country has to offer. I took her all over the country for diagnosis and to get her seizures under control. I know what money can do. As a matter of fact money does alot of things for the people who have it. This is a no brainer. I became a single mother soon after my daughter was born. It didn't want his family associated with a mentally challenged child. By my choice I have devoted my life to her. I felt she was entitled to reach her highest potential. It was personally painful and I had no life of my own. But this is MY child. If I was not prepared to care for a child I shouldn't have had one. There are no guarantees in life. Who would have thought I would have a disabled child? Certainly I didn't think about it. cont. 5982. PelleNilsson - 12/30/1999 4:07:34 PM CalGal 5983. msgreer - 12/30/1999 4:08:36 PM And unless you have a disabled child you really don't know what you are talking about. You can give your theories but you just will never understand. Never.> As for this case, yes the parents have the finances to give their child a full life. My daughter went to private schools and now she is an adult facility for the challenged where she is growing emotionally, spiritually, educationally. She is an year round athlete. These parents who obvioulsy did not want to care for their child could have done what I did. I traveled this country to find the places my daughter went to. I travelled just for schools and this present setting over 18 months. They could have done this too. I can not understand a parent being able to walk away from the child. It is beyond my ability to understand. That said it is a different world when you don't have finances. 5984. msgreer - 12/30/1999 4:15:50 PM When the family has no money and by that I mean they better have 60,000 plus a year just for the child our system lets these kids down from day 1. You don't know what it is like to look into your child's eyes and know I am not giving her/him what they need. I have knocked on every door, state, federal and charity and I get nothing. Even with the best of friends no one can take this responsibilty over. I can understand why parents with not enough funds might look for a placement. Good luck finding one without the finances. I am not trying to lecture but feel I know this up front and personal. You don't like what choices make with a disabled child hop in and adopt that child. Get a true taste of what it means to care for a special child. And be ready to be in for the long run. No one gets to spend a week and give the child back. You bet advocates of the challenged are screaming. I am an advocate of many many special children. I scream my bloody head off it I have to. I prefer diplomacy but have found unless someone is ready to speak up nothing gets done. Please look into you hearts and get out of your mind mode and think about it. 5985. CalGal - 12/30/1999 4:19:30 PM Pelle, 5986. msgreer - 12/30/1999 4:22:21 PM CalGal Children are not for "dump"ing. We did that to these special kids in the 40's and 50's. It was a shameful time in our history. I am sure you have seen documentaries on this subject. Giving Geraldo his due he did a fantastic documentary on children with disablities and how we dumped them. I have seen it several times and I vomit each time. 5987. theDiva - 12/30/1999 4:24:51 PM Jesus, Mary and Joseph, restricting them? And who gets to decide that? So let's see, one in four preemies? Whom do I choose....my brother, my nephew, or my niece? My college roommates eldest daughter? 5988. CalGal - 12/30/1999 4:32:20 PM Diva, 5989. msgreer - 12/30/1999 4:32:56 PM CG How do you "restrict" the number of them? 5990. CalGal - 12/30/1999 4:33:49 PM MsG, 5991. CalGal - 12/30/1999 4:40:59 PM MsG, 5992. msgreer - 12/30/1999 4:42:42 PM CG Okay, how do you implement restricting these special people? Is their a bottom line of money we put to each person? MAY I REMIND YOU IF WE RESTRICTED PEOPLE WHO COST THE SYSTEM ALOT OF MONEY PERHAPS WE NEVER WOULD HAVE CIGAR or another cigar. These people you talk about are just that PEOPLE. Could you just answer the question how do you suggest we implement restricting these special folks. You said implement I am asking for specifics. 5993. theDiva - 12/30/1999 4:43:15 PM Those four kids I mentioned were all extremely premature and extremely sick for a very long time.....long past 6 months. For a while with each of them, there were times when we thought we'd lose the child, or that they'd be permanently affected in some severe way. At what point should the choice have been made to....what? 5994. Ronski - 12/30/1999 4:46:15 PM Unfortunately, it is inevitable for the State to try to determine who lives and who dies if it is given the authority over the paying of health care bills (see Oregon, Colorado's former Gov. Lamm, etc). 5995. CalGal - 12/30/1999 4:49:16 PM Diva, 5996. ChristiPeters - 12/30/1999 4:52:23 PM "Like I said--the mother, in this case, was told by the doctors it would be best to let her son die. He was four months premature. The mother couldn't bear it." 5997. JudithAtHome - 12/30/1999 4:55:21 PM Face it, if these people had abandoned a puppy out in the country, we'd be asking for their heads. 5998. CalGal - 12/30/1999 4:57:34 PM Christi, 5999. JudithAtHome - 12/30/1999 4:58:05 PM Christi: 6000. JudithAtHome - 12/30/1999 4:58:46 PM In fact, it made me less so... 6001. Dantheman - 12/30/1999 4:59:52 PM Happy millennial, Juditha. 6002. ChristiPeters - 12/30/1999 5:03:59 PM Judith - Nope, I don't cut them any slack either. I mentioned it in the spirit of how can we do things better. 6003. ChristiPeters - 12/30/1999 5:06:29 PM For all that I can try to understand what sort of strain they were under (did you read all 3 articles I linked?), and for all that I can see that since I haven't experienced this, I can't really understand what it is like .... 6004. Ronski - 12/30/1999 5:10:11 PM 6005. ChristiPeters - 12/30/1999 5:26:01 PM msgreer - While I absolutely agree that children are not for dumping, I think CalGal is saying that we need some sort of safety net for when parents can't cope. There are people who end up as parents of disabled children who just don't have what it takes - perhaps they lack compassion, perhaps they lack emotional, physical, or monetary resources, perhaps they lack educations, perhaps they are just shitty people. If there's a place that can and will take care of the kids, perhaps fewer children will be abandoned or killed. 6006. JudithAtHome - 12/30/1999 5:29:21 PM Ronski: 6007. CalGal - 12/30/1999 5:33:23 PM Christi, 6008. CalGal - 12/30/1999 5:34:23 PM Judith, 6009. JudithAtHome - 12/30/1999 5:38:55 PM CAlGal: 6010. CalGal - 12/30/1999 5:40:56 PM Judith, 6011. ScottLoar - 12/30/1999 5:42:30 PM What knocks us about this case and others in which parents seemingly place their own interests above the welfare of their children (remember the couple who vacationed in Florida leaving their very young children to fend for themselves? The children were discovered in filth and need)is that it violates our sense of humanity, our very ethic of what we are as humans responsible to children. That shuddering that some of us feel throughout this correspondence is our self worth being challenged again, our sense of being adults responsible to more than our own appetites. 6012. JudithAtHome - 12/30/1999 5:43:31 PM Yes, we have a case of a mother killing her 2 kids over the weekend and setting fire to the house to cover the evidence...all because she lost custody to the father and thought the kids "would be better off". I hope the jury feels the same about her... 6013. ScottLoar - 12/30/1999 5:45:08 PM Does that ethic extend to our society? Of course it does, for we owe this kindness to complete strangers, we owe this care to the halt, lame and enfeebled exactly because it defines our humanity. I for one could not live among men who deny so. 6014. CalGal - 12/30/1999 5:46:44 PM Judith, 6015. ScottLoar - 12/30/1999 5:49:06 PM Judith, the example you gave may be of a woman pained and tortured by monsters we cannot understand, but pay she must. Yet I give you another test. The child who has committed an act so foul that violates every notion of decency and trespasses beyond forgiveness. The punishment is given, and the parent must bear that burden. 6016. SnowOwl - 12/30/1999 5:50:07 PM Since the case hasn't been reported here, and I've only read the articles linked by Christi I don't think I have enough information to make any meaningful comment on the particular case. I didn't mean to give the impression before that I thought the parents' actions were justifiable, but rather that I can understand the stresses on families engaged in constant care of someone with severe disabilities. 6017. CalGal - 12/30/1999 5:54:22 PM Judith, the example you gave may be of a woman pained and tortured by monsters we cannot understand, but pay she must. 6018. ScottLoar - 12/30/1999 5:56:07 PM Oh hell Calgal, man or woman it's the same to me. The example Judith gave was a woman; were it a man and I referred to as so would you yet find fault? 6019. ScottLoar - 12/30/1999 5:58:47 PM Our society (perhaps you can advance an exception) does treat women differently in such cases exactly because it offends us all that a mother can act so. A father's murdering of children we can accept (it happens among savage beasts in nature does it not?) and effect penalties, but that a mother does so seems to violate nature. 6020. JudithAtHome - 12/30/1999 6:04:12 PM Yes, and we are also bending over backwards to absolve children who kill from too stern a punishment under the mistaken idea that all children are innocents. 6021. ChristiPeters - 12/30/1999 6:15:34 PM Absolutely. 6022. CalGal - 12/30/1999 6:19:03 PM Scott, 6023. Candide - 12/30/1999 6:36:55 PM I don't know the case that you are discussing. You all sound genuinely concerned about all the aspects of the case. I just want to question one thing. 6024. ChristiPeters - 12/30/1999 6:41:12 PM Candide - that is, indeed, a possibility and each case must be looked at individually. Sometimes, people just screw up in a way that has monumental consequences. 6025. Candide - 12/30/1999 6:42:30 PM By the way I find it highly amusing that 'Mother Jones' and 'The Nation' are segregated by a 'politically oriented' tag, leaving 'Time' strutting its stuff like an unbiased Scottish nanny. Surely they all come under the "Commentary" class and Moties cabn decide for themselves about who is fibbing? 6026. CalGal - 12/30/1999 6:52:57 PM Whether or not they feel repelled is actually irrelevant to me. 6027. Greystoke - 1/1/2000 3:40:46 PM Stupidest move of the holiday weekend. 6028. TrialShark - 1/1/2000 5:02:10 PM 6029. Greystoke - 1/1/2000 8:38:48 PM trialshark 6030. Cellar Door - 1/2/2000 10:28:32 AM 6031. JonesAtLaw - 1/2/2000 3:16:56 PM Cellar- The label "gay babies" just struck me as hilarious. I don't doubt that there are gay babies, but it's hard to tell isn't it? 6032. Cellar Door - 1/2/2000 6:28:30 PM That's exactly what I was thinking of -- Terry Gilliam animating giant cut-outs of Ivory Snow babies in muscle T-shirts stomping all over Trafalgar Square while screaming "Does anybody know the way to Dame Shirley Bassey's house?" 6033. ycmeehan - 1/2/2000 6:38:00 PM Cellar, 6034. CalGal - 1/2/2000 7:09:54 PM I was talking about pedophilia at Tabletalk (gosh, the sentences that become so normal once online life has taken hold) and someone linked in this article about a woman whose 14 year old son had oral sex with a brother several years his junior. 6035. Cellar Door - 1/2/2000 7:33:13 PM All I know about the couple with the babies is what's stated in the article. 6036. joezan - 1/2/2000 8:04:06 PM 6037. joezan - 1/2/2000 8:06:41 PM The boy's mom, sobbing, was cursing me and the entire "system", for persecuting her son, who, she said, was only doing what every kid does. "Dammit - my brother and I did the same things when we were their ages, and no one made a big f***in' deal of it! It was considered normal"! 6038. EricCartman - 1/2/2000 9:59:47 PM Joe: 6039. JJBiener - 1/2/2000 10:27:17 PM Laws are often made by people with the best intentions who are genuinely concerned with the well-being of the victims. The problem is that sometimes the laws are enforced by people with no fucking clue as to why the law is there in the first place. 6040. Cellar Door - 1/2/2000 11:15:46 PM Or how to apply it. 6041. JJBiener - 1/3/2000 12:01:35 AM Cellar Door - Exactly. As you know I am involved with the state in an on-going effort to help abused kids. It never ceases to amaze me the stupid decisions that are made regarding these kids. Invariably, they claim that the laws designed to protect these kids demand that the kids be placed in harm's way. 6042. joezan - 1/3/2000 7:20:09 AM 6043. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2000 11:04:13 AM On Meet the Press yesterday, Tim Russert was interviewing a spokesman for the new guy in Russia and Tim asked him about the fact Putin had been with the KGB. This young man, whose name escapes me, pointed out that in America, it was never an issue when someone who held high office was a former member of the CIA. 6044. JJBiener - 1/3/2000 11:20:26 AM JoeZan - I have never seen a child removed from a home for playing doctor. I have seen children removed because their behavior indicates that they were the victim of sexual abuse. The mistake is treating these children as criminals or deviants instead of victims who need treatment. 6045. ChristinO - 1/3/2000 1:04:58 PM JJ, 6046. AuNaturel - 1/3/2000 1:10:09 PM "that she was 32 y.o. woman with a 15 y.o. son, 2 little girls, 3 failed marriages and a trailer she was about to be evicted from." 6047. AuNaturel - 1/3/2000 1:12:49 PM "Has anyone heard any more on this story?" 6048. Stumbo - 1/3/2000 1:27:41 PM Judith: 6049. ChristinO - 1/3/2000 1:32:07 PM I understand that sex is EVIL and nakedness is tantamount to murder especially when children are involved, but doesn't it ever occur to those in charge that it is MORE damaging and traumatic to make a big deal out of it? Particularly if the child is subjected to juvenile lockup which is not at all exempt from "prison rape" incidences. 6050. CalGal - 1/3/2000 3:02:50 PM Joe, 6051. CalGal - 1/3/2000 3:08:04 PM I agree with JJ that the child who is not the offender should be treated very differently. However, in any case where the parent doesn't acknowledge the severity of the problem, I think it becomes legitimate to remove the child from the home. 6052. JJBiener - 1/3/2000 3:29:37 PM CalGal - However, once you get past 12 or so, I can't see any reason why kids who behave sexually with children much younger shouldn't be id'ed as sexual offenders. 6053. CalGal - 1/3/2000 3:46:16 PM JJ, 6054. TrialShark - 1/3/2000 4:10:35 PM 6055. ChristinO - 1/3/2000 4:21:09 PM I've been reading through the TT discussion of the article and there are some further posts by the author of the article. It appears that the younger boy may have been 10 although the author does not confirm or deny this. 6056. ChristinO - 1/3/2000 4:21:23 PM As far as the Swiss kid is concerned I believe the neighbor saw him "fondling" his baby sister but the boy's explanation was that the little girl had to go to the toilet and he didn't want her to wet her pants before he got her back to the house. This could make perfect sense to an eleven year old. Pants-wetting by a younger sibling in your care for the afternoon necessitating changing clothes, more laundry for mother and messes to clean up is just one of the garden variety daily emergencies children can face. Kids are melodramatic and have bad judgement and for the most part nothing they do is permanently damaging. It's when adults step in that the problems start. Kids are almost as alien as puppies and people seem to forget that. 6057. JJBiener - 1/3/2000 4:21:47 PM CalGal - Are you assuming that any kid 12 or older who sexually interacts with a child significantly younger has been sexually abused? I don't think that is always--or even normally--the case. 6058. ChristinO - 1/3/2000 4:28:27 PM While I am uneasy with the age difference in the boys from Anonymous' article I can see how it might have happened. 6059. bubbaette - 1/3/2000 4:30:21 PM Christino 6060. CalGal - 1/3/2000 4:43:41 PM JJ, 6061. ChristinO - 1/3/2000 4:44:31 PM Bubba, 6062. CalGal - 1/3/2000 4:45:05 PM Christin, 6063. ChristinO - 1/3/2000 4:56:50 PM CG, 6064. ChristinO - 1/3/2000 4:58:19 PM CG, 6065. CalGal - 1/3/2000 5:00:34 PM Christin, 6066. CalGal - 1/3/2000 5:05:57 PM Christin,
I believe so.
I believe so.
actually existed.
"And I just know that the Family Circus is down there at the bottom of the page, waiting to suck."
"And I just know that the Family Circus is down there at the bottom of the page, waiting to suck."
Note that many of the ones you cited are written by the very people who started the Cartoon Museum.
I find Baby Blues and Jump Start often funny. The kids comics I hate are Garfield and especially Heathcliff, which basically introduces its target audience in a favorable way to theft, prison breaks and other anti-social behavior.
On the other hand, I find Sally Forth is the comic which best describes my work life.
1) Bloom County. There's just no frickin comparison, folks. It's the champ.
2) Calvin and Hobbes. In any universe without Berke Breathed, it would reign supreme.
3) The Far Side --streaky, hit and miss, but oh so wickedly funny when it hit. The funniest cartoons were in one collection, I forget which, but they were the ones his editor wouldn't let him print.
4) Outland -- this was still often hilarious, but just not as good as Bloom County
5)Dilbert -- see The Far Side. A one trick pony, but a good trick.
Hahahahaha! I think that was the one where the parents had Barfy all trussed up with a ball gag, wasn't it? Or was it Ida Know?
Peanuts was good in its day, but as CalGal alluded, we all outgrew it.
Hahahaha, no, not the dog.
I always read Doonesbury. I like it and it is occasionally sublimely funny. It's just not something I'll open a paper just to read.
I hate the serial strips ("Mary Worth", etc.), but I have to admit that "Prince Valiant" isn't half bad sometimes. At least there's something of an historic/mythic context, rather than lame soap opera.
OTOH, I continue to marvel at the continued existence of "Cathy", which makes "Garfield" look innovative by comparison. Somebody must be doing some serious snorkeling to keep that woofer on the page, because I can't think of anyone who actually likes it.
I continue to marvel at the continued existence
Five demerits for redundant redundancy there. Let's just say that I marvel at the continued existence.
Sigh.
You youngsters don't know Pogo.
But you know:
"We have met the enemy...and he is us!"
