Light Blogging This Week
I'm going to be doing some stuff this week, not sure if I'll be near any Internets. Behave yourselves. I'll be right back.
posted by JimK at 9:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|||
Saturday, August 12, 2006Light Blogging This Week
I'm going to be doing some stuff this week, not sure if I'll be near any Internets. Behave yourselves. I'll be right back.
posted by JimK at 9:22 AM
|
Previous Posts
| ||
12 Comments:
Oh, I'll try...but it might be too tempting for this sinner to resist.
(wink, wink).
Now, here is an article that really made me laugh...
ELLEN GOODMAN
A victory, sort of, for Plan B
By Ellen Goodman, Globe Columnist August 11, 2006
Why laughter? Well, because this gal appears to be out of touch with many in this country.
My favorite part of the column? Never thought you would ask,
The arguments in favor of the age restriction are indeed matters of unscientific belief. The morning-after pill does not change the night-before behavior, a favorite argument of those who equate E.C. with promiscuity. Nor does it replace ordinary contraceptives.
Yes, Ms. Goodman, they are matters of belief...the belief that parents are responsible for and in charge of their children until they legally become an adult. If my 16 year old daughter needs to get my permission to get a body piercing (as my daughter did...hey, she paid for it!), then you can be darn certain that something as serious as sexual activity ought to come within the purview of parental control. I know, I know...it all sounds so...what's the word?...regressive. Tough. Unless the State wants to start picking up the tab on all the expenses us parents undertake to bring up our children, they had best not attempt to undermine parental authority and control.
Ellen Goodman, Columnist to the Porn Belt.
Orin. I think it's wierd that you think young girls who are raped by their stepfathers should automaticly become mothers. I just don't see the good side of that.
Anonymous writes,
Orin. I think it's wierd that you think young girls who are raped by their stepfathers should automaticly become mothers. I just don't see the good side of that.
If that were even remotely accurate then you would have cause for thinking that I am wierd...alas, it is not.
Ever wondered WHY girls/women get abortions? I did, I and I knew just the place to get that information. The Guttmacher Institute (next to the CDC) is the place to get just that information. Though affiliated with Planned Parenthood, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute) is a place where anyone (even someone like myself, an admitted pro-lifer) can get reliable information with regards to abortion as a "reproductive health care choice". In less than five minutes this is what I found,
http://www.guttmacher.org
/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf
Amazing, huh? I need wonder no more... What you will find on page 4 of this PDF (p. 113 of the journal article) is Table 2,
Percentage of women reporting that specified reasons contributed to their decision to have an abortion, 2004 and 1987
And if you go thru the list, and arrive at the end of this table, what you will find are the reasons, "Was a victim of rape" and "Became preganant as a result of incest". Combined together, these two categories constitute 1.5% of the percentage of women and their reasons for seeking an abortion.
That this is a tragedy is self-evident to any decent person. What is also self-evident is the fact that this reason, so commonly thrown out, is a "red herring".
Interestingly enough, the third reason up from the bottom is, "Parents want me to have an abortion" which in 1987 constituted 8% and in 2004 6%. Could it be that the stepfather wants the abortion in an attempt to hide the commission of a criminal act? A young girl in such a circumstance needs to be placed in protective custofy and the stepfather must be locked up in prison for a very, very long time....25 years to life sounds like a place to start.
Orin. Real interesting. Love those statistics.
Now, let me get this right. Your daughter is supposed to get your permission to have sex?
Is that how it worked when you were growing up? You asked your parents?
I think I'm starting to understand why these greedy Republicans are so sneaky. Your brought up by parents who make you ask permission to have a personal life, you learn how to climb out the window at night and get away with shit. Next thing you know, defence contractors are "loaning" you their cadillac to use every day and letting you sail their yacht whenever you want, and contributing to your campaigns in ways the law would never allow.
Oh, and your country by the way is in some war that nobody understands the reason for, that you voted for, that just happens to be making those defence contracters rich.
Sneakyness is the mark of the current leadership in Washington. Screw the constitution. Screw what the people want.
Anonymous writes,
Orin. Real interesting. Love those statistics.
I am not sure by the tone of your three word comment if you are sincere or not...if you are like Jim and others that support the the TTF ideology then I would hope you would be as these numbers come from a reliable source.
Now, let me get this right. Your daughter is supposed to get your permission to have sex?
