PeterDavid.net

Mr. David,

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been waiting for the end of the year to evaluate my situation and see if I can affort to be making donations to anymore organizations. Thanks for pointing out that sometimes you can't afford to not give money. Just back from CBLDF's site.

You know what's been REALLY apalling about this? That there's been so much dead stupid ignorance about first amendment rights concerning this case. For example, on one board, one poster confidently said that the law said very little about parodies and that case law wasn't real law.

Ghah.

Remember when we used to laugh at Canadian and British Customs practices here in US comic fandom? How provincial, we thought. I suspect that the next target will be involve Fantagraphics/Eros as well as Diamond and some small comic store in one of the Red States.

I am now convinced and will send CBLDF a donation.

[Quote] Down in South Carolina, they don't approve of some damned furriners making fun of the Pre-zi-dent of the U S of A. [/Quote]

PAD, I'm sure you could be more offensive if you wanted, but not without delving into a sack of four letter words.

I'm not supporting censorship in any way, but insulting the people who would be able to turn this aroung? Not a good way to accomplish anything.

-Richard

They might be able to make a case that Richie Bush swipes a particular art style for its parodies, which as I recall isn't usually the case with MAD. I'm a bit of a fence-sitter when it comes to the "rights" of some artists to swipe other artists' trademarks for commercial purposes - I enjoy the style parody but it's not right to make money off something someone else has done, y'know? And as you know, companies need to defend trademarks (including art styles, logos, etc.) pretty vigorously even if they don't want to because if they don't they lose the right to challenge those trademarks anywhere. And again, that's not fair to the holders of the original trademarks. It was when the CBLDF started defending what I considered creative theft, citing First Amendment considerations (where I felt particular cases weren't FA ones), that I decided not to renew my membership.

I'm from the South. My husband is from South Carolina. We are democrats. We do not believe in censorship in any way.

I have purchased every novel you have ever written. Supported most every view you have ever posted on here.

You putting all the "South" in one category is as bad as what the people who stopped the importing of that comic did.

Tammie

Oh...

Don't make fun of the way we talk. It is part of our heritage. Just the way that your pattern of speech is part of your heritage. It's not because we are st-oo-pid. We talk this way because our parents talked this way, and their parents talked this way, etc.

I'm not sure why I was so highly offended by your post. I've never posted on here before even though I read your column every day. Maybe it was because you totally disqualified your intelligent statements about censorship with the seriously offensive statements about the people of South Carolina.

Tammie

PAD wrote:
------------------------------------------------
"We all know what happened. Down in South Carolina, they don't approve of some damned furriners making fun of the Pre-zi-dent of the U S of A. So they trumped up some charges and refused to allow the books into the country. Prior restraint by the US government based on personal dislike for political satire."
------------------------------------------------

What the hell, PAD?! I'm usually inclined to ignore your liberal yammering here because I like your writing and I think it's best to keep the artist and the art separate. This time, however, you made me mad enough to log in and respond. I'm a South Carolinian, and I'm insulted that you implied that we're all ignorant yokels. Yes, there are those types here, but the same sort of person lives in NYC: Same ignorance, different accent.

I'm a conservative, but I'm not an idiot because of my politics, despite what you liberals would like to believe. I'm certainly not an idiot because of the geography of my birth. The same argument about geographical mental inferiority was also used to denegrate another group - Africans. I'm also not moron because of my cultural differences from you (might I remind you that members of the Jewish culture were also considered to be inferior by various parties at various times - and that wasn't true either).

You're guilty of generalizing about a large group of people. I suppose we're all equals in this country, unless our state voted for Bush.

Hell, I've been worried about where this country is going for years now. For me this is just the latest example. Personally, I'm getting tired of people trying to make choices for me.

I don't know why but it just reminds me of the people who want to ban The Wizard of Oz. There's no real connection except they both involve scared people with little minds.