Yeah, but they're all bludgeoning the reader with the same point -- women are fat because they're neurotic, they're neurotic because they're fat, and it's everyone else in their lives who makes 'em that way. Seriously, I'm kinda surprised that some women's rights organization hasn't gone after that strip in some bizarre PC campaign.
Hi, I'm Boy George.
Hi, I'm Penguin Opus.
However, Calvin and Hobbes will always be my favorite, especially the snow goons.
________________________________
Stop messin' around in my beans!
Calvin and Hobbes, however, never slackened, never had a weak run, and ended in its prime, with every strip providing something of value. I still bust a gut when I read the books and remember "Captain Napalm", "Spaceman Spiff", "The Transmogrofier", and his "snowman house of horrors". I think it helped that I *was* Calvin, as a kid.
Doonesbury in the 70s was also hilarious. Duke's stoned speech in front of the Young Republicans, where he suddenly envisions them as a bunch of sheep, is something I still think of ("bleat, that was just bleat" they tell him after the speech).
Currently, I get a big kick out of "The Norm", "Boondocks", "Heart of the City" "Dilbert", and "Fox Trot".
He wasn't only funny; at times the strip was incredibly moving. The one on the baby racoon was astounding. "It's either arbitrary or it's planned, and either way I've got the heebie-jeebies."
Doonesbury still gets fun on occasion, but I really rather read the strips in a book form so I can skip through the story lines I don't care about. It was at its best in the 70s. 
Undoctored scan. (I still have the original clipping.)
I never got Bloom County. I thought it tried to be too cute/cool, and that is an instant turnoff to me, so I may not have given it a good chance; but it never made me laugh that I recall.
And I agree that Calvin and Hobbes was great.
Back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, New Coke was just hitting the shelves, and I was an Air Force intel officer, Bloom County delivered what became my office's standard punchline.
One of the kids (the skinny neurotic one -- I forget his name) is fretting about the future and how uncertain it all seems. Opus assures him that some things will never change "Like you -- deep down inside, you'll always be the same loveable little boy, and me -- I'll always be the same old silly bird."
Boy: "Then there's some hope for stability in this crazy, ever-changing world?"
Opus (reaching for a soft drink that's been in each frame of the cartoon): "Oh, most definitely."
Boy: "Then I guess I'll be alright. Gee, thanks Op --"
Opus: "Yuck-o. This Coke tastes different."
Any time Ivan fielded a new weapons system, the response was invariably: "Yuck-o. This [ICBM] [fighter-bomber] [recce sat] tastes different."
Guess you had to be there.
Deck us all with Boston Charlie,
Walla Walla, Wash., an' Kalamazoo!
Nora's freezin' on the trolley,
swaller dollar cauliflower alleygaroo!
Don't we know archaic barrel,
Lullaby Lilla Boy, Louisville Lou.
Trolley Molly don't love Harold,
boola boola Pensacoola hullabalou!
I agree with Arky 100% on Bloom County. Too, too cute. Trying too hard to be so sweetly *odd*. Straining to be so.
Never got it. Never understood why a grown man would gush over a Penguin, or even have a Penguin stuffed animal.
Calvin and Hobbes was great, though. It was natural in contrast to Bloom County's contrived cuteness.
Five demerits for redundant redundancy there. Let's just say that I marvel at the continued existence.
More demerits, Cart. The sentence wasn't actually redundant. Your two uses of "continued/continuing" were distinct and applied to different things (one to your marvelling, the other to the strip's existance).
The sin you committed was not actually redundancy, but the more forgiveable sin of failing to find a substitute word for the second mention of "continuing."
True redundancy is what I did two nights ago, when I claimed that Jones feels he provides a "valuable, indispensible service" to society.
He said he heard it from someone else. BFD. He's heard the same insinuation you and I have. It doesn't make it true.
But now you claim there were never any rumors at all.
I can't believe you are really that dim. Try reading the posts in context. My accusation was that there never was a rumor from Republicans about McCain's stability. Democrats created the story to harm the GOP leadership and float the idea that McCain isn't suited for the Presidency if he became the nominee. In other words, there was no rumor. Just the typical Demo bullshit which you seem to revel in.
Is this clear or do I have to resort to Dick and Jane again?
BTW, read the transcript that Ace posted in politics. Hagel says that the contributors called members of the GOP leadership and asked their opinion of McCain. That is not quite how the story was reported, was it?
JJ --
"Democrats created the story to harm the GOP leadership and float the idea that McCain isn't suited for the Presidency if he became the nominee."
So you think somebody is spreading stories about Senator McCain designed to sabotage his candidacy -- you just think it's Democrats who are doing it. You have no evidence of this, of course, but when have you ever needed facts to support your positions?
"Just the typical Demo bullshit which you seem to revel in."
Yep. "Revel in" as in "dispute, disagree with, and defend Senator McCain against."
"Is this clear or do I have to resort to Dick and Jane again?"
No, JJ, I think "Dick and Jane" is a little advanced for you.
Oh, and JJ: "BTW, read the transcript that Ace posted in politics."
What are you talking about?
So let's sum up, JJ: You think Democrats created the rumors about Senator McCain's stability in an effort to double-spike both McCain and the GOP leadership.
I defended McCain against these Democrat-inspired charges.
This, to you, proves that I always side with the Democrats and accept any rumor about any Republican must be true.
"accept that"
"Boondocks" is pretty good, I agree. I liked "Foxtrot" quite a bit, but the Chronicle removed it to run "Boondocks" in its place. (For Pete's sake, why the hell couldn't they have removed "Cathy" instead?)
"Boondocks" caused quite a bit of controversy when it premiered in the Chron a few months back, which is always a good sign. It's always fun to watch the excessively PC get precious about perceived racism, not to mention watching folks get all hot n' sweaty over a damned comic strip.
Stumbo Message # 5501:
It had to happen sooner or later, didn't it? I bet those two strips have coincided multiple times, too.
Ace Message # 5508:
Yeah, you're right. You are more redundant than I am. Seriously though, I always hate when I spot some niggling little detail in my writing five seconds after I post the damned thing. Not that I'm an aspiring master of prose or anything, but I generally like it to look and read somewhat more creatively than what a third-grader might come up with.
Occasionally I might even muster up something worthy of, say, Joe Queenan. The Deep Blue Sea discussion in Movies made me go re-read the Renny Harlin chapter in Queenan's book. Hilarious stuff. I may have to re-read the Mickey Rourke and Sean Young chapters now.
Funny how we mostly all agree on what are great comics and which ones suck rocks.
Marmaduke
Hi and Lois
Beetle Bailey
Hagar the Horrible
Cathy
Anything which is serious
Crankshaft and Funky Winkerbean (suck-o-rama)
The Family Circus
Garfield (there were some funny Garfield comics once upon a time)
Blondie
BC
The Wizard of Id (I think these two creators have gone senile)
Spiderman
Comics which I liked somewhat
Herman
Foxtrot (close to greatness)
Mother Goose and Grimm (though it's seen much better days, it's still occasionally funny)
Doonesbury
Pogo
For Better or for Worse
R.I.P. Andy Capp
The best Superman send-up -- anywhere, ever -- was in the first five issues of The Tick. That comic was the bomb.
I vote for Superman.
This is the interesting question:
Who do you identify with more, Spiderman or Batman?
Batman worked hard for his powers. He's driven. He's also wealthy. He's obviously a Republican.
Spiderman got his powers the old fashioned way-- he got bitten by a bug. He's had the world handed to him on a plate, but he's forever bitching about it. He's a slacker and an underachiever. (Marvel frequently hints that Spiderman is in fact one of the most powerful superheroes around, but a lack of determination and confidence hold him down.) He's also poor-- lower middle class.
He's obviously a Democrat. (Don't get me wrong; I love Spidey. But he's a Democrat.)
Peter Parker is a Democrat alright. He's a journalist.
Oh yes. I forgot that.
Batman also has an "eye for an eye" theory of Justice.
Spidey just seems content to use "tough love"-- knock their skulls around for a bit, then send them on their way.
The revolving doors of Marvel Comics' Prison System is shameful.
(yeah, yeah. So DC's Prison System is no great shakes, either. Not to be an APOLOGIST, however, but if the liberals in the DC Universe would just pass the Death Penalty Bill FINALLY, we could finally start executing the Joker, Lex Luthor, Bane, Braniac and the rest.
These fuckers should have been killed thirty years ago. Why the DC leftists keep giving them additional chances to kill and maim is beyond me.)
Yeah, Spidey's a little soft on the criminals too. Come on, the guy throws web around them and ties them up. It's a good thing for him he's fighting crime in a gun-controlled city. He'd never hack it as a Texas super hero.
"We've got to give The Joker another chaaaaance!" comes the wail of the liberals.
Hey-- this fucker's killed over two hundred people. He's had his chances. I don't want to hear "Oh, but he's insaaaaane" or any of that other liberal bullshit.
Stop being saps for The Joker and kill him already.
Or is he a robot? In which case, flip the switch already.
I understand Leftists consider The Joker a "political prisoner" or a "prisoner of conscience" due to his extreme left-wing anarchist politics.
The widow of Mitterand claims he's innocent of any murders. He's a hero in France.
Ed Asner, Mike Farrell, and Whoopi Goldberg speak gushingly about his "genius."
"Or is he a robot? In which case, flip the switch already."
Waaaah!!! But who are we to judge what is or what is not a "human being"!!!
The whiny punk Spiderman is definitely a Democrat, though.
(Actually, I think Braniac is a special case. I think Superman "kills" him all the time. But the bastard has bits of his computer code hidden in hundreds of computer systems, and he keeps rebuilding himself.
Why does Windows have so many bugs? Because it's carrying 18 megs of Braniac source code, that's why.)
Even a somewhat-wimpy conservative like George Bush would have had him hauled out of that metal suit and popped in a Florida pokey next to Manuel Noriega.
(As an aside, I've always thought George Lucas ripped off DD when creating Darth Vader.)
Indy:
You can't just throw him in jail. What Leftists don't understand is that if you don't EXECUTE Dr. Doom, he'll just escape in a month and try to blow up the world again.
...actually, killing him might not be a great deterrent, either. Dead villains tend to come back from the dead.
But it's the best we have.
I doubt a panty-waist "humanitarian lethal injection" would even slow that mother down.
The Associated Press
Tuesday, Dec. 14, 1999; 6:38 p.m. EST
WASHINGTON –– Mutant reptillian Villain The Lizard-Man has a well-placed ally in his argument for parole: President Clinton.
In an interview with People magazine, Clinton said he would like to see The Lizard released from jail someday, because he considers The Lizard's alter ego-- Dr. Kurt Conners-- one of the finest scientists in history.
"I think just about everybody ought to get a second chance," Clinton said. "I'd like to see it worked out, because he brought a lot of joy to mad scientists everywhere, and he gave a lot of joy to people, besides the ones he's killed, with his crazy genetic recombination experiments, and he's paid a price – God knows, he's paid a price."
The Lizard was sentenced to life in prison after murdering the Mayor's wife in a six-episode saga which crossed over through both Spiderman comics and the Avengers comics.
Roger Makley, who has represented The Lizard since early in the FBI's investigation of Dr. Conners a decade ago, will meet in December or January with a top Justice Department official, Bob DuPuy. The Lizard termed it the start of a dialogue to release him from prison.
"I'd like to see what he did right, and what he did well, somehow accepted," Clinton said. "And I'd like it if it happened while he was still alive. And I'm sure that if we release him, he'll NEVER take the Lizard-Serum again."
The interview was being published in People's year-end issue, which hits newsstands Friday.
© Copyright 1999 The
Funny. But wasn't the Lizard just tangentially involved with a terrorist organization. He just drew up the plans and drove the car; he didn't make the maiming explosives, or rob the banks.
And HRC has since disavowed BC's plan to release the Lizard, even though it may cost her the vast NYC lizard vote.
The Squirrel, although also a Democrat, is a big Superman fan. This led to a wonderful line given in my brother's toast at our wedding, that if a woman as great as the Squirrel can idolize Superman and still find it in her heart to love me, there must be hope for us all.
And gay.
Everyone knows this.
Yeah, Dan-o, we got you covered alright. Quicksilver can't even make up his mind whether he's a "good" mutant or an "evil" mutant. Ironman was just a ripoff of Batman, but because the Marvel lefties can't handle a billionaire playboy as a hero, they made him a billionaire playboy with a bleeding heart.
Superman kicks everybody's ass. Period. At least he did until the lefties started messing with him and changed "truth, justice, and the American way" to "truth, justice, and the Terran way." Sheesh. He's not even Terran, but he is American. Then they started letting his hair grow, too. What's up with that? I thought his invulnerable hair couldn't be cut but was genetically programmed to stop at a nice, all-American length?
Who's Marvel's most powerful hero? The Silver Surfer for crying out loud. That pretty much sums it up, I think. And Superman would still shove that surfboard up his intergalactic ass.
No doubt DC's superheroes are more powerful than Marvel's. My point is that they are so powerful that they make for dull reading. As someone once pointed out, a truly accurate Flash comic would consist of 1 panel of him rounding up the bad guys, and 100+ panels of him reading War and Peace.
C&H is, bar none, the best strip ever. And don't fret, there are always the anthologies. Gracie has five and quotes at length as appropriate.
I really, really wanted to name my son "Calvin Hobbes Shark," but Mrs. Shark insisted that he wouldn't need the encouragement.
Sure. I'll buy that thesis.
Barely restrained homoerotic tendencies. Kept a teenage "ward" (wink, nudge) as his finest expression of family values. And a constant struggle with schizophrenia, fully explored in the "Dark Knight" series.
Sounds GOP as hell to me.
Batman doesn't have any super powers, but that doesn't stop him from hanging with Superman because they both know bad guys always lose.
BTW, hasn't anyone told the Flash about Evelyn Wood?
I think that Marvel's heroes are both weaker and less morally certain. As such, that makes them more human, and therefore more interesting, to me, especially when I was a teen. And that is why I was a Marvel reader (although other than the Supermans the Squirrel occasionally buys, I read none these days).
Speaking of comics, did anyone else out there read the excellent parody Normalman back in the mid-80's? The author did an excellent job with Marvel's camp trappings, as well as most of the other comic genres.
I liked Cerebus, and when the Squirrel drags me to a comic store, I tend to check it out first. But it wasn't parodying other comics the way Normalman was.
Actually, Cerebus (which began as a Conan parody) constantly parodies other comics, even currently. The Bug character became Sim's catch-all for parodies of Batman, Wolverine, and a panoply of other comics. Though I will say it was at its best when Sim stuck to pure satire.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Does the Sandman count as a superhero-type?
click on photo 
I was struck by the official who said it wasn't that big a deal since it was only a few objects being protected that almost no one would want to desecrate anyway.
I wanted to yell at him "Fucking DUH! That's the point."
As it applies to us why make a Constitutional Amendment to apply to something that happens so rarely? Not to mention the fact that I don't see why it is considered a dangerous thing to do or how it infringes on the rights of anyone. Is flag desecration offensive? Maybe to some people but where is it written that we have an inalienable right not to be offended?
I think what is far sillier is the people who try to claim with a straight face that flag burning isn't a form of political expression. Of course it is, and a very extreme one. Banning one form of expression while permitting other, equally extreme ones is simply choosing which forms of expression one allows, i.e. tyrrany.
We do a fair amount of choosing what forms of expression are protected and I don't consider most of it tyranny. "Fire!" in a crowded theater, slander, libel -- I'm generally not too upset about these things being more strictly regulated because the idea is that we are protecting the innocent from malice and harm. I don't find the idea of disapproving of the government harmful.
What surprises me is that most often those in favor of an amendment to ban flag burning are the loudest about how evil the federal government is. I'm not sure what the sense is in that. "Don't spit on my shiny ideal even though what it stands for in reality is something I loathe."
You'd think it was the Big-Government-lovers who'd most want to ban flag burning.
Let me tell you a story. There is an apartment/condo complex in Virginia near DC. It is an upscale place with rents in the $1600-2000 range. During Clinton's first term, HUD decided that this complex should have section 8 recipients living there. Predictably, the current residents protested. They had several complaints. They were afraid it would lead to an increase in crime. They didn't think it was fair that they had worked many years to be able to afford to live there and now their taxes were going to pay for people to live there for free. They were concerned about other issues as well.
HUD didn't just ignore their protests. First, they threatened them with a lawsuit if they didn't stop their protest. When the residents refused to stop, HUD filed suit against them for violation of the Fair Housing Act. This is how Democrats silence people who disagree with their policies. I guess by your definition, Democrats are tyrants.
The flag represents the ideals on which this country was founded. The current government does not embody those principles. There is a difference between loyalty and blind loyalty.
"There is a difference between loyalty and blind loyalty."
Selectivity.
It's funny - I see nothing wrong with your little allegory about Democratic "tyranny." Rich folks have no legally protected interest in avoiding the poor.
The flag represents a lot of things. Sometimes it's as lofty as "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and other times it's no more than a "Hello My Name Is" tag at an international sporting event.
I don't think America needs a sacred cow .
Whether they have one or not isn't even the point, Dave...
As the most despised woman in America, I think Ms Tripp has suffered enough. Assuming this catfight has to go to trial, I'm hoping for an outcome like the one in the McDougall case.
The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small. When I think of the outrage that she must feel at a world apparently gone mad, I laugh like a maniac.
Cal --
Yes, they do. I have to say, Ms Tripp's excuse for breaking the law -- "I had to do it in order to protect myself" -- has not impressed me. Ms. Lewinsky could have said much the same thing. I'd have looked for a better rationale ... or at least, a more stirring explication.