Interesting you should ask...just Monday afternoon my 16 (almost 17) year old and I were searching thru a junkyard for some body part to a '91 VW Jetta. Fortunately we found all of them on a single car, an '88 Jetta (has the same body configuration), and all for $135 plus my labor getting them off the junked car. Since it was 10 minutes to closing it was decided that I would come back on Tuesday with the tools and time I needed to accomplish the job. We left for the drive home, about 15 minutes away. On the way, the daughter suggests calzones (sp?) to which I counter with an offer to get pizza rolls from Mama Roni's Pizze here in Fort Collins (daughter had them when she was in Jr. High school for lunch, introduced them to dad, and now dad is hooked). Agreed, we use my cell phone to call the order in...I have the number programmed in my cell phone! Somehow the subject of kids her age having sex and getting pregnant came up...I try to let her do the talking. When she was finished talking the only thing I said to her was that if she decided to start having sex she needed to protect herself. That was it...we picked up the pizza rolls, made a quick stop for root beer and vanilla ice cream at the grocery store, and headed home for dinner.
Is that how it worked when you were growing up? You asked your parents?
From age 10 to 15 approx. I was a little hellian...literally. Somehow something happened, and by the time I turned 16 I understood that my parents loved me more than anyone else in this world. They protected me, nurtured me, taught me, supported me emotionally, etc. And all they really asked was that I abide by a few simple house rules. When I would leave to go somewhere I told them where I was going, and when I expected to return, and if I was going to be late, I called ahead to let them know.
I know, I know...it all sounds quaint and old fashion...basic courtesy and respect.
Another Anonymous writes,
I think I'm starting to understand why these greedy Republicans are so sneaky. Your brought up by parents who make you ask permission to have a personal life, you learn how to climb out the window at night and get away with shit. Next thing you know, defence contractors are "loaning" you their cadillac to use every day and letting you sail their yacht whenever you want, and contributing to your campaigns in ways the law would never allow.
And the point of the above diatribe is exactly what???
Oh, and your country by the way is in some war that nobody understands the reason for, that you voted for, that just happens to be making those defence contracters rich.
Actually some outside the "Porn Belt" do understand why we at war...even listeners like myself that only listen to NPR. And yes, I voted for Bush both times... Oh, and the "war profiteers" line is so WWI...so very retro. Try reading something other than The Nation, Mother Jones or The Progressive.
Sneakyness is the mark of the current leadership in Washington. Screw the constitution. Screw what the people want.
Now THAT is funny...esp. given that the previous Administration's Chief Executive was judged to be guilty of perjury, and remains to this day a CONVICTED perjurer. What is most interesting about this is if he is ever put on witness stand, any testimony given can be questioned in light of the past perjury conviction.
August 15, 2006 12:15 PM
Orin. Great job not answering my comments. You talked about parental control over their kids sexual behavior. I asked, did you get permission from your parents? I asked, do you think your daughter is going to ask you permission.
And you tell me about some fatherly advice about rubbers. Great. What a copout.
Nobody has parental control over their childrens sexual behavior. Thats the whole problem. Thats why theres sex ed in the first place.
And that Bill Cinton, impeached for lying about a blow job, that's lots worst than what Bush ever did, huh? How many people died that day? Oh, yes, according to you every sperm cell was a living human being, that was millions of cases of murder. Never mind, it was lots worse than Iraq.
Anonymous writes,
Orin. Great job not answering my comments. You talked about parental control over their kids sexual behavior. I asked, did you get permission from your parents?
Ok, I'll bite...no, I did not, though I never asked because I knew what their answer would be. I did not realize it then, but I do now, that I had enough respect for myself and for others not to become sexually active until I was ready to make the sort of committment that having sex implies. Having sex implies a strong committment to another person, and when one engages in an act such as sex merely because the urge "overwhelms" them they become a liar because they have no intent on the act being more than another episode in "hooking up".
I asked, do you think your daughter is going to ask you permission.
Probably not...there, did I answer that? However, she will know that I disapprove of fornication and she will know why.
And you tell me about some fatherly advice about rubbers. Great. What a copout.
I did not mention rubbers...I said protection. Going back now, I can see why I went into that folksy retelling of my interacting with my daughter: channels of communication. I hope that I can be one of the first people thast my daughters turn to in a time of need. That is why I do things with them...whether going to a junkyard to find parts for their car, or watching an episode of Law & Order. Does this guarantee that they will talk to me before they give away their virginity to the first boy that says "you would *if* you loved me"??? Please...I am not naive...but I do hope that it will give me an edge.
Nobody has parental control over their childrens sexual behavior. Thats the whole problem. Thats why theres sex ed in the first place.
Oh, really? You know that for a FACT? Ok, I guess you might be correct if the operative term is control...but if the term is influence then you ought to know that all of the serious sex-ed material and research (and by this I mean The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, as well as other established and well respected sex-ed groups) has shown that parents have incredible influence over their children's sexual behavior...*IF* they will only use it in a careful, well thought out, informed and judicious manner.
The problem is that most parents neglect this part of parenting.
And that Bill Cinton, impeached for lying about a blow job,
That is factually incorrect; he was impeached (in part) for having committed perjury, that is, lying while under oath to tell the truth.
that's lots worst than what Bush ever did, huh? How many people died that day? Oh, yes, according to you every sperm cell was a living human being, that was millions of cases of murder.