The sad part is that it involves satire. I'm all for satire, even when it's pointed at me or something I believe in. We need satire. President Bush likes it too. I recently saw his into to a speach he was giving in Canada wherein he thanked those who came out to see him. He thanked them for waving at him. With all five fingers. That seems like a self-satirization to me. It has me wondering if some kiss-ass is trying to kiss up and gain favor. Which would be pretty damned sad.

I was going to write more, but I want to clear it with the National Center for Thought Control (NCTC)before I get dissapeared in the dead of night.

Salutations,

Mitch Evans

I think it's more along the lines of a bureuacrat trying to curry favor, but, whatever the reason, it's mind-numbingly stupid.

Folks from South Carolina--chill. I apologize if I offended you. Basically, I was writing in "the voice" of Edward Rutledge, representative of South Carolina from the musical "1776" who was prone to drawling, "We heyah in the deep South" and such. Which is pretty much what happens when you've been in as many productions of "1776" as I have. It's so automatic when it comes to South Carolina that I literally don't give it any thought. Again, please accept my apology on that score.

PAD

The Richie Bush issue would make a veru nice test case to overturn this. I'm fairly sure that even the right wing of the U.S. Supreme Court would come down on the correct side of things, and it would be nice if the possibility of being sued for using an incongruous style to satirize a series of real world events was taken off of the table for good.

I rarely post, too, and was about to add to the "Making fun of a person's accent is basically the wrong apporach to winning them over" bit, until I saw PAD's apology, which is accepted. I think I was slightly offended because a Southern accent has equated into sounding "ignern't" somewhere down the line. Hailing from the south (and like Tammie, a Democrat and avid PADuwan), I felt the post was feeding the stereotype of southerner = stupid (or, more broadly as of late, red state = stupid). Since PAD is fairly evenhanded in terms of race and region, I found that to be particularly jarring.

Vicomte, I think you are wrong. By the time this case got to the Supreme Court, it would be a couple of years. If you look at the current Supreme Court line-up, you might note that the many of the Justices are quite old. Justice Stevens, who is now one of the left wing Justices is up there in age. If he leaves the Supreme Court, he will be replaced with a Conservative. Justice O'Connor, who is perhaps the most reasonable Conservative is also up there in age and could be replaced with a Justice that would make her look like a liberal. It is also important to remember that the Supreme Court conservatives helped Bush become President. In other words, I think it is quite possible that the Supreme Court could hold that the seizure is Constitutional.

One more thing to concern ourselves with is whether Top Shelf can afford to litigate this matter even with CBLDF's help?

Elayne,

I regard myself as fairly moderate on trademark issues, but I'm not sure the argument is best framed as "It's not right to make money off of what someone else has done." I'd much rather the standard be based on whether there's a reasonable likelihood that the imitation will cause harm by creating confusion in the market place.

I think most commercial parody, and much satire, makes money in part off of work other people have done. It take a concept that has made its way into the public consciousness and uses it in an unexpected way to create humorous effect. These concepts were usually created for commercial purposes, and so any money from parodying them (or employing them in parodies of other things) is ultimately made in part off of the work of others. If the money is made at the expense of the creators, I see that as a problem, but I don't see just mimicking a style as doing that.

Some years ago a sketch comedy show (I forget which) did a wonderful spoof of the Rankin-Bass Rudolph, done in a perfect imitation of the animation style. It wouldn't have been nearly as fully if it hadn't employed the stop motion technique and similar looking characters, and it wouldn't have been possible at all if the Rankin-Bass creative work wasn't there to derive the humorous sketch from. I can't see that it is reasonably likely to have caused economic harm, however, and so I can't see a legitimate governmental interest in prohibiting that sort of expression.

"I'm a conservative, but I'm not an idiot because of my politics, despite what you liberals would like to believe... You're guilty of generalizing about a large group of people."
(emphasis mine)

I wonder - am I the only person who found the coexistence of these two phrases in the same post to be highly entertaining?