"...I think Ms Tripp has suffered enough."
Not even near enough...
Don't go all wobbly on us, TrialShark.
Sheesh!
RJB --
No, really. Linda Tripp strikes me as someone who is neither better nor worse than the countless hordes of "administrative assistants" who populate every branch of the government and darn near every industry. So she's nosy; so she's self-righteous. So what.
What's really unique about her is her notoriety. I'm sure she never expected to be so widely loathed; it probably never even occurred to her that she was revealing a bit of her inner soul by taping her friend. No one sane person will entrust her with any confidence ever again, and probably rightly so. In that respect, she's really a pitiable figure.
Okay, she broke the law. Countless people do that every day, too, in some form or fashion, and most aren't prosecuted. To be sure, Ms Tripp's trespasses wound up -- with her full knowledge and consent -- being broadcast nationwide, so you could argue that failing to prosecute her would send the message that it's somehow "okay" to break the law. But I'm not buying.
Every single player in the Lewinsky saga came away as soiled as Monica's blue dress. There's no reason to add a criminal conviction to the ignominy Linda Tripp has already earned.
"Not one"
mahvelous?I wish I had a memory like that, I mean if I had made a a hundred or more calls to a single person, I'm not at all sure that I would remember exactly on which date a particular call occurred. Of course, there might be certain events discussed in a recording of a call which would force me to conclude that the call had to have been made on particular date.
Is that the same thing as remembering that a call was made on a specific date?
She was a pitiable figure to begin with and a mean, bitter, frustrated narrow-minded seeker of the main chance. And in a sense,
she found it. She will be dining out and collecting royalties off
this experience for the rest of her life.
Monica is a very bright girl.
Everyone says so.
If it's a lie---and it could be---it's a well crafted one that no one is likely to disprove. The interview with Vernon Jordan could easily have caused her to remember a phone conversation from that day. We remember things for all kinds of strange reasons and some people have better memories than others.
AFAIC the point is moot. Because the shame of the nation and 44million dollars is an awfully high price to pay for Paula Jones alleged trauma from allegedly being flashed and propositioned.
I wish I had a even a grand for every time I've been flashed and propositioned.
Covers all bases, no?
Great idea! I'll bring the camcorder, you bring the cigars. Those two oughta make "Faces of Death" look like "Love Story".
Do you have a cite for this story? I have a feeling there's another side to it.
This tells us volumes about you. You don't mind the government using threats and lawsuits to silence the citizenry as long as it is the Democrats doing it. After all, what's a little tyranny among friends.
What could the other side be that would justify HUD trying to silence protestors? Here is a similar case in Berkley. This case did not involve the national office, but it is the same tactic.
How about:
1. the protestors were violating reasonable and enforceable time/place/manner restrictions on protesting.
2. the protestors were threatening violence.
3. the protestors were destroying public property.
I'll think of more if you want me to.
"I have to say, Ms Tripp's excuse for breaking the law -- "I had to do it in order to protect myself" -- has not impressed me."
Put that in the "Go Figure" file.
Tripp could have been subpeonaed. She wasn't, and it wasn't likely she would be, I guess, but she might have been.
With monica and the PResident planning perjury, she was prudent to make the tapes. Clinton, you might have noticed, has a tendency to use the power of the White House to destroy the reputations of people who say things he doesn't like.
Furthermore, the tapes document Ms. Lewinsky planning a crime. And SOLICITING Tripp to commit a crime.
The words you speak when conspiring to commit a crime, or when soliciting someone to commit a crime, are not protected by the First Amendment. The Md law doesn't make any such distinction, but I think it ought too.
When you solicit someone to commit a crime, that's not protected speech. It can be punished under the law. It ought not be protected by the dumb wiretap law.
"Ms. Lewinsky could have said much the same thing."
Oh? She could have claimed she was committing perjury to protect herself from... what exactly?
Ace --
"[Linda Tripp] was prudent to make the tapes."
As her current plight amply demonstrates.
Or not.
You believe Ms Tripp was "prudent" to break the law in order to protect her reputation. Ms Lewinsky would probably make a similar argument.
"You believe Ms Tripp was "prudent" to break the law in order to protect her reputation."
No, I believe Tripp was prudent to break the law in order to avoid being accused of, and convicted of, the felony of perjury.
Ace --
"No, I believe Tripp was prudent to break the law in order to avoid being accused of, and convicted of, the felony of perjury."
Funny, that's not what you said just two posts before.
Be that as it might: I don't think I'd counsel a client to actually break one law in order to avoid being accused of breaking another. Would you?
Jeff Bezos founds Amazon.com which has yet to profit and expects "to lose at least $350 million this year" (Chicago Tribune, Monday, December 20, Section 1, pg. 10).
One analyst notes that Bezos represents "(t)he attempt to build huge companies based on growth not profit". But this is based on the faith of great expectations, and shareholders will lose patience someday when they want a return on investment other than speculative growth in the stock price. Or so it would seem to me.
click on photo 
CNN reports the Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that under Vermont law gays have the same right to marry as straights.
Thanks for the AP post, Prof. I see the Vt Supremes left the legislature an out (no pun intended) -- they can call it "domestic partnership" instead of marriage.
I can't wait to hear Pat Robertson solemnly tell us that Montpelier is actually the capital of Hell.
bubba --
I'm betting on meteor strikes.
Thanks for those posts in that TT discussion. And I'm happy to learn that you won't moralize about parents getting tummy tucks anymore!
You'll have to meet my parents first. They'll want to know your prospects.
1. the protestors were violating reasonable and enforceable time/place/manner restrictions on protesting.
2. the protestors were threatening violence.
3. the protestors were destroying public property.
First of all, none of these things were occurring. These were a bunch of middle-class suburbanites who held meetings, sent letters of protest to HUD, and talked to the press about their complaints.
Second, even if they were doing the things you suggest, it doesn't justify using the courts to silence their protest.
For the most part. When Cisneros ran HUD, he did not reject the theory.
That's why I wanted a cite, to see what they were doing. I'm not going to accept on your say-so that no such thing was occurring.
As to not going to court to stop such protests, I think the opposite. If they did not go to court to prevent protests occurring within their property which threatened violence, I think they would be remiss in their duties to their other tenants.
And I'm happy to learn that you won't moralize about parents getting tummy tucks anymore!
I really don't ever recall opining on the subject.
But before you praise me too much, I'm dying for a chance to moralize about buying lottery tickets.
On a more serious note, I do appreciate you providing a new insight into the issue.
For those of you wondering what we're talking about, there is a thread in Tabletalk that digressed into a discussion of working parents. A bunch of committed "liberals" pronounced that parents who both worked when one income would have been enough to support the family were hurting their kids. One of them should stay home in that case.
Amazing, really.
"Pennies in a stream
Falling leaves a sycamore
Moonlight in Vermont
Gentle finger waves
Ski trails down a mountain side
Snowlight in Vermont
Telegraph cables, how they sing down the highway
As they travel each bend in the road
And when people meet, in this romantic setting
They're so hypnotized be the lovely...
Evening summer breeze
Sweet warblings of the meadowlark
Moonlight in Vermont
You and I and Moonlight in Vermon."
At last-- Gay marriage has a National Anthem!
Bill Would Outlaw Internet Drug Information
WASHINGTON (APBnews.com) — The days of ordering bongs and pipes and other drug paraphernalia online, getting information on the medical uses of marijuana or instructions on growing hemp may go up in smoke if lawmakers have their way.
A bill passed by the Senate in November seeks to make it illegal to provide any information online about marijuana. The measure also would increase penalties for drugs classified as methamphetamines, which go by such street names as "speed," "meth," "crank," "crystal-meth" and "glass."
Free-speech advocates say the proposed law banning marijuana information violates the First Amendment.
In addition, the legislation also says that Internet service providers (ISPs) will be held liable for not removing a site featuring marijuana information if notified by top federal law enforcement officials, and "appropriate" federal government Web sites will have to display anti-drug messages.
NORML, the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws, says the measure, originally titled Senate Bill 486, was passed in the waning hours of the last session of Congress and will be considered by a House panel when lawmakers return in January. The legislation introduced by Sen. Orin Hatch, R-Utah, is officially called the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999.
The law would make it a felony to "teach, demonstrate, or distribute any information pertaining to the manufacture of a controlled substance," says NORML. Under federal law, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 substance.
The Drug Enforcement Agency says marijuana has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Officials also argue that there are no standards for safe use of marijuana, even under medical supervision.
The group claims that if the bill is approved, Web sites ranging from major Internet booksellers such as Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com to NORML's own Web site could be in violation.
"Drug law reformers, civil libertarians and the general public need to recognize that Senator Hatch's bill is a blatant attack on Americans' right to free speech," said Keith Stroup, NORML executive director. "Citizens must act soon to amend or kill this terrible federal legislation."
Hatch, in a recent speech on the Senate floor, explained that the bill would prohibit the dissemination of drug "recipes" on the Internet and amend the current federal anti-drug paraphernalia statute to extend the ban to include Internet advertising for the sale of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia.
"This bill furnishes the means for our ongoing battle against those who manufacture and sell illicit drugs," Hatch said. "Perhaps even more important, this bill underscores our unwavering commitment to win this battle."
Allen F. St. Pierre, executive director of The NORML Foundation, a nonprofit legal, educational and research foundation that works to educate Americans about marijuana and advocates more liberal marijuana laws, called the bill "overreaching."
"This is a First Amendment issue. If this passes the House and if the president signs it, people will be ill-affected by it," St. Pierre said.
"The bill will criminalize protected free speech," Steinhardt said. "It would throw in jail persons who merely talk about controlled substances even when they are describing legal conduct, like growing marijuana for medicinal use in states like California which permit its therapeutic use. If the Hatch bill becomes law, it will become the subject of a powerful constitutional challenge."
Battles have been raging for several years over the medical use of marijuana. In 1996, California voters approved a ballot initiative that removed state penalties for people who used marijuana for medical purposes. Since that time, Arizona, Alaska, Oregon, Nevada and Washington have adopted similar laws.
Several mainstream medical organizations, including the New England Journal of Medicine, have endorsed the use of medical marijuana.
Last year, however, Congress approved a measure condemning the medical use of marijuana. Because federal law outlaws marijuana use, many doctors are reluctant to prescribe it, even in states that have passed initiatives.
David Finkelstein, a spokesman for Alaskans for Medical Rights, called the proposed law unconstitutional.
"The whole concept of S. 486 is probably unconstitutional, but it's particularly outrageous as applied to medical marijuana patients looking for information to address their conditions," Finkelstein said.
Florida First Amendment attorney David Wasserman said he believes the bill constitutes prior restraint.
"I see this as a grave danger to the First Amendment because it attempts to ban something that politicians believe citizens will find offensive. If everything that some politician believes people find offensive becomes a bill, Congress will be too busy censoring society and not have time to do what they were elected for," Wasserman said.
"I think that the House will pass any bill that claims to be 'anti-drug,' especially in an election year," Cowan said. "Some of those who know or care about the Constitution may take comfort in the belief that the courts will strike it down as they did with the 'Indecency' Act. It violates the First Amendment. It will not work, because the Internet is designed to get around stupidity. Even the Chinese Communists cannot stop it."
Cowan believes "the Internet community" will not become concerned about the bill until it is adopted.
"When it passes, I will do everything possible to break that law," said Cowan, a former executive director of NORML.
By David Noack, an APBnews.com staff writer
A quick observation: This is the same Congress that seems to look the other way when people have raised concerns about the proliferation of bomb-making recipes on the Web.
Protecting the children.....one constitutional right at a time.
I knew I'd smoke you out.
BTW - and this is a current event - congrats on the show. But I watched it, and it is hard shit. I like the equivalent of the TV Guide crossword. Good luck.
Thanks. I'm looking forward to doing the show. I won't know the air date until shortly after the shoot, but assuming I don't make an ass out of myself (an iffy proposition I admit), I will let y'all know well before it airs.
The problem with Hatch's proposed law (well, one of the problems) is the penalty. I recall hearing about this law recently; I believe Lady Chaos posted a link to it. Putting "recipes" or hemp-growing tips, et al, on the Internet even if there are no actual drugs involved, could carry a 10-year prison sentence. Hatch is the worst kind of loony zealot, pandering to people's base paranoia.
If Hatch wants to "help the kids", maybe he oughta consider doing something about the polygamist cults that live in southern Utah, drafting teenage girls into arranged multiple marriages, so that they can be Breeders for Christ.
Nah, too easy to preach to the choir, and pretend to something useful, rather than to actually do something useful.
Since when are people free to marry as many underage girls as they want at the same time?
I just thought your choice of complaints was ironic.
To be more specific, though, and respond to you completely, I should point out two things:
1) I'm not absolutely sure that the "[f]reedom to pass drug information is sacrosanct", but I'm pretty sure it's protected free speech. Not to mention, yet again, that the penalty, at least the one I read of before, is pretty extreme -- 10 years for talking about it online. Whether or not you actually possess or are selling drugs. Just writing about how to make/cultivate them. Did I suddenly wake up in Turkey or Malaysia?
2) I would never endorse curtailing any religious freedom "on a whim". And I was being a bit flip; while I have seen and read probably a half-dozen news stories about these quasi-Mormon polygamist cults over the past year, I doubt they're a huge threat to civilization. Still, polygamy is illegal, even in Utah (though these people actually get just one license, for the first wife, then have unofficial ceremonies for the subsequent ones). And, since the extra wives are officially single, and of course have a shitload of rugrats, guess what -- they qualify for welfare! Pretty neat scam, eh?
But a few of the stories I've heard about indicates that these clans pressure teenage girls (frequently second or third cousins of the groom) into arranged marriages. There is some severe infringement of personal rights, imho, as these girls are apparently coerced. Some of them manage to escape, which indicates a problem by definition.
If we're going to curtail everyone's freedoms to protect them from drugs, then maybe we should curtail the freedom of these cults to turn these kids into breeders. It's pretty disgusting.
You said teenage, not underage. They aren't the same thing.
True enough. I recall that at least one of the girls who "escaped", with the help of a former multiple bride, was 14. Maybe that's legal in Utah; I wouldn't be terribly surprised. Also, she was a second cousin of the groom. Pretty cool, huh?
Besides, it is up to the State of Utah, not the Senate to regulate marriage.
Also very true. Still, Hatch is a crusader, and crusaders know no boundaries. They are compelled to smite evil and wrongdoing, wherever it may lie.
I just thought your choice of complaints was ironic.
Yeah, I guess it was. But it's also ironic that virtually all anti-drug rhetoric revolves around "saving the children", when there's some children that might need saving in Hatch's home state.
Well, as the end of Spuds' article points out, the law probably can't be upheld anyway, and Hatch likely realizes it. But it makes him look like he's doing something, and keeps his longstanding reputation as an intractable anti-drug crusader intact.
I dunno, maybe we were better off when these guys were wasting time trying to keep track of where Clinton's pecker was.
Well, this is a ridiculous comparison. All kinds of religious ideas are presented with abandon and discussed freely on the Web, including ones (like polygamy) that violate the law. As is a variety of other illegal behaviors, including building bombs. No one is proposing laws to outlaw that kind of speech.
And even more to the point: Where did you ever get the idea that freedom of religion was a protection for illegal behavior? Polygamy has always been and likely always will be illegal in the United States and in Utah particularly (that was part of the price of the state's admission to the Union). But state officials manage to look the other way when it comes to the fact that polygamy continues to flourish in southern Utah, particularly if you go to the right towns. Drive through these towns sometime; they're pretty creepy. Real-life Stepford shit. (There's a real cult-like aspect to polygamy; some of the community leaders are real charismatic and a few have occasionally crossed the law over taxes and gotten into some nasty armed standoffs.)
And, of course, there's the continuing ban against peyote use for religious purposes, encased in a Supreme Court ruling, I think.
Religious freedom is like most of our other freedoms: It is not limitless.
Some right-wing mag (I forget which one) had a piece about how Clinton defended the bombing of Serbia, at some town-hall meeting or other, by pointing out a little girl in the audience and proclaiming something like, "it is for her sake that we need a safe Europe," and so forth.
The author's conclusion: "It takes a child to raze a village."
I agree with you that Hatch rather well knows this won't pass constitutional muster. But he's made a career out of playing the hero of noble lost causes, and Utahns just lap it up.
I mean, hey -- they root for Karl Malone, don't they?
What is wrong with polygamy? (Or with polyandry, for that matter?)
I don't know of any convincing arguments pro or con. The debate regarding allowing Utah into the Union revolved almost solely around polygamy, and an army of federal troops once up a time advanced on the Utah border to force the issue. At the time, I think the main arguments were that it was a "morally depraved" practice.
The relegation of the institution of marriage to two monogamous people resides up among the constellation of Basic Western Mores right next to the insistence on heterosexuality. Polygamy's outlawry dates back to early Roman Catholicism, I believe. Open to question, I suppose, in the age of "anything goes" that y'all like to claim is the province of liberals.
One of the rather, um, ugly sides of polygamy as it's practiced in Utah, by the way, is the high rate of inbreeding. Lots of first cousins getting married.
So, if you're asking me to advocate on the "pro" side? Nah. Pass.
However, Cart, I must point out to you that any law-enforcement crackdown on polygamy is going to have violent consequences. Which explains why Utah officials have done nothing about it.
