Vicki

Yep, I'm with Lisabob on this one - women just need to "man up" and stop this "oh, I'm so helpless" c**p. Ask Jack if he'd touch Mike that way and call it a day. My personal opinion, obviously.

I also understand the poster's point who said that Jack is obviously as dense as a post to not understand that in today's world, you just don't touch women you don't know really well. How 'bout we just say you don't touch people you know really well? Puts it on a little bit different playing field when you say it that way, doesn't it?

OTOH, Jack served the sentence he was given, the offending behavior was between adults, I tend to think he should be allowed another chance. Mike sounds like he might have some "protect the women-folk" issues - back to my first paragraph, there are women out there who take advantage of that perfectly valid instinct, so our society says that it's OK, even taken to an extreme (which this seems to be). Talk to Mike, too.

Real world? Jack doesn't stand a chance.

Obviously everyone's mileage may vary, I acknowledge that I am widely known as not representative of my gender (hi, Pack!). But there are more of us out there today than there used to be! Obviously Lisabob is one, too.

Vicki(This message has been edited by Vicki)

Calico, I take your point and I agree, and there were times when I didn't do something as planned because the kid hadn't gotten his full nap for some reason. I have sat in restaurants at 9:00 pm with screaming tired kids and wondered what their parents were thinking. But that's not how the article is framed.

Vicki

"If Kahlan, 18 months old, of Nanaimo, British Columbia, is grumpy at a time when her mother has made plans, Mom says she is obligated to consider other plans." (From that news of the weird article)

I'm speechless. The very concept eludes my understanding. OK, I'll admit it, I tried to read this out loud to somebody and started laughing almost to the point where I started crying. This is absurd.

Thanks, Hal. I needed a good laugh. Unfortunately, there do seem to be parents who take this seriously - none of them have kids in our troop (hmm, wonder why that would be?) but I think I may have run into them at NYLT.

Vicki

shooby dobee do

Vicki

In the last sentence of Democracy in America (1807 or thereabouts), Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about the fate of Americans and all others who would choose the path of equality. "It depends on themselves whether equality is to lead to servitude or freedom, knowledge or barbarism, prosperity or wretchedness."

Personally, I think we've been making some hugely bad choices for quite awhile now. This movement is among them.

Vicki

Indeed. But ain't that always the way? You open your mouth, shut it, open it again - sigh and give up.

Edited part: To answer your original question - I see no room in a speedo for an i-pod:

and full speed ahead!!!

Although it isn't just male images I want out of my head:

Now scat I can see. My nephew the hunter and naturalist will definitely approve. Nice to know what's in the woods with you.

Vicki

I have this image of some of the SMs I know in their BS speedos, standing under the fly in the morning enjoying the fine breezes with a cup of coffee...

I really want that out of my head, now. The bounds of tasteful behavior have been seriously breached.

Vicki

I heard an interesting speaker the other day say that in the "progression" of our republic, we are no longer called citizens, we are labeled consumers. Her point was that citizens pay attention to what their government is doing, participate in the general debate, and hold themselves accountable for their actions. Consumers do just that, they consume, and are in it for what they can get. There is no personal accountability.

It made me think. I never did like the label "consumer" or "consumer economy" and that helped me define why in a concrete way.

Vicki

Nah, Beav, if it's a Dilgar you can't run fast enough. Fighting is the only answer - and immortality isn't what it's cracked up to be.

Vicki

I really enjoyed B5. Those scheming, partying Centauri. Dalenn's transformation. Billy Mumy. Great plot lines, as noted. Three edged sword indeed - talk about some piercing power! That would leave a mark.

Hadn't thought about that one in awhile. Thanks!

Hijacks happen:

"Nowhere in the Constitution does anything state the state & church should be separate. "

Didn't say it did, Ed - that's why it's called a doctrine. A doctrinal statement being an interpretation of somethng. But then everything else we're talking about in terms of civil liberties is interpretation, too, so let's not go there. I will say we've had a lot longer to work on civil liberties - that concept goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215. Freedom of religion is a much newer concept.