Peter said Folks from South Carolina--chill. I apologize if I offended you.

Only 49 more to go. Tehe! :0)

The scum-suckers in the government are engaging in MORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL activity and you people are worried about PAD "talking" in an exaggerated Southern Accent?

Now wonder this country is going to down the tubes...

Bladestar said Now wonder this country is going to down the tubes...

Maybe, in your opinion it is. I tend to have an optimistic outlook and believe that our country is the greatest country in the world.

'nuff said

Let's see,
1. We don't have healthcare for all our children, much less all our citizens
2. Our trade deficit is huge.
3. The government wants to rack up even more of a deficit to "fix" social security, which would be solvent 'til 2042 without doing a thing.
4. We are engaged in a war with no end in sight.
5. Science seems to be a dirty word to this government.
6. The army has only half the new recruits it needs, and they are of poorer quality.
7. Many in this country don't believe the election results.
8. The DeLay rule.
9. Censorship.

You know what? There's just too much that is wrong with this country anymore to continue the list, but I invite anyone to add your own ideas. The greatest nation? Not anymore.

The censorship is way, way out of hand. These folks still have me confused about "Saving Private Ryan" ( what a subversive work that is).

Nova, if you think this country and the driection it's headed are great, then you truly ARE the fucking moron I've accused you of being in the past...

Bladestar said Nova, if you think this country and the driection it's headed are great, then you truly ARE the f^%$ing moron I've accused you of being in the past...

How about using spell check before posting? Have I told you lately that I love you man.

:0)

Karen said 3. The government wants to rack up even more of a deficit to "fix" social security, which would be solvent 'til 2042 without doing a thing.

Let's wait until there really is a problem and then try to fix it. Yup, that's the best solution for everything.

and 5. Science seems to be a dirty word to this government.

I disagree. Maybe you think our government should set aside money for human cloning research.

and 6. The army has only half the new recruits it needs, and they are of poorer quality.

Our military is the best trained in the world. I've been there and have seen it in action. I'm sure our soldiers would love to know that you think they are inferior.

and 7. Many in this country don't believe the election results.

That's your opinion, right? I bet you had the same opinion the last election. Get over it already, it's not going to change.

7. Many in this country don't believe the election results.

But hey, you can be comforted by the fact that, after spending $65 million on Ukraine's election, we have the ability to *demand* that the results must be made invalid because "our" guy lost.

Makes you wonder.

PAD,

I'm enjoying the commentary on your posting. Bottom line, I'm sending one more contribution to CBLDF before the end of the year (get the writeoff, you know). That contribution can be credited to you bringing up this issue.

Regards,

Dennis

Novafan:
"5. Science seems to be a dirty word to this government.

I disagree. Maybe you think our government should set aside money for human cloning research."

Thats a bogus response,while Karen can defend herself,I am pretty sure she is refering to the blatant alteration or ignoring of facts presented by scientific research that is not in line with
what this administration wants to hear.An example being an article in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN that explains just why the much vaunted missile defense wont work and even under optimal conditions is about 20 to 30% accurate.Also even if it hits the target unless it gets the missile coming out of the launcher there is still the risk if Fallout and a big ass mushroom cloud over a major city.
"6. The army has only half the new recruits it needs, and they are of poorer quality.

Our military is the best trained in the world. I've been there and have seen it in action. I'm sure our soldiers would love to know that you think they are inferior."

First she was not saying our soldiers were inferior she was saying the recruits are not the same standard as they used to be.Unfortunately I have seen many unscrupulous recruiters enlist folks just to fill a quota that probably shouldnt be flipping a burger let alone handling a weapon.
While our military is highly trained it doesnt due a damn bit a good if they dont have the proper numbers,resources and equipment to do the job,while Rumsfeld sits around giving snarky answers.
Karen I hope didnt step on your toes here and am not trying to speak for you :)

Karen said 3. The government wants to rack up even more of a deficit to "fix" social security, which would be solvent 'til 2042 without doing a thing.