Oh, absolutely, these people are fucking nutjobs, convinced they're on a mission from God. I don't really blame anyone for not messing with them. From what I understand, entire towns in that area frequently are comprised of one, maybe two clans. As you say, really creepy shit. Men marrying and impregnating their sisters, cousins, nieces, marrying a mother and daughter (nailing your step-daughter is a felony, even in Utah).....it's like something out of The Hills Have Eyes or Deliverance. Really horrifying.
What's worse, some of these clans, such as the Kingstons, own and operate lucrative businesses, some of which (such as garbage companies) have contracts to do business with the State of Utah. So the State could apply economic leverage, if they cared. But somehow, incest and polygamy is seen as an issue of religious freedom there. Fucking bizarre.
Actually, you earlier seemed to be advocating the "con" side; hence, my question.
At any rate, I'm a resident of the "anything goes unless explicit harm to innocents can be proved" province. So, laws against inbreeding are fine by me. But laws against mere multiple spouses should go (as long as those m.s.'s don't all qualify for marriage benefits -- which, of course, should go, too). Just my 2 cents.
As Spuds says, it'd be tough to moralize against polygamy in the abstract, as long as all the participants are willing. But the type we're talking about, which is something of an open secret in Utah, is a particularly virulent interpretation of Mormonism. There's lots of textboox cult stuff going on in these clans -- brainwashing with quasi-religious doctrine; coercion of females; molestation of young women and girls, even by relatives.
It's far creepier than anything you ever heard about the Koresh cult in Waco, and the estimated numbers in these clans are in the tens of thousands. Some of these clans are estimated to have 5,000-10,000 family members apiece.
And not only is there no effort to prosecute, despite protests from former "multiples", the State does business with companies owned by these clans. And it's all hiding under the guise of "religious freedom". But they're breaking quite a few felony laws, and they're doing it openly.
Tapestry of Polygamy
Plenty of news story archives on this site, founded by an ex-"multiple". In about 10 minutes, I found several stories that pretty much turned my stomach:
SLC Tribune story 2/6/99 – UT state auditor’s office worker (one of the Kingstons) accused of marrying his niece
20/20 short profile 2/28/99
SLC Tribune story 3/17/99 – UT legislator wants to legalize polygamy
Full Dateline story on a man with 5 wives and 29 kids 4/5/99
London Guardian profile 4/18/99
Interesting stuff. Hard to believe this goes on in modern-day America.
"... brainwashing with quasi-religious doctrine; coercion of females; molestation of young women and girls, even by relatives."
All of this can quite as easily be achieved without polygamy, though.
Spuds Message # 5643:
One of the rather, um, ugly sides of polygamy as it's practiced in Utah, by the way, is the high rate of inbreeding. Lots of first cousins getting married.
This is why
Yes, and I already said it would be difficult to effectively moralize against polygamy in definition, given consenting adults and all. Recall, though, that I specifically brought up the Utah fundamentalist clan brand of polygamy, as there is plenty of evidence that it is harmful and coercive on young girls.
As a response to the ridiculous Internet drug bill Orrin Hatch is pushing, I submit that Hatch's time might be better spent pressing the state legislators in his state to crack down on these fucking weirdos. He could do it, if he wanted to. And as long as the state continues to do business with clan-owned businesses (not always easy for the state to keep track of, to be fair), it in essence is sanctioning polygamy and incest.
If Vermont passes a law whereby same-sex domestic partnership and marriage indeed have the same rights and benefits under the law, then "gay domestic partnership" will be called, colloquially, "gay marriage," and gays will have won even if the legislature insists the two are not to be called the same thing. All of this is reminiscent of the ridiculous "Don't Ask" policy in the military.
Bottom line is that gay marriage (and gays openly serving in the military) are on the way and will be here soon (within ten years).
Jay Sekulow and others will just have to get used to it. Either you have equal rights for all, or you don't. In this country, we're supposed to have them. Unlike some nations, one is free to leave this country if you do not like it.
Ronski:
Will friends, brothers, and sisters be allowed to register as "domestic partners"? Is a sexual relationship required for "domestic partnership"? If so, how does one prove it?
Have you thought about it, or do you just not care?
I think you know me well enough by now to suspect that I have indeed thought about it.
Answers to your questions:
1) It will not apply to brothers, sisters, dogs, cats, trees, or Subarus.
2) A sexual relationship will no more have to be proven than is the case with heterosexual marriage. If sex were required to sustain marriage, the institution would be a shadow of its current self.
By the way, congratulations on making it to the Ben Stein show. Now, can someone tell me if Ben Stein ever wrote the Ethics column in Esquire Magazine back in the 70s? Or was that someone called Harry Stein? Whichever, he was wickedly funny and had a great outlook on life.
Harry Stein.
I keep forgetting to buy them.
Ronski:
So let me understand:
You believe in PRIVELEGING the homosexual relationship over a non-homosexual friendship?
You are, in other words, discriminating against non-homosexual men who might live together and wish to apply for domestic partnership?
Praytell-- on what basis do you justify this discrimination against non-homosexual men? And don't tell me few non-homosexual men will take advantage of the law anyway-- the same is true of gay marriage but you STILL want that option, don't you?
You're much like a 5'8" man trying to get into the Air Force. "The requirement of being 5'10" tall is ABSURD and discriminatory and totally unjustified!" you shout.
"Okay," the Air Force replies. "What should the height requirement be?"
"5'8" " you say proudly. "Let in all the 5'8" guys but keep those 5'7" shrimps out!"
As I have stated before, I favor removing the State from any and all considerations when it comes to marriage. I favor privatizing marriage entirely.
However, since that is not about to happen, I favor treating all otherwise unencumbered consenting adults in exactly the same way: giving them full access to rights and privileges which the State grants by way of marriage.
If friends, say you and Niner, want to declare that you are lovers and wish to be considered either married or in a domestic partnership equivalent to marriage, you have my blessing.
Now insist with a straight face that you, or any other straight guys, would actually do this, and I will have an answer for that, too.
'If friends, say you and Niner, want to declare that you are lovers and wish to be considered either married or in a domestic partnership equivalent to marriage, you have my blessing."
How terribly CUTE of you, Ronski. Blatantly changing my premise because you didn't feel like answering the question actually posed.
Since you appear to have missed the question, here it is again:
Why should Niner and I have to declare ourselves "lovers" at all? Why do you insist on priviledging a heterosexual friendship over a homosexual one?
Why do two men need to be gay in order to reap the benefits of domestic partnership? If we live together (many straight men do) and jump through the non-sexual legal hoops required, why should we be denied the rights GAYS have?
Are homosexuals special creatures who need special rights? Is the homosexual relationship to be priviledged over the heterosexual relationship?
Why should I have to *fuck* my friend to name him as a domestic partner? Is fucking a man required to reap the benefits of your ideal system?
Ace, you;re forgetting -- a good solid fuck is one of the best ways to say "I love you."
Let me guess: Two gays living together is "just different" from two straight men living together.
That's why one should be priviledged and not the other.
Funny how this explanation doesn't satisfy you when I say straight marriage is "just different" from gay "marriage."
And funny how you will now refuse to defend your choice to priviledge a gay couple and discriminate against a straight couple.
First of all, get your mitts off Niner. I have my hands full fighting Diva for his affections as it is.
By your lights het marriage blatantly privilegescertain male-female relationships. Say for example the friendship you've doubtless struck up with . . .oh, say Cal Gal.
This is the way the world works, babe -- get used to it. Be prepared to marry CG (and care for her offspring) if you want the benefits the state has to offer. otherwise, tough darts.
What exactly are you talking about? Who are these straight men who live together long after they've graduated college? Don't they know the neighbors are talking?
I did answer your question, but you are so intrigued with the idea of fulminating that you did not notice: I did not exclude "friends" in my original answer, for the simple fact that many men and women marry for companionship, i.e., friendship, and it is no business of the State to intrude into such matters and forbid such arrangements. Again, if you want to "marry" or "domestic-partnerize" a roommate of yours, be my guest. But, of course, you won't, and no one else will. If anyone is being cute, it's you.
Ronski:
You continue to willfully miss the question, as you have no good answer.
"You can't privilege the male-female marriage above the gay marriage!" you wail.
"Why not?" I ask.
"Because it's discriminatory and puts the male-female marriage above gay marriage."
"Okay," I say. "So we privilege gay marriages."
"Yes!" you breathe.
"But aren't we then 'discriminating' against male partnerships that don't involve fucking each other?"
"Who cares?" you cry with glee. "I've got my marriage swerve on. Who the fuck cares who else we discriminate against, as long as we include gay men in the privileged class!"
Wow. For someone who's so down on discrimination, you don't seem to care terribly much if others are discriminated against.
Or let's go this way:
You say: "Male-female is not a necessary prerequisite for domestic partnership!"
I say: "Fine. Then why should we require sex or love as prerequisites?"
You say: "Ha! You'll never 'marry' Niner."
I say: "I don't want to 'marry' Niner. I want the option of the same benefits you and your gay friend have. Why should you have these options simply because you fuck your friend and I don't fuck mine?"
And then you avoid the question, insisting that "of course" I must marry Niner, and fuck him, and love him, if I want the benefits you demand for yourself.
Are you blind? I've repeatedly said here that if you want straight male friends to register with the State as well as with Bloomingdale's, I don't care. So against whom am I discriminating? No one.
Ronski:
So cohabitating straight male-female couples can presumably reap the benefits of domestic partnership too, without marrying?
All well and good. But it strips the veneer off of "constitutional" (even state) protection and reveals muscle.
And, seeing as we're talking about Vermont here, I might include farm animals, but only in the Northeast Kingdom, where no one will much notice.
Tax breaks. Right to inheritance. Social Security benefits. Stuff like that.
I'm talking about the economic benefits; I'm assuming the social recognition factor is self-evident.
Love that muscle, babe!
"Tax breaks."
Funny, I thought there was a marriage penalty.
Finally, a nuanced question.
The answer is no, however. I do not favor domestic partnership as a separate category under the law. The Vermont court is simply navigating through political realities by leaving the option of domestic partnership to the legislature. I favor the one institution now generally recognized by the State, marriage, made available to all adult couples. But remember, I am settling here for the lesser of two options: my preference is for no State involvement whatsoever.
No, it's not, Cellar-who-is-frightfully-dim-yet-has-a-glib-and-shallow-response-to-everyFUCKINGthing.
But Cellar has redeeming qualities. He is notoriously kind to young men new to the City. At least, that is my guess.
I don't have sex with everything, dear.
Glib and shallow enough for you?
You guessed right, ronski. I always tryto show them around, tell them what NOT to wear (naked is always best), advise them on what books to read, and what Sonheim CDs to buy.
It's a full-time job, I tell you, but the rewards are great.
CellarDoor and a retarded chimpanzee.
Perfect for a remake of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid."
I love how gay guys brag about nailing a lot of other dudes.
Guys-- you're fucking other men. It's not terribly difficult to do.
(shudder)
Ooooooh. I was just about to type your trite, predictable response:
"Really? Are you speaking from experience, dear?"
Close enough, eh?
Also, don't forget the other obligations of marriage -- to be responsible for each other and for any offspring -- to treat resources of one partner as resources jointly available, etc.
You say fucking other men is "not terribly difficult to do." The next logical question is "Exactly which men have you been fucking?"
Can't you tell when you're being paid a compliment? Cause I'm assuming that you'd know what hole to put it in.
Which hole to put it in?
You got me there, Cellar. You're just a compendium of information.
So the "penalty" is granted to the Ozzie and Harriet type marriages Republican ideologues insist that every real American should lead.
Too damn bad about that.
Besides, as I said, there are more than tax breaks to consider as economic benefits.
Rask is correct. They are often contested by the deceased's blood relatives. It can get really unpleasant.
Thanks. Ben Stein wrote a political column in the '80s for Penthouse that was pretty good, but I don't know what else he's done regularly. Of course, his recently deceased father Herbert wrote occasionally for Slate, and both Stein's were part of Nixon's economic policy advisory staff.
Ace Message # 5677:
I think there's only a penalty if you file jointly. Spouses retain the option of filing separately.
Ha, ha. Someone hasn't checked out the huge hit of filing separately yet, has he?
Really? So there's a penalty either way, or what? I've been terribly misinformed then. Obviously, since I just got hitched, I haven't found out the hard way. Guess I will next month.
I am not sure of the history, but I wouldn't be surprised if they created the Married Filing Separately category specifically to prevent people from opting to file single, rather than married. So they made it extremely punitive. In short, they want your money, dammit.
When my ex and I first split up, he did our taxes. This was the first year that we made fairly close to the same amount of money, so our tax bill was around $2500.
I thought this was absurd, so I checked the categories. It turned out that I could file as Head of Household, even though we weren't officially divorced and I would get back $3000.
But this would leave my ex filing as Married Filing Separately, paying some godawful amount of money. This seemed dreadfully unfair.
So I told him to file single. In that category, he paid $500.
I'm not sure it was legal, but otherwise I could arbitrarily decide to file as Head of Household, thus forcing him into married filing separate. So I figured they wouldn't look too close.
Oh, yes. The Married Filing Separately table is completely different from Single. You don't have the option to file Single if you are married and livign together. I'm not even sure you're allowed to file single if you're separated--but that's the out I had my ex take.
So there.
The restauranteur was on the local news telling the story and lamenting the fact that he had just lost $35,000 and that the wine had indeed gone bad. I don't see how he can say he lost that much money; surely he didn't PAY that much for that bottle. If he did, he's a bad businessman because he didn't mark it up enough to recoup his initial outlay. I think it must be a ploy to get free advertising for his place, an upscale eatery in a town full of them.
Restaurateur. An easy mistake to make. When I was younger and even more stupid than I am now, I actually changed copy from the correct word to the incorrect one.
HA, HA, JUDITH!
Heee, heee, you fucked up.
PS: I didn't know it was "restaurateur" either.
Aside from the chagrin I feel at making the mistake, I'm glad to be corrected because I really didn't know it was spelled that way. And if you ask me, it looks awkward with that spelling but hey, the French should know.
Cold comfort.
I had to look five minutes before I saw the difference between your spelling and Ronski's.
Why gays want to be victimized by the "marriage penalty" is beyond me! Though I do understand the other benefits.
Then if you understand the other benefits, then you know that "victimization" is a small price to pay.
People who support their spouses are able to take them as dependents. Indeed, if there is a big enough disparity between the couple's incomes, there is no marriage penalty and instead they pay less taxes due to their marriage than their combined taxes would be if they were single.
Yes, I know. I wanted to make clear that this "dependency" wouldn't go away if we started treating married income-earners as individuals.
Cellar Door, whats a "vitim"? And why pay any price? Reform the marriage penalty AND extend the option of marriage (or its equivalent) to all adult couples. What's not to like?
This doesn't really bear on the topic at hand (other than whatever difference eliminating the "marriage penalty" would have made) -- but I thought it was interesting.
Sure she is. She is improving her financial viability in the long run.
But Cal is right. The proper way to calculate the costs of any sort of decision like that isn't to tally up current expenses vs current income, but to look at the impact of the decision on the whole income stream in the future as well.
It is also possible that the solution isn't "one parent should stop working", but instead that "one parent should find cheaper transportation".
I don't think the long-term benefits of both parents working has been sufficiently addressed in the public arena. It's about time they start, quite frankly. You'd think that all the studies demonstrating damn near no difference between the children of parents who work vs. those with a stay at home would finally clue in the social scientists: it doesn't make any difference. Then they could start looking for the parental behaviors that do make a difference.
At the same time, we could finally start to honestly address the fact that having a stay-at-home parent is a luxury for the parents, not necessarily the kids, and to address the pros and cons of such a decision.
Spreads are up in the Mote Football Pool! Only two weeks left to play in the regular season. There's a Friday game and a Saturday game, so get your picks in!
Pardon me Rasheed -- "victim."
A "victim" is anyone who has the unmitigated gall to complain about his or her ill-treatment at the hands of the status quo.
The "marriage penality" is a focus group-test buzzword Republicans use when they want to plead for the "rights' of heterosexuals.
And as we all know, those "rights" ar very "special" indeed.
Child support is usually deductible as well. Normally, the parent paying child support also takes the child as a deduction for income tax purposes.
This was perceived to be unfair to the parent who was doing all the childcare, so the Head of Household status was set up for those people who have a dependent living with them more than half the time. The head of household status is extremely generous. I'm amazed more parents with joint custody don't fight like dogs for it.
It is really extremely silly to set up laws like this, laws that assume one parent has most of the work and the other provides most of the money.
Why is it silly? Because it allows for people like me, who get child support, take the deduction, and also file Head of Household.
bwahahahahahahahahaha
I was out with Niner, Christin, and Cellar once when we were discussing this.
Niner said, "You have gay marriage, you have gay divorce."
Cellar said, "Oh, yes. And nothing's uglier than two old queens fighting over a couch."
But contrary to these two twerps, I say:
Let the games begin!
Gay people have grown up for centuries expecting to build their families in ways outside the norm--and not having the same often unrealistic pressures that straight people have to keep their relationships together. But for every time those pressures cause damage and keep a broken marriage limping along, there are as many times that the pressures help keep a couple and their kids living together through a temporary rough patch.
Gays were never bound by these restrictions--and have built their own paths to negotiate these areas. Adjustments will be in order.
And on that score, gay men are no different than straight men.
Sheesh!
...and Elliot isn't even around anymore....
Off topic, but amusing. A friend at AFSPACECOM got this from the Pentagon's Early Bird news clipping service:
Slobodan Milosevic dies and he shows up at Saint Peter's Gate, and Saint Peter says "What are you doing here? Go down to the other place!" So he goes down to Hell.