Please, show me where I have said that...oh, that's right, you can't because I have never said that...ever. Talk about a "red herring"...
As to the lie that Bush told...history will judge Clinton and Bush. It is my opinion that history will judge that Bush at least tried to do something to make the life of the People of Iraq better. Whether or not they are able to over come the tradition and history of force and violence (if you have any doubt about that, see the film Lawrence of Arabia with Peter O'Toole) that is so endemic to that part of the world is still an unanswered question.
Never mind, it was lots worse than Iraq.
You mean the perjury Clinton was guilty of? Well, I guess it depends on whether or not the top law enforcement official is above or below the law, like all of the rest of us mere mortals? Iraq may yet turn out to be one of the costliest blunders in US history, and if that is the case then Clinton will shine by comparison. That will be the judgement of history...
Orin reported "What is most interesting about this is if he is ever put on witness stand, any testimony given can be questioned in light of the past perjury conviction."
That's a pretty clear expression of interest in branding people for life for past errors in judgment. WWJD? How about these people and their wrongdoings? Should we hold it against them for the rest of their lives too?
W for violating the constitution by allowing warrentless domestic spying and bypassing the US legal system by insisting on the use of military tribunals instead; and for DUI
Tom Delay for criminal conspiracy
Duke Cunningham for corruption
Bob Ney for corruption
Steve Abramoff for bribery
Chuck McGee for jamming Democratic GOTV phone lines
Claude Allen for theft
George Allen for the use of racial slurs
Orin reported "What is most interesting about this is if he is ever put on witness stand, any testimony given can be questioned in light of the past perjury conviction."
To which JA replies,
That's a pretty clear expression of interest in branding people for life for past errors in judgment.
As long as Clinton can manage to behave himself and keep himself out of legal proceedings where his ability to tell the truth under oath could be reasonably put into question, sure fine...let bygones be bygones.
WWJD?
You mean, "What Would Jesus Do"? or would that be "What Would the Judge Do"? If it was the former I would expect that as often as he would confess, Christ would forgive. Now, if it were the later...well, I would hope if Clinton attempted to perjure himself again that the trial judge would throw the book at him.
Perjury is LYING UNDER OATH during a judicial procedding. This is a serious subversion of the fair and impartial administration of justice.
How about these people and their wrongdoings? Should we hold it against them for the rest of their lives too?
W for violating the constitution by allowing warrentless domestic spying and bypassing the US legal system by insisting on the use of military tribunals instead; and for DUI
Sure...drag him into court, put him under oath and then see if he perjures himself. If he does then throw the book at him.
Tom Delay for criminal conspiracy
If it can be proven, throw the book at him. Should we hold it against him for the rest of his life? If he seeks public office? That would have to be a question answered by the voters (I would not vote for him though).
Duke Cunningham for corruption
Once he has served his time? No, he ought to be allowed to live out the remainder of his days in peace and quiet.
Bob Ney for corruption
Steve Abramoff for bribery
Chuck McGee for jamming Democratic GOTV phone lines
That would all depend, though the best I can tell, none of these individuals attempted to subvert the judicial process. Do you understand just how serious that is? Do you? If you did hen you would not be tossing out these "red herrings".
Claude Allen for theft
George Allen for the use of racial slurs
Again, not noble behavior, but neither individual attempted to subvert the judicial process.
So to Orin, the problem is what you say in court, not what you do. Clinton was brought into the courtroom to be interrogated about the details of is private life, and he covered up something that was nobody's business. The reason he was there is because he was a Democratic president with a Republican Congress, not that he was the only politician in American history to have sex on the side.
Which is why these other guys aren't testifying about their criminal behaviors, because their fellow Republicans are helping them cover it up.
Funny to see the rightwingers all of a sudden concerned about the "judiciary."
Bob Ney for corruption
Steve Abramoff for bribery
Chuck McGee for jamming Democratic GOTV phone lines
To which Orin replied That would all depend, though the best I can tell, none of these individuals attempted to subvert the judicial process. Do you understand just how serious that is? Do you? If you did hen you would not be tossing out these "red herrings".
Convicted Chuck McGee is a red herring? GOP operatives tampering with election activities of Democrats is a "serious subversion of the fair and impartial administration of" our democratic process. Nixon's cronies didn't understand that either.
Abramoff is trying to save his own skin by telling law enforcement all he knows about elected officials like Bob Ney, whose influence was for sale to the highest bidder. That sure sounds like a "serious subversion of the fair and impartial administration" of both justice and our democratic process to a whole lot of people. The fact that you don't find such behavior to be as serious as lying about an extramarital affair says it all.
Post a Comment
<< Home