Let's wait until there really is a problem and then try to fix it. Yup, that's the best solution for everything.

No. Many economists believe small fixes, like raising the amount of income that can be taxed, instead of privatizing to give Wall Street more of that income it so desperately needs.

and 5. Science seems to be a dirty word to this government.

I disagree. Maybe you think our government should set aside money for human cloning research.

Who said anything about human cloning? I just want them to stop gutting environmental regulations. Respond to what I write. Not what you think I've written.

and 6. The army has only half the new recruits it needs, and they are of poorer quality.

Our military is the best trained in the world. I've been there and have seen it in action. I'm sure our soldiers would love to know that you think they are inferior.

Here is a story about the Army Guard: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-23-recruit_x.htm
I read an article the other day that said exactly what I wrote. The Army, Guard and Reserve are only getting about half the recruits they need and the people showing up are of poorer quality. I will post that article as soon as I can find it. I in no way said anything against our troops, only on who is being recruited now. Don't twist my words.

and 7. Many in this country don't believe the election results.

That's your opinion, right? I bet you had the same opinion the last election. Get over it already, it's not going to change.

There are a lot of websites out there that think there was something fishy going on in this election. Not just my opinion, but the opinion of MANY. Congress is looking into the elections. Is it "just their opinion" too?

I didn't format the above correctly. The italics are my initial comments. The words after were Novafans, and the 3rd paragraph would be me responding to his comments. Then more italics. Sorry.

Deano,
Not at all. Thank-you. It's nice when others hit some points more accurately or add things I didn't think of at the time.

This whole thing is pretty damn depressing. I remember spending so much time reading about censorship cases in the past (and in other countries) and thinking that we in the U.S. had pretty much cleaned up our act. I believed this despite the Mike Diana case, the Friendly Frank case, the Jesus Castillo case, the Man who spent a night in jail over Elfquest, etc.

Now I'm remembering what I hated about so much of the eighties. Any day now I expect to see a commercial claiming that D & D is satanic and will turn kids into murderers. This is what I get for letting my aclu and cbldf membership lapse.

Novafan: "I tend to have an optimistic outlook and believe that our country is the greatest country in the world."

Y'know, I hear this sentiment alot. Usually after I've pointed out to someone how our goverment has mucked things up over the last several decades.

I want to make it clear to everyone here that I am not attacking Novafan in any way. I just believe in quoting my source. Novafan just happens to be the most recent.

When people utter this sentiment to me it just seems like lazy brain work. Like putting a U.S. flag on ones SUV and calling it patriotic or putting a yellow ribon magnet on your vehicle (the latest 'look at me' fad) and claiming to support our troops.

The fact is that our goverment HAS mucked things up. Both here and abroad. And they've also done some really good things here and abroad. The censorship issue is another case of something being mucked up for the sake of... I don't know what.

What I DO know is that is that the politicians have a divide-and-conquer attitude towards the people. And we've fallen for it. All the way down to the little peons like myself. This is evident by how often we go online to our various message boards and weblogs and read and write about how best to beat 'them' in the next election or how to make 'them' look bad in the press. What we ought to do is work with 'them' to solve actuall problems instead of arguing with 'them' over the sypmtoms.

Aren't you glad I'm a peon and not an elected official?

Salutations,

Mitch Evans

Nova said: "I tend to have an optimistic outlook and believe that our country is the greatest country in the world."

As long as that outlook doesn't cause you to be ignorant and/or arrogant of other countries and ethnicities, then it's okay. (not accusing you of such, just saying) What really really bothers me are Americans that are so egocentric and ignorant that they write off the feelings, values, and customs of other cultures and of immigrants who still retain their ethnic heritage.

Being from New York, I live in the world's largest mixing pot of ethnicities, and though ethnic blindness isn't as much a problem here as in other areas of America, it still exists. It's fine to have pride in America, but don't let that pride blind you.