The next day 400 demons show up at Saint Peter's Gate. And Saint Peter says "Who are you?" And someone answers, "We're the first wave of refugees."
It is really sad to see a bereaved gay or same-sex partner moved in on by relatives of the deceased, and losing common property and the shared home; and to have to cope with the trauma of the loss of a life-companion plus the loss of loved common possessions and the dignity of privacy. Of course a will can remove this but many people don't think of it in time. Whereas in Australia a de facto partner of the opposite sex has similar rights to a spouse.
How true was your last post! Just got off the phone whith my friend whose partner died week before last; the family came from out of state and were all willing to let my friend, who has lived with his partner for YEARS, have it all. We were so pleased because we know our late friend would have wanted it that way. However, back home, the family has become concerned about "leagalities" and insist on selling the 2 cars and the house and leaving the partner with only the personal possessions.
They may be shooting themselves in the foot, however, because the personal stuff is quite spectacular.
Who knew this young man would die at 38 and need a will? I guess it is a warning to all of us: you never know when something catastrophic will occur so it's best to have the leagalities seen to NOW.
...and Elliot isn't even around anymore....
I just got a lovely Xmas card from Elliot in the mail. And he can be found in Table Talk -- though not on a regular basis. Recently he was celebrating the Vermont ruling in "Social Issues."
Well, Cellar, if you ever speak to him, say hello for me.
That varies state to state, but generally, if you handwrite it yourself and sign it, it is a valid will. It is called a holographic will (and was even before holographs were invented). You may not even need notarization, depending on your state.
Further, there are form books out with basic forms, probably some of which are on-line or have discs with the forms by now. If you type or cut and paste them, and have them properly witnessed and notarized, they will be valid.
However, the problem is that many of these forms and anything you write by yourself may not contain necessary language to avoid certain taxes, or to deal with the issue of what happens if a beneficiary dies in the same accident you do (remarkably gruesome cases have occurred where it makes a difference which of the parties died first in a plane crash and experts try to reconstruct the crash to see which died first), or other problems. Therefore, while free legal advice (like this -- and this is not my field of expertise) is worth every penny you paid for it, getting no legal advice may be very costly.
Sound advice, to which I'd add the fee is well worth having an estate lawyer draft a proper will.
And yet you know and correspond with so many on a daily basis...
Now I have actually met--in person--and had at least one meal with three different lawyers!
The downside of the internet?
(g)
Understand that where I live, one doesn't say that they work in the computer industry.
They have to be specific: "I'm a [systems analyst/network designer/sysadm/DBA/operator/NOC tech/software engineer/application specialist/MIS management/product manager/CTO/consultant (fill in technical focus)/recovery expert]."
Otherwise, when asked what one does, one is to say, "I'm not in the computer industry."
Life will be much easier for your surviving family if an executor is appointed and no one has to go to court to be appointed administrator, seek court permission to sell your real estate, etc.
Charitable giving nationwide was up 11 percent last year over the previous year and the upward trend is continuing in 1999, said Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, a Bethesda, Md. based charities watchdog group.
Most non-profit groups and other organizations report a steady rise in donations, and some expect record years for fundraising...
-Chicago Tribune, Friday, December 24, 1999, Section 1, pg.1
"Beginning of The End for Clinton
HELEN THOMAS
United Press International - December 25, 1999
UPI White House Reporter
WASHINGTON, Dec. 24 (UPI) It's the beginning of the end for President Clinton, who sees his presidency slipping away.
Clinton has always said, ``even the bad days are good,'' which indicates his love for his work as the President of the United States, and he clearly rages against the dying light.
He has one more Christmas to celebrate in the White House before he begins packing for a Jan. 20, 2000 departure for private life a life he knows will never be as fulfilling as when he was the nation's chief executive."
that supporting the WH Rapist lowers your IQ?
"Beginning of The End for Clinton
HELEN THOMAS
United Press International - December 25, 1999
UPI White House Reporter
WASHINGTON, Dec. 24 (UPI) It's the beginning of
the end for President Clinton, who sees his
presidency slipping away.
Clinton has always said, ``even the bad days are
good,'' which indicates his love for his work as the
President of the United States, and he clearly rages
against the dying light.
He has one more Christmas to celebrate in the White
House before he begins packing for a Jan. 20, 2000
departure for private life a life he knows will never
be as fulfilling as when he was the nation's chief
executive."
"The Democratic Doctrine on Destroying Inconsequential Women At Work in Linda Tripp Case
If you are "Inconsequential" Is it OK for Powerful People To Lie About You in Court?
By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources, (www.originalsources.com)
December 22, 1999
Last December, before anyone knew about Linda Tripp, the House Judiciary Committee listened to witnesses, two of them women, Dr. Barbara Battalino a government paid psychologist, and Pam
Parsons, a coach, who had been convicted and punished for perjury in cases involving sex. A short time into the hearing, Rep. Barney Frank, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, a homosexual
who passionately supports the notion of the President having sex with whomever and wherever the notion hits him, gave a little speech. In his speech he claimed that the action of the President in
lying under oath in the Paula Jones case, and later before the Grand Jury was "inconsequential" because the person involved was "not the Secretary of Health and Human Services" but an
"inconsequential" employee, Monica Lewinsky.
I wrote in a column at the time:
Presumably, had the person not been "inconsequential" he might have a different legal view. And so, here we are, back to the beginning of the Paula Jones case, when the Clinton camp
dubbed her "trailer park trash" and therefore, inconsequential in the scheme of things. After all, does it matter what important people do to inconsequential people? Barney Frank says it
doesn't matter.
equal before the Law, or have we adopted the notion, long ago rejected by those who fought in the American Revolution and wars since, that there are classes among us? Members of the
Judiciary Committee who oppose impeachment, and are willing to defend Clinton over the Constitution are saying, "YES!" Clinton is in a different class. It doesn't matter who gets hurt in
his defense, because Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky are "inconsequential" - and they are inconsequential WOMEN.
If they were men, would Barney Frank and the other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, have treated the matter differently?
This is a point that also has been brought out by Chairman Henry Hyde. Hyde said: "Are there different consequences for different classes of people in America?"
So far, it appears, the answer on the Democrat side is "Yes." It is, after all, a natural result of the Clinton doctrine of class warfare among the blacks and the whites, the rich and the poor.
While they claim to be concerned about the low "classes" - the poor, the minority, etc - what we are seeing is their true philosophy.
The government, embodied by one William Jefferson Clinton, has unlimited and uncontrolled "rights" to do with the lowly and "inconsequential" people whatever it wants to do and the
"inconsequential" folks just need to get used to it."
jury is concerned. At this point in our history almost everyone concedes that he DID lie before a court of law. However, since the matter involved "inconsequential" women and an "inconsequential"
notion, i.e. that all Americans are equal before the law, even when it is men lying about sex, half the Senate voted to acquit Clinton for his proven perjury. After all, it only ruined the lives of a
couple of foolish women. It's OK to jail women who lie about sex, but not men, especially powerful men who ruin the lives of inconsequential women.
Dr.Battalino, who went to prison for the exact same thing Clinton did, oral sex on Federal property, said at the hearing: "Because a president is not a king, he or she must abide by the same laws as
the rest of us." When it is Bill Clinton, supported by folks like Barney Frank and a sympathetic media, it would appear that's not true in American any longer."
President Clinton lied under oath about his sexual activity with a White House intern, and when the truth finally became undeniable because of physical evidence, the government was
derailed for months. So who do you think could now face up to 10 years in prison for all of this? Why, the whistle-blower, of course. Some people think Linda Tripp, who taped
conversations with Monica Lewinsky and turned the tapes over to the independent counsel's office, betrayed her young friend for the sake of selling a book. She has argued that the taping
was an act of self-defense, that she had feared the White House might otherwise succeed in blackening her name.
But her motivations, which can never be known anyway, are not the point. The issue is whether she may have committed a crime so onerous as to occasion a prosecution that could ruin her
life, and the answer is absolutely not."
is no broad consensus that the act is heinous to a felonious degree.
One law professor has written that secret taping of that sort is "socially corrosive," and he may be right, but bad manners are also socially corrosive, and people are not indicted for them.
The professor's better argument is that such laws are meant to inhibit wiretapping by investigators who don't first get judicial approval, but is that what this case is about - deterring the use
of government wiretaps? Hardly.
The fact is, this case is very narrowly construed. Much hinges on the timing of a particular tape, and that was primarily what Lewinsky was testifying about at a pretrial hearing recently.
She said the taped conversation occurred on Dec. 22, 1997, which is after Tripp had been warned by her attorney that secret taping was illegal in Maryland. In Maryland, it seems, you
have to know about the law to be guilty of breaking it.
The time of this taping might also mean that Tripp was not covered by a federal grant of immunity, but why is the state so intent on seeking ways around that grant? The answer, some have
argued, is vengeful politics. Whether that charge is true or not, this proceeding is little short of shameful."
has been recognized as a felony since before the Constitution was written because if allowed it makes a mockery of the court system, which constitutes one third of the American system of government. And, where, exactly, were all these taping purists when a couple of Democrats in Florida surreptitiously taped a cell-telephone conversation between Newt Gingrich, his attorney and several House leaders, took it his arch enemy, Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington, State, who then illegally and secretly gave it to the media? Linda Tripp was taping her OWN conversation. The couple taping Newt Gingrich had no legal right to be IN the conversation.
Jay Ambrose is 100% correct in calling the action in Maryland "vengeful politics." Rep. Jim McDermott was not every brought up on ethics charges in the House over his illegal actions. Linda Tripp believes she had immunity from prosecution and, besides, she was told, incorrectly, by her friend Lucianne Goldberg, who had checked with an attorney, that it was not illegal to tape your own conversation on the telephone. And, it isn't in 39 states. Even in Maryland, it's a vague law, operative only if the person KNEW it was illegal to tape.
What makes this even more absurd is that Linda Tripp was "wired" after she told her story to the independent counsel and ASKED to do tapes of her conversation with Monica Lewinsky. So, there is only one tape, apparently, of the many she made that is in question. This is nit-picking at its worst.
But, of course, in the Democrats doctrine of inconsequential women being destroyed for the sake of Bill Clinton's "legacy," it's par for the course. What is remarkable to me is that there are still women who support this kind of abuse."
concerned, of course, would prefer Linda Tripp.
"Jay Ambrose is 100% correct in calling the action in Maryland "vengeful politics." "
In this case, I applaud vengeful politics. After the Democrats are finished with Tripp, perhaps they can give Ken Starr, the House managers, and the next Republican President some payback, too.
"The issue is whether she may have committed a crime so onerous as to occasion a prosecution that could ruin her
life ..."
Ruin the bitch.
Is it legal for me to donate $100 to the state of Maryland to help them prosecute Tripp? I would like to do something to offset your contribution.
Of course if I make the donation and it turns out to be illegal, I'll just profess ignorance of the law so they can let me off. "Lucianne gave me bad advice!", I'll wail.
Linda Tripp is a dumb, conniving broad. But if her punishment is any worse than Clinton's was (which, if you remember, was no punishment at all), then justice will not have been served.
Clinton was impeached, fined, publicly humiliated, and accrued some massive legal fees. I would call that punishment out of proportion with his "crimes." And I still buy the argument that his statements did not constitute perjury.
BTW, its interesting to see Concerned argue that Tripp should not be prosecuted for something that isn't a crime in 39 states. I recall that an argument was made a year ago that Clinton was being prosecuted for a situation that a regular citizen would not -- i.e. perjury in a case that was dismissed. Concerned is only outraged about selective prosecution of Republicans.
I see the politics of personal destruction are alive and well. It seems that for Democrats compassion is reserved only for those who toe their political line.
And I still buy the argument that his statements did not constitute perjury.
Really? I've got a great bridge to sell you. BTW, did Santa bring you lots of presents this year?
"... did Santa bring you lots of presents this year?"
He left a lump of coal and a Bush bumper sticker in my stocking. The fat, old Republican #$@%&* .
"... for Democrats compassion is reserved only for those who toe their political line ..."
Or for those who display some compassion themselves.
I guess that means it is time for you to renounce your misguided Democratic loyalties.
LOL! You got me with this one. For a minute there I thought you were serious.
"[President Clinton] has one more Christmas to celebrate in the White House before he begins packing for a Jan. 20, 2000 departure for private life..."
Did Helen Thomas really write this?
Surprising she'd get the date wrong.
JJ --
Your posts always make me laugh -- especially when you're being serious.
JJ --
You make yourself laugh?
I don't have to make myself laugh. Your posts are more than sufficient.
JJ --
Then you must have been cracking up when I suggested the Linda Tripp should not be prosecuted.
I have little pity for Tripp...I do feel somewhat sorry for her that she was stupid enough to become a dupe for Lucianne Goldbergs hatred of Clinton. That old sot has gotten away clean from this mess. But Tripp loved the game and saw big bucks in her future by doing what Lucianne advised. Get it on tape and you've got a best seller.
If you think Tripp isn't going to write a book or hasn't already, you're deluded. Of course, I doubt any one in this country would BUY it...except maybe those who feel Linda Tripp should be rewarded for her sleazy efforts.
Maybe she will title it, "I'm Just Like You...". JJ, if so, I hope you're not her targeted audience.
I jes' want more.
Some fragments from Gabriel Garcia marquez's essay about Bill Clinton. My own poor translation from an Italian translation of the Spanish original.
"Well then: is it fair that....(Clinton).. must discard his historic destiny simply because he lacked a safe corner in which to make love? Because, this is actually what the case is:...
"There are no curtains in the windows of the Oval Office nor a privacy lock in the bathroom reserved for the major activities of the president. The vase of flowers ... on his desk, is, as has been revealed by the press, a hiding place for microphones....
"Literary fiction was invented when Jonah convinced his wife that he came home three days late because he was swallowed by a whale. Sheltering in this atavistic wit, Clinton denied before the judiciary having had any sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and he denied it with head held high in all respects like any unfaithful man. After all, his personal drama is a domestic question between himself and Hillary and he defended this with Homeric dignity.
"There has been a vast and sinister confabulation of fanatics for the personal destruction of their political adversary, whose great stature was unbearable to them. And their method was a criminal use of the justice system on the part of an attorney called Kenneth Starr who seemed to be excited to the point of orgasm by his bloody and salacious interrogation.
"The Bill Clinton I encountered four months ago... was no longer the unprejudiced university student of Martha’s Vineyard, but a thinner, uncertain prisoner who, behind his professional smile, was unable to to hide the same type of exhaustion that destroys aeroplanes : metal fatigue.
"...someone said that judging by the trial of Clinton, the United States continued to be the country of Nathaniel Hawthorne....the great 19th century American novel that denounced the horrors of fundamentalism in New England where the witches of Salem were burned alive.....A Kenneth Starr of the time imposed on (Hester Prynne) the punishment to continue normal life.... A guardian... followed her everywhere beating on a drum so that the passers by distanced themselves from her....The technique and the morals of the trial are the same in essence.
"From the captious, concupiscent questions of the attorney, even babies have discovered their parents’ lies that were meant to prevent them from discovering what the parents had been doing. Beaten by metal fatigue, Clinton has arrived at the unpardonable folly of punishing with blood and with fire an invented enemy five-thousand-three hundred and seven nautical miles from the White House, only to distract attention from his personal misfortune.
Toni Morrison, Nobel Prize laureate for literature and great writer of this agonising century has summarised it with a clever brush stroke : "They have treated him like a black president".
Gabriel Garcia Marques was awarded the Nobel prize for literature.
I think it is very unlikely that Clinton's historic place will be denied because of the Lewinsky scandal. Please, tell him there is no need to further derange himself, much less inflict his hand-wringin purple prose on the rest of us.
Isn't Marques a radical socialist?
Translated from Spanish to Italian to English ... run it through a few more translations and it'll come out like the King James Version: Yea, though crucified on the cross of Impeachment on the Hill at Washington, did the President rise to live again in the Senate.
Eccch.
God, that's pretty nauseating. What moronic little shit would delude
himself into the notion that Clinton was "defending" his marriage to
Hillary with (gag) "Homeric dignity"?
He meant, that Clinton defended the privacy of his personal understanding with Hillary.
This is not necessarily my own view. I was very interesting to see how others in this forum would react.
Marquez started by describing a dinner at the home of William Styron during which his original prejudice against Clinton was turned around by Clinton's insights into several unexpected areas. He had been previously warned that Clinton was a 'pleaser' and he was on his guard.
Australia had experienced a similar meeting with Clinton just before the balloon went up. Clinton charmed everybody rotten, including those who thought themselves proof against the charm, when he visited Australia. From here it did look like a vast Shakespearean tragedy.
I have read Christpher Hitchens's negative views. I usually agree with Hitchens on most things.
Yes, I know that's what he meant. As I said, he is delusional if he thinks such nonsense.
Marques sounds like one of those fools who can't compartmentalize enough. The kind of guy that Clinton was born to seduce. But still, he shouldn't subject the rest of his to his love letters.
They seem, to an outsider, to have eagerly believed the worst type of Matt Drudge stuff as though gratifying some inner need to believe. That is honestly how it looks to many outsiders including me.
I have been happily and faithfully with one partner for many years. Some of my friends live differently but are talented and useful people for all that.
Marquez is a great and universally respected writer with a talent for walking in the shoes of others. He is also a Latin macho man. No denying it.
If, however, he is basically saying "Hey, real men screw around and they just have this arrangement with their wives." then he doesn't really have any talent for walking in the shoes of others. Rather, he figures that everyone else's shoes must look and feel just like his--so he pronounces them a perfect fit.