Vicki

(This message has been edited by Vicki)

Let's not mix up our apples and oranges. There is no reason the ACLU would take on individual gun owner's rights because, as a civil liberties organization, they don't believe that individual gun owhership is a civil right. The NRA does - they have really good lawyers too. In terms of religious freedoms, they defend those in the context of our civil liberties. You have the right to be atheist, religious, or anything in between, and they have taken on any number of cases, as noted, that defend those rights. But where religious freedoms, in their readings, conflict with civil liberties, the ACLU will go with civil liberties because, as I read their focus, religious freedoms are a subset of civil liberties. The doctrine of separation of church and state is a lot muddier reading than the second amendment, IMO.

The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

ACLU POSITION

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue. (excerpted)

http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html

Vicki(This message has been edited by Vicki)

"They are the ones to say that the BSA was a public accommodation like a bus!" And yet, in another thread, a poster compared the BSA to a food catering company - those who sign on as CO's can pick and choose from the training materials and add elements should they wish (the discussion was specifically about religious CO's). I objected then to that characterization and I object to the BSA being compared to a public accommodation.

But we can't have it both ways. There are consequences for taking a stand and perhaps expecting different treatment from civil authorities than any other discriminating organization - and I use the word discriminating in its original sense of picking and choosing with whom to associate.

Vicki

Yes, I actually did, Ed. More half truths and polemics. If you read Baldwin's history, he, like many others in that era, thought the Soviet Union was a worker's paradise until the truth started coming out at which point they rejected it, along with the other totalitarian regimes of the period. Bearing in mind, of course, that the man was a socialist and civil libertarian to the end. Personally, I think socialism and civil liberty are philosophically incompatible, but hey, it's worth a discussion around the campfire. I'm just glad he thought civil liberties were the way to get where he wanted to go!

Wow. I find that I've defended Bush and the ACLU in the same thread, not to mention quoting Frank Zappa. What a long, strange trip...:

vol_scouter - did you even skim what SR540Beaver posted?

Vicki

Gunny, I've had the dubious honor of being the corporate agent responsible for accepting various things from process servers (e.g., a writ of garnishment, notice of audit, or subpoena). It never once occurred to me to think of them as terrorists.

Something about the legal part of the definition.

Vicki

Gunny, last I checked the ACLU wasn't using "unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence" so I assume your question was posed tongue in cheek.

Ed, it's all a matter of degree. Technically, yes, but I certainly wouldn't compare PETA or NOW (or any similar organization on the right hand side of the spectrum, but I can't think of any by name right now) to Timothy McVeigh, which you seem to be doing. Actually, in terms of death and destruction, we haven't had any domestic terrorists on the order of Timothy McVeigh.

But yes, a terrorist is a terrorist no matter where they are on the ideological spectrum.

Vicki

Ed, the dictionary defines a terrorist as, "one who engages in acts of terrorism." It then defines terrorism as, "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

According to reports at the time, he did it "as revenge or to inspire revolt against what he considered a tyrannical federal government." (Quote from Wikipedia, not always 100% reliable but this jibes with what I remember.) Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.

Vicki

(This message has been edited by Vicki)

Merlyn, I actually went out to the website to which you refer. It's Sherman's website rather than a third party, so hardly unbiased. As I read what Bush's counsel actually wrote, in the legalese there is neither confirmation nor denial, simply an assertion that Bush supports freedom of religion or no religion, even though he disagrees with the latter. I think he just didn't think it was worth the time to deny, personally, kind of a quasi-boilerplate reply.

Vicki(This message has been edited by Vicki)

Um, Merlyn, it was Robert Sherman, an atheist organization activist, who claims George HW Bush said it about atheists at a Chicago press conference in August 1987 - a press conference which was well attended by all sorts of folks with recording devices, including members of the WH press corps. So it seems really odd to me that, no matter how hard anyone looks, or how often it gets mentioned, there is no audio or video recording to substantiate Mr. Sherman's word. Also, no one has even confirmed that he said it. So, hearing no second on the motion, I would call this myth busted.

Vicki (edited for typo)

(This message has been edited by Vicki)

Movin' to Montana soon...

Vicki

And as long as I'm "outing" myself - I am a church professional and I would not presume to tell someone they couldn't make a charitable donation through the church I serve to an associated group.

Vicki

"This was after they kicked out a really nice guy as minister because he supported the civil rights movement. I went to college soon after and never again looked back on Presbyterians with anything but ridicule."

Interesting, Pack. And yet one of the proudest moments in the history of the Presbyterian church I serve in Missouri(PCUSA) is when the pastor marched in Selma. Those broad brush strokes can be a real problem.

Vicki