As for the topic at hand, if censorship becomes a new trend for American politics and government, then America loses the quality that once made it "the greatest country on earth."

What I find interesting about the things being said here are that no one seems to be considering that many of these censorship attempts DO come from the South, and after years of fighting it, some publishers are just giving up on the "red states." Warrten Ellis, in his mailblog, mentioned that a couple of publishers have told him that they are just going to give up on dealing with southern states because it's a waste of money to market to them. He even talked about it would be quite profitable for some creators to simply do tours of the coastal areas and forget the rest of the country, because they just don't buy their work.

In 1992, at the Republican Convention, Pat Buchanan said that there is a cultural war going on in this country, and like it or not, there are a lot of people who are fighting it, while people on the side of free speech are not, and therefor are losing.

While it may be a Bad Thing for people to stereotype, the numbers are not lying. People in the south do not buy enough copies of controversial or mature readers books for companies to continue to try and sell them there. That is going to have enormous consequences down the road.

See, if I wanted to fund an organization that fought for first amendment rights, I would fund the ACLU, you know the people who are responsible for the only real victories that the CBLDF can claim.

What exactly has the CBLDF accomplished on their own?

Peter can probably point to more than I can, but the original Friendly Frank's case and http://www.cbldf.org/casefiles/mavrides.shtml

are two examples. Also, from what I've read of the fund, most of their victories on their own aren't too public: someone threatens to sue/suppress comic shop owner, comic shop owner calls CBLDF, CBLDF lawyer tells original person who threatened to sue/suppress that CBLDF will sue/countersue, said someone goes away. I agree that the CBDLF should do more to publicize its victories.

This is a scary precedent: What'll happen to political cartooning, for both conservatives and liberals, if they start worrying about being sued for "clearly piratical copies" of political figures? I thought the standard was that something violated copyright if it could be too easily mistaken for the original. (Negativeland got hit with this for doing a U2 parody whose cover had "U2" in massive letters, which the court ruled could make people think it was an album by U2.) And since when are presidential images copywritten? Reagan appeared in CAPTAIN AMERICA -- heck, he was shown to be a snakeman -- and no lawsuits followed. My guess is that the people bringing the suit are hoping the comic store owners would rather fold than face the time expense of fighting this ridiculous charge. To that I say: Thank [insert your favorite religious figure here] for the CBLDF!

(And for the people who want to ban adult-oriented comics, here's a great Judeo-Christian thought for you: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don't impose restrictions on others based on your beliefs, unless you're willing to let others do the same to you. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Man, I get Biblical late at night...)

1. We don't have healthcare for all our children, much less all our citizens
2. Our trade deficit is huge.
3. The government wants to rack up even more of a deficit to "fix" social security, which would be solvent 'til 2042 without doing a thing.
4. We are engaged in a war with no end in sight.
5. Science seems to be a dirty word to this government.
6. The army has only half the new recruits it needs, and they are of poorer quality.
7. Many in this country don't believe the election results.
8. The DeLay rule.
9. Censorship.

10. No less than eleven states have shown that they view homosexuals as second-class citizens or worse.
11. George W. Bush is the President of the U.S.

The U.S. is many, many things right now, but the greatest nation is most assuredly not one of them.

"Thats a bogus response,while Karen can defend herself,I am pretty sure she is refering to the blatant alteration or ignoring of facts presented by scientific research that is not in line with
what this administration wants to hear."

It's actually more pernicious than that. In the past, scientists from foreign lands came to the United States to take advantage of research facilities and work in tandem with American companies to chart scientific advancement. I read an article a while ago (I wish I'd saved it) that stated the US reputation for science research is such that many foreign scientists don't want to come anywhere near America.

"Also, from what I've read of the fund, most of their victories on their own aren't too public: someone threatens to sue/suppress comic shop owner, comic shop owner calls CBLDF, CBLDF lawyer tells original person who threatened to sue/suppress that CBLDF will sue/countersue, said someone goes away. I agree that the CBDLF should do more to publicize its victories."