What a dick. Remind me not to read him.
My own view is that the selection process for any high office is such a homogenising business that it is very rarely that any 'real' human gets through the grid. After the end of the cold war all the world had such high hopes from the Clinton administration about very serious things. The degeneration into private squalor was heartbreaking for everyone.
(and CalGal clutches her sides, falls to the ground and howls with laughter.)
Candide, my lord. You need to get out more. Online forums, including this one, are filled with people who I now know must be heroic beyond measure, if I'm to be dubbed brave for my paltry words of support.
Over in TableTalk, you can be dubbed a right wing racist for merely suggesting that Clinton might have actually not told the truth under oath.
I must have missed them. I had the impression that it took more courage than most people in the USA possessed to even hint at a smidgin of virtue of any kind in Clinton. I didn't see anyone — no there was one with whom I disagreed about everything else — in TT.
The NYT is full of howling witches going on about sexual filth and shock and horror. You cheer me up, you really do.
Isn't democracy a weird thing? So many of us and we individually expect to be represented by one person.
In the context of the present discussion I am interested in the selection of journals available in the banana bar (if that's what it's called). A notable and perhaps significant absentee is
The Nation.
http://www.TheNation.com/
Nowhere does it say 'American'Current Events. Is anyone interested in overseas current events?
Gabriel Marquez isn't 'blowing his horn' here; it sounds more like he's blowing the WH Rapist's skin flute.
'Homeric' dignity? LOL! Homer Simpson, maybe.
Marquez seems to be attempting the literary equivalent of covering up the fecal miasma emanating from the sewage that is the Clowntoonian Legacy with prosy eau de toilette. Unfortunately, the result comes out smelling more like Kennel #5.
http://www.TheNation.com/
I think I've read you elsewhere.
...Clinton has arrived at the unpardonable folly of punishing with blood and with fire an invented enemy...only to distract attention from his personal misfortune.
Precisely. Too bad Garcia would rather dwell in purplish fixation on Clinton's "Homeric dignity", than on that cowardly distraction. I know it's funny to just devolve this whole thing to a few unfinished blowjobs from a husky idler, but recall the various things Clinton did actually do to try to weasel out of this:
Those things really do lend some insight as to his character. Sorry to sound like a Freeper, but it's true. Unfortunately, like his fictitious doppelgänger in Primary Colors, Clinton has become what he professed to detest.
Well, everything in the universe distills to issues of race for some folks. No, they treated him like a guy they didn't like who got caught with his pants down. Has nothing to do with black or white. I don't find it "clever", as much as a non-sequitur. If anything, it's probably more of a class issue. Clinton's trailer-trash aesthetic rankles Lott's country club sensibilities. It's Caddyshack -- snobs vs. slobs.
Candide says:
"After the end of the cold war all the world had such high hopes from the Clinton administration about very serious things."
Why this would be the case is not apparent, if its facts that are being evaluated. I presume it related to the WH Rapist's Party affiliation more than the candidate, who was the scandal prone governor of one of the very poorest, most corrupt and worst administered states in the Union, one which had not improved its standing during his tenure.
Simple. Because he's so darn smart. And he feels your pain. Just ask him.
He suggested (not stated) that Clinton was so put through the distracting torture-mill that he was flabby mince- meat at the end of the drawn out process.
After all Clinton (who bloody well should have controlled himself, but didn't, and that is no more than Kennedy, Johnson and just about every other president failed to do as well - and they weren't questioned) still cared about the major direction of his policies and for a while seemed to be trying to maintain the facade for those reasons. And the world in general wanted him to do just that. Hillary did the same for the same reasons.
It's not a matter of was Clinton perfect. It's a matter of what is happening to the messy unwinding of the nuclear-armed ex USSR while the Drudge lobby had a field day. They made Marie Antoinette and her toy dairy look like hard-nosed professionalism.
There is an article in the Guardian Weekly by Jonathan Steele. December 23-29 1999, page 12. 'The bear and the honeypot'.
It makes frightening reading.
Greystoke -
We have a phrase where I come from: 'Justice For All'.
The documents the US Govenment and our Legal System are based on are not about 'getting revenge' or 'ruining people'. Ever. Trust me on this one.
The Hitchens essay is good isn't it. It applies as much to Australia as it does to the USA. Money buys power.
There is the small matter of dismantling the grossly over-sized nuclear war machine. Putin has just expressed a desire to reopen negotiations about START 11.
The rest of us, not fortunate enough to have a democratic voice in your country, feel somewhat interested in our own survival and would like you folks to get on with it and leave the president's private zone alone.
You have it backwards. It's the WH who is persecuting Tripp by proxy, and others through various means.
Thus, as during the IC investigation, the WH is perpetuating this atmosphere. You should not support such vicious small-mindedness. It should be opposed.
Hey, rest of the world. If you can't guarantee your own survival, it's not our problem!
Vicious small-mindedness ahould be opposed at all times.
Oh, please. Enough of the "shoulds". Really, you might as well be a liberal.
Yup. We Jews are pleased.
There's an [i], on that one, connie. I'm sure you'll pretend you understood that.
After all Clinton....still cared about the major direction of his policies and for a while seemed to be trying to maintain the facade for those reasons.
If you still mean the Sudan/Afghanistan bombings, that wasn't a major direction of policy, though of course we do have a policy determining how we deal with terrorists. Nonetheless, the action was startling in how poorly thought-out it was, and how poorly researched.
But my point is that Garcia, like most other high-profile Clinton defenders, point to his persecution by Starr as a testament to what character the man has, that he can take a beating and bounce right back up. True enough, I suppose, but his actions also demonstrate quite a lot about him. If his judgement were that clouded by going through the public torture-mill, perhaps it would have been more prudent to not bomb, or at least to get a clearer idea of what to bomb, and what to do afterward.
As for Kosovo, this seems to be unravelling as a classic case of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, and plays a rather large part in the recently emboldened Russian bear. We'll be in Kosovo long after Clinton gets hired by Dreamworks, does a few years of holding "auditions" for starlets, and gets a golden parachute from Spielberg, et al.
Sure. Money is power no matter where you are.
There is the small matter of dismantling the grossly over-sized nuclear war machine.
Don't hold your breath. Even if it does get dismantled, it'll get replaced. There's enough Congressmen beholden to the defense contracting industry to see to that. Gov't welfare and all that, you know.
Putin has just expressed a desire to reopen negotiations about START 11.
Yeah, probably because the US has been wanting to renegotiate missile treaties also, so we can build a missile defense system. So Putin will get some concessions to enable him to diversify and increase his military force, and we'll get some concessions to do the same. Then, of course, the Chinese will want something out of this. They always do.
The rest of us....would like you folks to get on with it and leave the president's private zone alone.
Sounds good to me. Unfortunately, he gave his enemies ample ammunition in court with which to hound him. I think we all wish none of that had ever happened, but he chose to obfuscate and conceal in a court of law. Even in frivolous lawsuits, you can't do that. Even if you're the President.
Yes, it'd be wonderful if the whole thing were dropped, and the world moved on, but it would also have been nice if certain people had been more cognizant of the potential enormity of their indiscretions.
Hey, rest of the world. If you can't guarantee your own survival, it's not our problem!
We're talking nuclear stockpiles here and it is your problem.
But this is where I see the smoke rising and leave backwards bowing low to the ground in a servile manner. A sort of cringe cringe situation.
We're basically in agreement.
If you still mean the Sudan/Afghanistan bombings, that wasn't a
major direction of policy, though of course we do have a policy
determining how we deal with terrorists.
Nope. I meant Serbia and Iraq. I just can't accept dropping explosives on anybody. Call me a liberal.
Must go and cook dinner. You're a feisty lot and great to talk with.
connie --
Of Einstein?
I meant Serbia and Iraq.
Ah. Well, then we are essentially in agreement, because I vigorously opposed the actions in the Balkans, and it seems that our Iraq policy has yielded little besides lots of dead civilians.
However, where I disagree with Garcia's premise is that Starr's distractions on Clinton's time may have clouded Clinton's judgement. Clinton had shown little aptitude for foreign policy before then, and even last summer, with East Timor, he was quite willing to stay out of it altogether, and let you guys handle it. This tends to infer that maybe brown lives aren't worth as much as white ones, especially since Clinton wouldn't even criticize the Indonesian gov't until the carnage started getting thick. Maybe he was just being a good businessman, and not wanting to piss off a good customer.
I just can't accept dropping explosives on anybody. Call me a liberal.
Agreed, and that's what gets me labeled a liberal in here too (by some, anyway). I'm all for a strong military, and a solid foreign policy, mind you, I just find our might being used somewhat capriciously at times. And no one likes hearing about cluster bombs tearing apart little kids. At the very least, I hope that gnaws at the people who commit such actions.
I read that over in TT in a thread called Why Does the Gay Left Insist On Forcing Its Peverted Ideas On Us or some such rot. What amazed me was there was a typo in the first paragraph. This is AP stuff? Sloppy...
Bauer looks like a twit and thinks like one, too.
"I think what the Vermont Supreme Court did last week was in some ways worse than terrorism," Bauer told reporters at his New Hampshire campaign headquarters.
Really? In what way could these two things even be comparable? Or is this just more of the same foamy rhetoric we've come to expect from people like Bauer? I'm just curious. I'd like to see even one way in which allowing gays to marry (hell, the VSC didn't even quite have the nerve to go that far) is worse than terrorism. Ridiculous. This is sound-bite bizarro sophistry at its worst.
And Forbes is simply hilarious. I suppose he means that, were his dad still alive, "Steve" wouldn't allow Dad to marry his cabana boy. And after all Dad did for him; if not for his last name, "Steve" would probably be a hell of a telephone solicitor, or appliance salesman, or some such thing.
And the GOP wonders why people think they're silly. With maroons like Bauer and Forbes (and Keyes), it casts a shadow of goofy puritanism on the whole party.
I like the cut of your jib wonkers.
Kill the messenger.
Well, that and the fact that she's one of those unattractive fortyish frumpish fake blondes.
Whatever works.
No. Conservatives say you should do what they want you to. Liberals enact laws to force you to do what they want. When conservatives enact such laws, they are acting like liberals.
Common is as common does lady. (Old cockney saying - sort of).
Candide, the "world" isn't our concern. We're rich--we can be childish for as long as we want to. Neener neener.
Cheers
Really? What about all the people Clinton has fucked over? Don't they count? He told people to go out and defend him, and then made them all look like idiots (his wife included).
No, Cal, you're going to have to come up with something better.
You might not like the fact that people view that as worse than Clinton. But there is no question that a majority of people do.
Also, in Clinton's case every single person who believed him is responsible for their own misery. He didn't fuck them over by an explicit act. Like it or not again, The People don't hold that as high as sin.
Sure, Cal, sure. If that is what you want to believe, I won't try to change your mind. Most people like to think their irrational hatreds are justified.
Also, in Clinton's case every single person who believed him is responsible for their own misery. He didn't fuck them over by an explicit act.
Clinton swore to them that the charges weren't true. He sent them out to spread the word. That is an explicit act.
You apparently haven't seen her polls. While I would never cite polls to support a particular belief I have, I see no problem in citing polls to show that I'm telling you the truth about the public opinion of La Trippster.
Clinton swore to them that the charges weren't true. He sent them out to spread the word. That is an explicit act.
Not on the same grounds as taping a "friend", contacting Ken Starr, and wearing a wire.
Besides, as I said--anyone who stepped into Clinton's mess did so of their own volition. Personally, I would have looked him in the eye and said, "Sorry, dude. You're on your own. Best of luck."
And had he fired anyone who did that, I wouldn't have felt nearly as bad about his impeachment.
Nor do I care to. All they show is how easily the public can be led when they are only presented with one side.
Not on the same grounds as taping a "friend", contacting Ken Starr, and wearing a wire.
A "friend" tells you that she is planning on committing a felony. She tells you a person in a position of great power is planning on committing a felony. She asks you to commit a felony. You know that unless you take some action to protect yourself, your only choices are to commit that felony or lose everything you have worked for. Are you really telling me that you would do nothing to protect yourself? I sorry to hear that self-preservation is so low on your list of priorities.
Personally, I would have looked him in the eye and said, "Sorry, dude. You're on your own. Best of luck."
Your boss and personal friend tells you the rumors you've heard aren't true. He looks you in the eye and swears it. Without the benefit of hindsight, would you really walk out on your friend, your job, and your career on the basis of a rumor?
But JJ. That's all I ever made a statement about was the public opinion. Remember? I said, "Tripp is reviled because she fucked over a friend. " You said, "No, Cal, you're going to have to come up with something better."
So no, I don't have to come up with anything better. That is, in fact, why the public despises her. You don't have to like it. But unless you have polls showing the contrary, you're going to have to agree that this is why the public despises her. Unfair and unjust as it is, poor lamb.
She asks you to commit a felony.
I would say No. Quite simple. Were she to threaten me, I'd just tell her I'd be holding a press conference the next day announcing what she'd told me. My utter disinterest in money or a book contract would go a long way towards establishing credibility.
A small point: You are misrepresenting facts. Tripp started taping Lewinsky long before she asked her to commit a felony. Why was it that Tripp was due to be deposed, again?
For one thing, it is flat out impossible that Clinton would dare fire someone who refused to support him at that point in time. I'd just tell him that I would say I knew nothing about the incidents in question and had no comment. So I don't think anyone's refusal would entail their job or career.
But suppose it did entail all you dramatically describe. A friend who has a long history of behavior that supports the likelihood of the rumor? A friend who has in every prior situation denied the rumor like crazy until he was smacked in the face with evidence? And this friend orders me to support him fervently or else? You bet your ass I'd walk out, if that was the only alternative he left me. In fact, I would tell him that I was doing him a favor by refusing to believe him. Someone should have called the man on his utter lack of credibility--they would have done the country a favor.
In the case of his cabinet members, I'd go even further: I'd tell him there was no fucking way I'd put my reputation on the line for this bullshit and that he'd best not ask me again or I'd resign.
I'm hoping that the day will come when certain Lefties will grow out of their Hatfields and McCoys style vindictive mindset and join the rest of the human race. But then, I'm quite the optimist, aren't I?
CalGal -
Tell me, what kind of 'friend' attempts to coerce you into felonious behavior that you know will get you in deep legal shit? How many people like that would *you* call 'friends'?
Well, sorry, that's utter bullshit. Nothing excuses rape.
Lefties playing in the sandbox. You must be *so* proud!
Well, actually, no. He didn't. You'll have to remember that not everyone buys the rape stories, and in the other situations, taken the women's stories at their word I don't see he did anything that bad.
But in any event, JJ was only asking about Clinton's friends.
* Taping the private confidences of a friend is reprehensible.
* Betraying the confidences of a friend is reprehensible.
* Asking a friend to break the law is reprehensible.
* Asking a friend to lie for you is reprehensible.
* Deliberately setting out to seduce a married man is reprehensible.
* Betraying your marriage vows, no matter the temptation, is reprehensible.
* Forcing your sexual attentions on someone is reprehensible.
The performance of any of these reprehensible acts by one person does not make another of these acts by another any less reprehensible.
So why is it that in discussion after discussion, when someone says "person A did X, and that was wrong", someone else replies "well, person B did Y, so there!" What the hell does that have to do with it???
If not then, you're a "Leftist."
Sorry, CalGal. Your post just seems to lack conviction.
After the WH Rapist leaves office, people in general, including most Democrats will more or less freely admit his crimes. So why cover for the Psychopath in the White House now? (Even Christopher Hitchens admits that's what Clowntoon is). I simply don't see the justification for investing personal capital in defending sociopathic behavior, unless it's a 'Party uber alles' kinda thing.
Well, then I guess I will get nowhere with concerned, but then concerned wasn't necessarily who I was addressing. Besides, I have been so consistently unpopular in my entire life that I refuse to play that game anymore. Fact is, I have yet to meet the perfect person. I also am aware enough of my own imperfections that I am not foolish enough to throw stones. It is not the pettiness or the meaness of many arguments which annoys me (I am used to that) - it is the utter lack of logic.
But then - that's politics fer ya'
Of course, usually, I just go away and read something else. Put my comments this time down to the foolishess that sometimes creeps in with fatigue (it's way past my bedtime). So, now, I bid you all good night.
carry on
have fun
ta ta
Oh, sweetie, find someone who'll enjoy arguing with you. You bore me.
Christie,
Really, I feel almost guilty. We have returned to arguing The Sex Scandal. Ack!
I think we've returned to it because apparently some folks can't move on. Those folks would be currently indicting Tripp, who is indeed quite a loathsome character.
But still, do we want this over and done with, or not? Any rehashing of it will naturally return to the Big He, crooked schlong, weasel words and all. Let her go the way of Monica -- indelibly inscribed on the shit list of a nation, trying to peddle her slimy story to anyone foolish enough to give her the time of day, pawn of ranting theocratic manipulators. That oughta be enough; she's already in a peculiar kind of hell, I'm sure.
Cal --
I especially liked how connie expressed his deepest regret that your posts seem to "lack conviction." Lacking conviction is a failing one could never attribute to conservatives ... with the possible excpetion of the House managers, who just weren't able to get a conviction in the biggest case of their careers.
Eric --
"Let her go the way of Monica -- indelibly inscribed on the shit list of a nation, trying to peddle her slimy story to anyone foolish enough to give her the time of day, pawn of ranting theocratic manipulators. That oughta be enough; she's already in a peculiar kind of hell, I'm sure."
Spot on.
Didn't I say that about 200 posts back?
Well, telling me that I lack conviction is a pretty easy touch anyway. Kind of like telling Niner he's flip. I mean, ouch. You got me, dude.
As for Tripp, I really don't care whether she is tried or not. I have no terrible need to see her in the docks or in jail. But whenever I think of her incomprehensible rage at a world in which she has legal hassles and her quarry is running the country--well, it just makes me chuckle.
Call me a hag. Next thing you know I'll be blonde and frumpy.
Cal --
Funny how the right wing failed to express the same depth of concern for Julie Hyatt Steele that they now feel for Linda Tripp, though, isn't it?
"Don't be silly, Cal. You couldn't manage frumpy on the worst day of your life."
"Why, thank you, TS!"
Cal --
I'm sorry, I thought that went without saying.
So I didn't say it.
I don't know that I will point fingers at the right, given the rather nauseating display of oleaginous sympathy expressed recently for poor Bill--who after all was just defending his arrangement with Hillary, doncha know?
Cal --
Funny how we get to the end of the twentieth century still mired in tribalism, isn't it?
Gypsies?
Don't worry, they will always find someone to deplore.
Gypsies are an excellent choice. They can be blamed for missing children, marital infidelity, and anything lost, stolen, or misplaced --almost as versitile as Clinton.
Did anyone else see those newsclips?
Good to debate with you again.
BTW, what are the GOP candidates' positions on Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell program?" Probably the one Clinton policy they agree with. Except for Bauer and Keyes who probably think he went too far. Bradley and Gore and H. R. Clinton have repudiated it. Does the BIG GOP TENT yet include gay Americans?
Sureky you jest! Does the big GOP tent include gays? I don't know; why don't you ask the 2 that belong?
Grey --
Eeewwww.
Hey, Grey--did you see Candide's request a while back to add The Nation to the sidelinks?
I added The Nation. Thanks for the reminder.
Stumbo
robertjayb previously requested Mother Jones.
Well, he should've addressed that request to the hosts of Politics, not Current Events...
I hope the new section headings are satisfactory.
Thanks. I missed you, too.
Traffic here seems to be picking up a bit after the Christmas lull.
I agree. All news sources have bias since they are produced by humans. Therefore as many shades of bias as possible should be available for people who want to examine ideas.
Thanks Greystoke.
It's a good thing I have no particular need for certainty.
This should amuse the folks who believe real-life violence is caused by computer games ...
According to this site, which tracks statistics for the newly-released game "Unreal Tournament," shows that players of the game have recorded over 8 million virtual killings in the past week alone. The game features both human opponents and computer-controlled opponents, called "bots," who are designed to look and act like human beings.
I, for one, find certain aspects of this statistic deeply disturbing.
And yet whenever I go to the arcade, I get a serious kick out of Lethal Enforcer, and yell at any Innocent Victims that might get in my way.
On Christmas Day, at a friends house, her youngest son, an overly hateful 7 year old who plays these video games with his older brother to the exclusion of almost everything else in life, got a Toy Story video game in which Woody (?) tries to evade all these other toys and get somewhere...I've no idea the purpose of his quest. This little kid sat there yelling, "Kill! Kill the robot, blow his brains out!!"
I was amazed at how vehement he sounded...I see future serial killer written all over this kid.
I was amazed at how vehement he sounded...I see future serial killer written all over this kid.
Scary, and you're probably right. Are the parents just content to let their little darling be babysat by his Playstation and Chinpokomon toys, or what? Sure sounds like a cry for help, this kid.
But you are probably right, he does need help. I hate to sound rude but the kid gives me the creeps.
I don't mean attachment disorder, which is an entirely different spectrum.
Well, if the kid's getting enough attention from his parents, then maybe he'll pull out of it. Maybe he's just a little edgy because of his folks splitting, not that that's any sort of excuse for him to misbehave. I suppose as long as he confines his violent impulses to the video games, then it's cathartic for him.
But if he starts slapping the family dog around, or picking fights with his teammates, there's your sign of trouble.
If his name shows up as a Deathmatch champion at age 8, that's a sign of trouble, too.
Of course, you could always defuse the situation like young Kip Kinkel's dad did: buy him a gun.
He was a third child, actually. His mom had the older boy and a baby girl who died from SIDS very young. She immediately got pregnant with this one, which all of us thought was a mistake because the marriage was in trouble. The dad rarely sees these kids, lives in England (his homeland) and only calls.
This one never wants to be touched and isn't affectionate at all. He is definitely not attached...
This does sometimes work with kids who are just excited and attracted by guns. They are delighted to have the opportunity and accept the structure. Kip, unfortunately, was a nut job who didn't respond to normal incentives.
But then apart from institutionalization--which might not have been possible for him anyway--what could he have done to prevent what happened? I can't believe the kid wouldn't eventually have found a gun and used it. About the only thing I can say about that eventuality is that he might not have killed his parents, which he apparently did out of anger that they were taking away his guns.
I don't know what the correct action is when you realize you've raised a monster. I wish that more support were given to the few parents who do realize it and try like hell to address it, rather than ignore it. The fact that both Kinkel's parents did realize it and did try makes the whole thing worse, somehow.
That's on the mom. I don't mean to blame her per se. But she should get the kid to a shrink right away. It is often possible to teach kids like this how to bond and attach.
I agree...but it's a dicey situation because she is my husbands ex girlfriend. We've become friends, good ones, but I don't feel comfortable suggesting she take her kid to a counselor. Besides, I think they all 3 went for awhile, after the dad left. He was such a prick...I feel they all better off without him.
Family counselling isn't the same thing at all. I can understand the diceyness. Perhaps you can find a book on the subject and say "Wow, I noticed a lot of these things apply?"
It is unfair, but bonding problems these days are almost always an issue of the mother's behavior, not the father's.
I know what you say is true and maybe we never know what things are like in others homes but I would be so surprised if this mom is totally at fault. She's had to work a lot, however, to pay off the bills the dad left her with so maybe she's been neglectful or something. Maybe she's more cool to them than I see or something. Or maybe the kid reminds her too much of the dad...who knows?
Cal --
I once prosecuted a guy who claimed that, since he knew his kids were going to experiment with drugs anyway, he decided that as a parent it was his responsibility to see that they had a safe, secure environment in which to get high. So he supplied his kids with marijuana and amphetamines on the condition that they only smoke up at home.
I was not impressed by this rationale, and I don't buy the argument that Kip Kinkel's dad did the right thing by buying his boy a gun in order to combat his fascination with the things. If he thought he just had to buy a weapon (although why he would is beyond me), the solution was to let Kip join a gun club but keep the gun locked up at the firing range. Letting him keep it at home was, to put it charitably, dumber than dirt.
But I suppose Papa Kinkel paid for his stupidity.
Post script: I forgot to mention this little creep tried to stab his moms boyfriend with a fork at Easter dinner at her house and I was gape mouthed over that one. The guy, needless to say, lost interest in a relationship with her soon thereafter.
Cal --
It depends on what you mean by "sourced."
I'm sure Kip Kinkel was and is "deeply fucked up." Aside from whether Dad bears any responsibility for that (and I think he probably does), it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a deeply fucked up kid without a gun is less likely to engage in mass murder than a deeply fucked up kid with a gun.
While I'm sympathetic to the argument that the father got crappy advice, the fact remains that the only appropriate response to that crappy advice was: "Buy him a gun? What, are you out of your fucking mind?"
I'm not talking "fault". I'm talking behavior. However, if the kid is stabbing people with forks, I would strongly recommend that you figure out some way to approach her. No matter how uncomfortable it makes you. Remember, the kid's life is at stake. To say nothing of other lives down the line.
The father's responsibility lies at least in denying the problem until the kid was 10 or so. BUt that is incredibly early, relatively speaking. Most parents of these sorts of kids do excellent imitations of ostriches.
And from what I can tell, the dad was desperate. Also, when it became clear that it wasn't helping the situation, he decided to remove it.
I'm not taking his side--as I said, I think more parents need to be aware of the responsibility they have if their child is seriously disturbed. But given how many parents don't try at all, Kinkel's dad is fairly unique in being aware, concerned, and dedicated to figuring this out. It is tragic that he didn't institutionalize his kid--which is the only real prevention I can see--but I can't find it in my heart to castigate him. He didn't buy the gun casually or without thought.
Cal --
And I'm not saying he bought the gun casually or without thought.
I'm saying it was a stupid thought.
Here is the interesting list with the POTC selection in bold type and the runners-up (sometimes they are given other titles, but I will refer to them here as runners-up) in regular font:
11th century:
William the Conqueror: Conquered England and engineered a state bureaucracy
Mahmud of Ghazna: Built a Muslim empire in India
Pope Urban II: Instigator of the Crusades
12th century:
Saladin: Re-conquered the Holy Land from the infidel Christians, but was such a humane leader that even the Christians liked him.
Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen of France, then Queen of England – went on a crusade
Yoritomo: Took the ancient title of Shogun and gave it dictatorial power; Such regimes would then rule Japan for the next seven centuries.
13th century:
Genghis Khan: Nuff said
Francis of Assisi: One of the first communists; Lenin said if there had been ten Assisis, there would have been no need for revolution.
Jalal ad-din rumi: Muslim mystic; poet; Godfather of the Sufi sect of whirling dervishes
14th century:
Giotto: the first artist to paint man as man.
Zhu Yuanzhang: First emperor of the Ming Dynasty
Tamerlane: Military genuis of Samarkand
15th century:
Johann Gutenberg: Nuff said
Christopher Columbus: Nuff said
Joan of Arc: Go see the Besson movie.
Queen Elizabeth: Nuff said
Martin Luther: Nuff said
Copernicus: Nuff said
17th century:
Isaac Newton
Galileo Galilei
William Shakespeare
18th century:
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Franklin
Ludwig van Beethoven
19th century:
Thomas Edison
Charles Darwin
Abraham Lincoln
20th century:
Albert Einstein
FDR
Gandhi
I like the bold choice of an artist (Giotto) few have heard of for the fourteenth century. I was surprised at the selection of Jefferson and Edison (I think Darwin should have been selected for the eighteenth century). Queen Elizabeth over Martin Luther in the sixteenth century? I don't think so.
On the other hand I would have liked to see Marx and Freud, not because they were "right" but because of their influence.
On the other hand I would have liked to see Marx and Freud, not because they were "right" but because of their influence.
I could agree with an inclusion of Marx, but not Freud. Marx's influence has been vast. Freud's influence has also been vast, but it has been more indirect than Marx's. However, I would argue that both of them are pikers when compared to Darwin. Darwin should have been the Person of the Nineteenth Century.
Candide --
I disagree. I would have picked Beethoven over Mozart just as Time Magazine has.
What the fuck does this mean? Man has been depicted as man for thousands of years, in any number of cultures and civilizations.
That's Time's gloss. I think they actually mention that Western men could not see natural human fugures painted with emotion until Giotto.
CalGal --
With the exception of his symphonies, his work is rather dull.
Are you kidding me? This is a little like saying that with the exception of Kareem Abdul Jabber's sky hook, he didn't have a shot.
Are you saying Freud is only half vast?
Understood. I don't mean to dismiss his symphonies. But we're not comparing Kareem to Kurt Rambis, after all. Mozart, he got mo game.
I see that some of you are at the top of your game this morning.
abandoned boy
another link
I suspect the Medicaid explanation is correct--they will be put in jail and considered unfit parents. Kid's health care will be paid for by the system. That's actually pretty ingenious.
Oddly enough, this might be considered a failure of the health care system in more ways than one. The parents with excellent health insurance can say, "Take every measure" to save a baby who would otherwise be allowed to die. They won't have to worry about that cost. But the costs that come later won't all be covered, and it will be too late to do anything about it then.
I wonder if insurance companies can refuse to pay for extreme measures--can they deem it elective, rather than emergency?
sufferers who do not respond well to medication. There have been many times in the past 5 years, since her illness first manifested itself, that I have felt like simply walking out and not returning.
There have been times, after one of her numerous suicide attempts, that I have felt it would have been better not to have "rescued" her, that if we had not called the ambulance or got her to hospital the nightmare we all at times live in would be over.
I don't like myself for having these feelings, but nevertheless they are real. We can't know what pressures these parents felt or what brought them to the stage where they could no longer cope with the care of their son. I would not be willing to judge them until I knew more.
This is what happens when people with enough money to sheild them from the harsh cold reality of life come face to face with things most of us have to handle all the time.
The mothers bumper sticker read "Zero to bitch in 2.5 seconds"...the new one should read "Zero to slime in one weekend".
It must be terribly hard for you. I'm sorry.
As I said, I don't think there is anything to be done about the sort of pressures that one has to deal with when a child is severely disabled. If the parents have the option to discontinue life support in extreme situations, I think more of them should realize how terrible their life will be if they don't. Some parents don't even have that opportunity, though.
I think that we need to have more facilities for the severely disabled and allow those who are responsible to "park" them there for life, if that's what they need to do.
According to this article, George Harrison was stabbed several times in the chest this morning by an unidentified assailant. Harrison is expected to recover. Police are questioning a 33-year-old man in connection with the attack.
So ... I don't see what the big deal is. The guy was probably just trying to arrange what people have wanted for decades -- a Beatles reunion.
And you are a sick puppy. Sick, sick, sick.
The family is very well off, the mother respected and commended for her activities on behalf of the mentally handicapped, the father a successful CEO... and yet these two dumped their child in a hospital with a note saying "We can't take it any more. It's not our problem."
What more do you need to know? That the parents are most probably nice, courteous, mow the lawn and keep the premises tidy, give charitably at Christmas... but so what? The enormity of what they've done stands alone. They abandoned their child, a child wholly dependent on father and mother for care. Those parents were financially able to provide care and yet jettisoned the child as baggage, impedimentia, on their way through life. Yes, the parents probably needed more quality time with each other. And Daddy, hell, he was just too stressed out what with work and all.
From what I've read, some of their neighbors sympathize with them.
Go figure. It is a strange world.
Then there are those who act upon the moment at regular pace, to the destruction of a child.
The theme for the 90s?
The understanding of the latter - and sometimes, the justification for same - because of the existence of the former.
I should add that I don't think the feelings of wanting, at times, to be free of a child with so difficult an affliction are in any way unusual. What is unusual is acting on these feelings, with clear premeditation, in the way they did.
Remember, this kid is severely disabled. I'm not saying that to excuse the parents. It's just that I'm not sure that anyone should be required to give up their life for someone who will never be able to have anything approaching a life--much less a normal life.
Legal dumping grounds become a necessity.
In this case, it looks like the parents wanted out of the financial pressures, and were willing to go to jail and lose their parental rights in order to get out from under them.
Not fully agreed to but beautifully written.
From my perspective I think everybody is missing a point. If the parents are well off and want to get rid of the responsibility, certainly there are institutions who could assist - at a price. Or am I wrong?
I'm crushed. Every post of mine has made mention of that requirement, and yet you say that we all miss the point.
Twenty years ago, children with severe cases would be routinely hospitalized. That's no longer the case. The deinstitutionalization effort has put the responsibility for caring for disabled children on parents, the community and organizations such as the United Cerebral Palsy Association, Sheridan said. But getting help, even for the privileged, is not easy.
Advocates said that, particularly for children, government help is in short supply, private insurance is inadequate and education programs are lacking.
Yes, that's what I've been saying. Apparently not very clearly. (g)
If a parent wants to care for their child, fine. Otherwise, there should be a place to "dump" them.
The other thing that this leads to, though, is a restriction on the extreme measures that can be taken to keep people (particularly children) alive.
Sorry. I see you did make the point. Would you agree then that this is really the issue? One can understand that the burden suddenly becomes so big that the parents snap. One cannot understand that the solution is to completely abandon responsibility.
That is where the answer is.
Oh, I think it is the issue--I don't believe I've mentioned anything else at all. It's not that I don't think the parents were wrong--I just think it is almost irrelevant to the discussion. If anything is to be served by this story at all, we need to acknowledge that not everyone is up to the requirements of caring for a severely disabled person.
It is all very well to insist that it is an issue of morality, but if we can't protect the severely disabled from those who can't live up to our standards of morality, what good is our condemnation?
No, we need to provide homes for people like this. The more money we have, the better homes we can provide. The fewer people like this, the more money we have.
Which leads back to where I started: in this case, the kid was born 4 months premature and the doctors wanted to let him die. The mother couldn't bear it and refused. She had the insurance to back up her refusal.
If we are to start ensuring the safety of the severely disabled, we'd best start by restricting the number of them. And no, I'm not advocating mercy killing.
Holy Mother of God. I feel sick.
I'm not talking about restricting preemies per se. Hell, too many of them are fine and dandy within six months. Good lord.
But there are many times where the kid is going to be deaf, blind, continually plagued by seizures, mentally disabled, physically disabled--in short, when caring for the child will require a monthly outgo of thousands of dollars every single month of his or her life. When it will require extraordinary measures just to keep them alive for the next 20 minutes.
So how is it that we can have it all? A parent wants to be able to keep their child alive, and they have the insurance. Then the parent doesn't have the wherewithal to pay for the care needed for the rest of the child's life--which isn't covered by insurance. And then the parent gets fed up, or dies, or loses his or her job, and can't manage it any more.
So the best way to protect these people is to ensure that, no matter what their parents are like, the state will look after them. But how does the state ensure they can afford the bill if parents can make medical decisions--that don't affect them financially--that might unduly burden the state with more severely disabled people?
We did that to these special kids in the 40's and 50's. It was a shameful time in our history. I am sure you have seen documentaries on this subject.
That's implementation, not policy.
Like I said--the mother, in this case, was told by the doctors it would be best to let her son die. He was four months premature. The mother couldn't bear it.
So it's now ten years later. Her son, on a good day, has 3 or 4 seizures. He is deaf and in a wheelchair. And she doesn't want to cope with him anymore.
It really doesn't matter whether you jail her or not. The kid will need to have another place to live. If we are to protect all people like this equally, one obvious solution is to provide institutions/homes. Then the parents can opt to care for their child, or opt not to. The child (or the adult) is protected in either case.
But if the state is to provide such unrestricted care--and is to do it well, avoiding the problems you describe in the 40s and 50s--there needs to be some sort of restriction. You can restrict the service--but then you are motivating the people who don't qualify for it to "dump". Or you can restrict the number of people who would need this sort of service.
Obviously, there are many, many situations when we have no ability to manage the number of severely disabled people who need help. But there are situations when we can.
Am I recommending it? Shrug. Since we're a long way from providing the kind of institutions we'd need, it's a long way from happening. I'm just thinking ahead.
The doctors wanted my sister-in-law to pull the plug on my nephew, on more than one occasion, that he had no chance at a normal life, he'd be sick forever, etc. She said hell, no. And thank God...the drs. were wrong, my nephew is 11 years old, healthy and whole.
I don't know what the answer is, but from my gut I can tell you that it isn't that the state should decide who lives and who dies based on whether it's going to cost big bucks to care for the sick and disabled.
I know. It's certainly not easy. But the problem with the current situation is that parents can make decisions that they aren't prepared to handle--and the kid suffers anyway.
As I said, it's not that I foresee any of this happening anytime soon. But the best way to protect the severely disabled is to ensure that they can always be cared for, regardless of the moral or financial standing of those responsible for them. We can provide lousy care for anyone and overburden the system--and remember, that might happen anyway. Or we can do our best to provide quality care, but realize that there are limits.
BTW, I was not thinking about situations where a child was ill and bedridden, or mentally disabled. I am thinking more of severe physical disability coupled with mental disabilities and seizures. I also am not suggesting a world in which the state decides who lives and dies--but rather a world in which the parents who make these decisions are bound by their impact immediately.
More info - this child was born after these parents had two miscarriages and a third child die in infancy. Is it any wonder they couldn't bear it when the doctors said that?
The point was made in an NPR discussion today that this is the sort of thing which should be discussed and counseled about and decided well before the birth. When you have two people desparate for a child, right after the trauma of a premature birth, who can look at their living, breathing baby, and who may not really understand what their life and their child's life is going to be like - is it any wonder that they may not make rational decisions at that time?
Agreed. I'm glad you posted that article, btw.
I heard most of that NPR discussion and thought it was good but it still didn't cause me to cut these parents any slack.
(and I'm not talking about the faux one tomorrow night).
Happy New Year, all.
I'm sorry, what they did was just not justifiable.
I think the guillotine for puppy-abandonment is well within reason.
Me, too....
Christi:
From all the mentions of the mothers work for the foundation and other remarks about things she did, it led me to believe she was able to socialize and get out of the house. It's not as though they were both doing this 24/7 care with no respite for 10 years. They seemed to "snap" after 2 days of caring for him with no help because the agency they used couldn't provide help over Christmas weekend.
I wonder if they aren't wishing they'd given this a little more thought.
Thanks, DanTM...have a nice weekend and millennium yourself!
Exactly. Thanks. Since you can't prevent the urge to dump, and you don't want the kid to go back with anyone who dumped them, it makes much more sense to allow for dumping.
The problem began when I took it to the next part--namely, that in order to provide a safety net, you need to also look at managing the number of people who will need it. I think that people thought I was advocating euthanasia, or something.
Speaking for myself, I do not believe I would have the emotional wherewithal to care for Spawn were he to become severely disabled. I would spend every penny I had getting him good care, so that I could be his mom and not go beserk. It would be what was best for him and me. If I needed more money, I would find a way to get more money. Working around the clock, if necessary. But I would not be able to devote my life to caring for him, even if the state paid me to do so.
Were there homes like this provided, I would put him in one--paying for it if I needed to. And I would visit him all the time, and make sure he always knew that his mother still adored him.
But devote my life to caring for him physically? While no one can ever know for sure what they'd do, I do not think I would be able to. As I said, I would instantly start determining what my money could buy.
In this particular case, I think the "snapped" thing is bogus. My pick is the financial out.
I agree that I could not face a lifetime of caring for a someone that way. However, I had a fairly long stint when my kid had cancer and looking back, I did very well but it wasn't a case of relentless 24/7 care except for maybe a month or 2. I surprised myself but I also nearly had a breakdown months later, when it wasn't so intense and things let up a bit.
Which amazes me that I am being so hard on this mother...weird.
An illness with an end in sight? That's different. I still think I would pay for care, but it's not one of those things I am convinced I couldn't deal with. I'm talking about severe, lifetime disabilities.
I'm glad your kid is okay!
And this particular issue doesn't hit any of my buttons, but I can be really hard on parents--particularly mothers. My rage at women who kill their children knows no bounds--in part because society always seems ready to cut them a break.
They never do. Susan Smith got off light--the jury felt sorry for her.
It's not just the juries, either. Special consideration for the most vile sorts of female offenders seems to be a given in our culture.
People in such circumstances often do things which seem inexplicable and obscene to the rest of us.
We had a recent case where a mother killed her severely autistic daughter after 21 years of devoted care. Nobody thought she was justified in so doing, but the reasons for her actions were understood and the Courts dealt with her compassionately.
See, Scott, this is what I don't understand.
People say that the woman must be pained and tortured by monsters. A man does the same thing, and most people don't give a damn about him--just kill the bastard.
It is this solicitousness for female offenders that infuriaties me.
You may not have intended to show any solicitousness, so apologies if I misunderstood. But if you did, I don't mean to attack you. I just don't understand why so many people think that a woman must be judged differently for the same act.
While I can have compassion for someone who is strained beyond bearing, or who has suffered abuse, or who is mentally ill - it is a compassion in which I sadly put them away for it. Understanding the circumstances which make any person behave horrendously is only useful in devising strategies to prevent it happening more.
I do not say "I understand what made you selfish monster, therefore you are absolved of all responsibility". Nope, for me it is "I understand what made you a selfish monster, perhaps we can prevent the creation of the next selfish monster. In the meantime, use your time in prison well. Bye. So long. No selfish monsters allowed running around free."
(caveat - of course I am speaking of selfish monsters who do horrendous things, there are plenty of selfish monsters around who do not kill their children or commit other horrendous acts)
No, please. I wasn't finding fault at all. That's what the part about "not attacking you" meant. I also said specifically that you might be the sort who found fault equally in both situations--in which case, direct my plaint to those who don't.
The idea that one act of selfish monstrosity means that after the torture and suffering are over; after the individual who broke under the accumulation of strains and committed the monstrous act has been separated from that act by time; is that individual necessarily a monster from then on? Mightn't that individual feel as repelled by the monstrous act as the rest of us?
It's something that has always bothered me. I am not a christian but I have always admired the christian ideal of redemption.
In general, I think people who murder their children deliberately are nearly always broken people--there really isn't any hope for them. Stick them in jail, don't jail them, it makes no matter. They are irretrievable. While I don't support the death penalty, these are people you may as well kill, for all the possibility that they will lose their danger. They could kill a child again at any time, as a preferred solution to a problem.
Those who kill them in a fit of rage or as a final blow in ongoing abuse are not beyond help, even though they should still go to jail for a long time. These are the sort who might eventually realize that they did a monstrous thing, and recoil in permanent revulsion at their act--which is really the best punishment we can give them. Cure them that they might kill themselves out of the horror.
Grey --
Whadda maroon.
And I'm sure the moron appreciates the fact that his girlfriend confirmed to authorities that it was his voice on the calls.
"Gay Babies Attack London"- now there's a concept for a Pythonesque amimated short.
I wonder why the men did not register the twins at the British embassy since they are listed as the parents on their birth certificates. Why couldn't they? Do you know?
What sickens me about all these "Child Sexual Abuse" stores, CG, is their patented mixture of feigned disgust and cheapjak prurience.
Graham Greene had this all pegged years ago in that review of Shirley Temple in "Wee Willi Winkie" that he got sued over.
The wheels often grind slowly - especially in cases such as the one in the article linked in Message # 6034.
Sometimes I think that we, as adults, are in deep denial that we all (well, most of us, anyway) were once curious to the point of consumption about sex. And that many of us once, or twice - or even thrice - engaged in some kind of experimentation with other kids. In the last year alone I have dealt with 5 or 6 boys ages 9 - 11 who were locked up for weeks, sent to foster placement, and forced to endure months of sexual abuse/aggression therapy with much older boys (most of whom are genuine molestors/abusers), for doing much less than this boy did. Add to that the fact that all these boys - regardless of the severity of their crimes - are now on the sex offender registry for 25 years, and you really have to wonder what the hell we're trying to accomplish.
However, I am very curious as to just how much younger the brother/victim was. That the mom never lets on (only says that he is a "good deal" younger), though, tells me something. In fact, the article immediately brought to mind a conversation I had about 2 years ago, as a 15 y.o. probationer of mine was getting ready to go to trial for fondling and penetrating (with finger) his 6 y.o. sister. The boy and his mom had met with his lawyer, who had advised a plea wherein he would receive about 6 years in a state training school, followed by a lengthy probation period.
Of course, it never entered into the woman's definition of "normal" that she was 32 y.o. woman with a 15 y.o. son, 2 little girls, 3 failed marriages and a trailer she was about to be evicted from.
Can't we enact some sort of law to get that broad's tubes tied or something? Shit, let's all chip in $20, what do you say?
Well, I don't know. It seems to me that the problem in all such cases in my recent experience (with offenders under the age of, say, 12) is that almost all discretion for prosecution and disposition of these offenses has been legislated away from law enforcement, and even from the court.
There is no way a 9, 10 or 11 y.o. kid needs to be locked up, or even removed from the home, for playing doctor. Yet it happens all the time. Why? Because, it seems, every time a new piece of legislation is passed, the lawmakers obsess on the what-ifs. And, just as with child/parent domestic assault cases, it's always the child who suffers.
I thought that was pretty quick on the spokesmans part...I wonder why people like him are never elected to President over there. Anyone know if Putin speaks English? This guy spoke it flawlessly and obviously thought well in his second language, too.
Except for the recent incident with the dual-citizenship boy whose family vacated to Switzerland for fear that another of their children would be arrested.
Has anyone heard any more on this story?
That isn't particularly "abnormal". Many people have problems one can sneer at. A lot of people have worse problems than hers. She is likely trying as hard as she can with a limited selection of tools. Her first marriage was probably in high school, maybe she got knocked up and had to. From that point on every other bad thing that happened to her may have been almost inevitable.
She is entirely correct in cursing the system. It turned a minor incident into a life destroying affair for both boys.
Prosecutors have virtually absolute discression in this sort of thing. They can unilaterally decide no prosecutable crime occurred and it ends there. They determine the charges to be filed. They can plea bargain the charges down to anything they want. They determine what punishment they ask for. There are no mandatory minimums for childhood sex play.
The proper course of action was to not arrest or prosecute, contingent on the two of them seeing a conselor about it with the government picking up the tab.
it's still quitea cause in Switzerland but here the media dropped it like a hot rock.
The primary mission of the KGB was domestic; and -- more importantly -- that mission was similar to, say, that of the Gestapo, not to that of any American agency. So the charming young spokesman's analogy is doubly specious.
I'm thinking specifically about the Swiss/US boy. I'm appalled that the neighbor called the cops rather than speaking to the parents and outraged that the boy was arrested in the middle of the night like some kind of felon. With the publicity of the case I wonder what his treatment was like in the lock-up.
That boys would be put in sexual offender programs at 9-11 when their partner was older is ridiculous. I think there might be cases where it is appropriate to treat them, but all the instances would involve much younger kids and excessive sexual activity.
However, once you get past 12 or so, I can't see any reason why kids who behave sexually with children much younger shouldn't be id'ed as sexual offenders.
I agree that it is significant that the brother was much younger and that she doesn't say how much younger. She herself can't accept the behavior as normal "experimentation".
In the case of the Swedish kid, hadn't he sexually abused his sister?
Even at age 12 and later, victims of sexual abuse believe that sex play with younger children is normal and appropriate. Treating them as a sex offender is counterproductive. Removal from the abuser, placement in a safe, nurturing environment and intensive treatment presents the best opportunity for the child. I deal with these kids on a regular basis. Treating them as criminals doesn't help.
Are you assuming that any kid 12 or older who sexually interacts with a child significantly younger has been sexually abused?
I don't think that is always--or even normally--the case. In the case where documented sexual abuse has occurred in the child's life or it is discovered to have occurred, I'm not sure what should be handled differently. If the kid reacts to the abuse by becoming an offender, then he needs to be identified as such.
Also, I don't necessarily think any kid should be treated as a criminal. If any potential pedophiles (or other sex offenders) are going to be pulled back from the brink, I think they need strong and (when appropriate) sympathetic treatment. This is entirely different from whether or not their record reflects the fact that they committed this sort of act.
JJ --
"Even at age 12 and later, victims of sexual abuse believe that sex play with younger children is normal and appropriate."
I prosecuted many self-proclaimed victims of sexual abuse (who knows if their claims were true?) who believed sex play with children was normal and appropriate. The defendants ranged in age from 18 to 47.
I thought conservatives were supposed to believe in personal responsibility. At what point do you say "gee, sorry you were abused, but we're not letting you perpetuate that abuse on others?"
When I was 13 I spent some afternoons watching over three younger siblings. A brother four years younger and two step-sisters who were 5 and 6. The younger kids had a bad habit of leaving the water running in the kitchen because they were tall enough to jump and turn it on but not to turn it off. I was the one who took the blame for outrageous water bills if the water got left on so you can imagine that I got pretty hot under the collar about it. One day I got really frustrated and shouted "The next person who leaves the water on has to pee in a bucket!!!"
This was not wise because, sure enough one of them did and the other two looked at me and let me know in no uncertain terms that if I did not enforce the punishment there would be mutiny from now on.
I did the only thing I could do at that point. I pulled a big washtub out into the yard and made my little sister pee in it. The problem was that she had more business to do than that so now my 23 year old step sister has a horrid memory of her siblings all standing around laughing at her crap in a washtub. I'm sure somewhere some therapist would advocate having me locked up.
Sexual abuse of one child by another is almost always the result of the aggressor being abused previously. I am familiar with many cases and I have never come across one where that abuse wasn't present. Sometimes it takes years to determine the exact nature of the abuse because the child often refuses to admit the abuse took place. The parents may not even be aware of it if it was done by some other individual in the child's life.
When the behavior is found in a child, it is critical that proper treatment be made available and he/she be protected. Blaming the child and labelling him/her a sex offender will only strengthen the feelings of guilt, fear, and self-loathing that already exist. This makes treatment and recovery almost impossible. We are working with a boy like that now. It has been 5 years and he is just now beginning to admit what happened to him.
Younger siblings are for experimentation a la "I bet I can get Mikey to eat this. Mikey hates everything!" Your little brother is the one who gets to eat Pop-Rocks and Coca-Cola to see if he really will explode.
14 is old enough to have started hearing about blow jobs and young enough to be terrified of trying to get a girl to perform one. It's a crappy way to behave toward your younger siblings, but it does happen. This kid apparently knew it was crappy which is why he confessed. Had his parents scolded him and perhaps sought counseling if deemed necessary this could all have been fine. What we're left with now is a "sex offender" who may very likely become a self-fulfilling prophecy, a younger boy who will likely suffer sexual disfunction because he thinks pleasure is bad and a pair of parents who cannot protest any of it for fear of losing their children to the perpetuators of this atrocity.
Good to see you back. Funny story.
I tend to think most pedophiles are created, not born with a yen for sex with weaker people. So I wasn't quibbling with the fact that many kids might have been molested, but rather the fact that these kids were acting out because of that.
It's neither here nor there, though. It doesn't matter why they acted out. They are sexual offenders. If they can be caught at a young enough age and saved, wonderful. But in either case, I want their act on the record. A 12 year old who molests a much younger kid should not be able to be a teacher, for example. Period. I don't care why he molested.
When our knowledge gets further along, we may be able to better understand and categorize different types of offenders. For now, it's best to remember that the current system exists because our previous method of ignoring/supporting/sympathizing with pedophiles caused a hell of a lot of problems.
Happy New Year!
Yeah, the funny thing is that the summer before we didn't have indoor plumbing so we all had to do our business in the side yard although we did have a proper out-house rather than a washtub.
Hi! I totally disagree. The kid may not be a sexual offender. But I don't want any school ever hiring him as a teacher, and I don't want him as a Little League coach, or around kids at all. Sorry.
What you're saying is "Once an abuser always an abuser", right?
Under the definitions of "abuser/moester" that our current system is operating that just isn't true. As long as innocent play and experimentation between children can be prosecuted as sexual abuse then I am opposed to slapping a child of 9 or 12 or 15 with "sex offender" for the rest of his or her life.
Hi!
If he's not a molester then why can't he be around kids?
I don't consider "innocent play" to cover activity with a kid significantly younger. It certainly doesn't cover a 14 year old forcing or asking his brother to give him blowjobs.
I am uncomfortable with the assumption that they will suddenly outgrow the behavior. As such, I want it on their record.
Why? Because the odds are incredibly likely that he is a molestor. Them's the breaks.
We don't have any way of distinguishing between a kid who is screwed up but not harmful in the long term and a kid whose sexual predato