We can't. More often than not, the stores involved don't want the publicity. You can't really blame them. They're not interested in helping the CBLDF score public brownie points. They contacted us because they were being hassled by anyone from local censorship groups to eager DA's who think the stores will be easy pickings. And when the CBLDF makes clear the resources at our disposal and that we're going to make it a fight for anyone who's out to violate retailers' First Amendment rights, nine times out of ten they back down. At which point the retailer feels like he dodged a negative PR bullet, and wants nothing but to go back about his business. No retailer wants to advertise that people were accusing him of selling, say, porn.

And naturally we honor their wishes, because we're not interested in getting props, we're just interested in making the marketplace safer for all retailers, creators and fans. So we have this tidy little public relations disconnect where we get the job done but can't talk about it, and people who only hear about our few but highly publicized failures think we're the Keystone Cops. It's somewhat frustrating.

PAD

PAD wrote: "We all know what happened. Down in South Carolina, they don't approve of some damned furriners making fun of the Pre-zi-dent of the U S of A. So they trumped up some charges and refused to allow the books into the country. Prior restraint by the US government based on personal dislike for political satire."

Your conspiracy argument rings hollow, PAD. There has been a veritable deluge of anti-Bush stuff on book shelves in the past eight months or so, including a boatload of comic-related material. Much of it is STILL on the stands even a month after the election because it just isn't possible to return it all fast enough. That being the case, why then, out of this vast sea of material slamming Bush, is this one comic allegedly being targeted all of a sudden for the reason you theorize? Is it, like, the greatest Bush parody of all time or something?

The answer, of course, is no. The fact is, the books may have been confiscated for the exact reason cited on the complaint, and nothing more.

*sigh* Does anyone know the lyrics to Holland's national anthem?

With regards to the whole Southern Accent, maybe it's just me but I love Southern Liberals. Something about espousing the progressive agenda in an accent generally asociated with lyncher and wife beaters just does something for me. Like Molly Ivins. I LOVE her voice.

I think what is going on here is wrong. You will always find examples, like the one here, and that is where CBLDF and other groups shine. They fight the good fight and we are thankful.

Though, I'm really not too concernd about the direction our country is going in terms of censorship. Not that long ago it was ruled that simulated sex acts between underage children were protected by free speech. With that in mind, I find it hard to believe that political satire and other adult themed comics will be going away anytime soon.

PAD writes: It's actually more pernicious than that. In the past, scientists from foreign lands came to the United States to take advantage of research facilities and work in tandem with American companies to chart scientific advancement. I read an article a while ago (I wish I'd saved it) that stated the US reputation for science research is such that many foreign scientists don't want to come anywhere near America.

Oh heck, I can attest to that; our company's HR department in Vancouver, BC can barely process applications fast enough. Two years ago, finding semi-qualified chemists and engineers was very hard.

Now, resumes of PhD's are stuffing the mailbag. These are highly experienced researchers with lots of published work, not freshly-minted doctorates.

Doubters needn't take my word for it. Compare job sites like Monster.ca (Canada) with Monster.com (US). Pick any technical field, and there are tens of thousands of jobs on the US site; many have gone unfilled for months.

But the Canada job site will often yield only a few dozen postings, and those are usually quite recent. Most companies in Canada aren't finding it necessary to advertise for skilled researchers; superb applicants are practically knocking their doors down.

Conversely, colleagues in the US are saying it's difficult to find even mediocre candidates for research positions.

The job market in BC would be glutted, if not for the fact that the research money is fleeing the US even faster; research subsidiaries and facilities are springing up like weeds, so these guys are able to get multiple job offers. And yes, most explicitly state they will not consider jobs that require "cross-border travel", (though none seem to mind going to London, Tokyo or Paris. Or even Shang-hai.).

The unemployment rate in BC is now at its lowest level in more than ten years, mostly thanks to growth in science and engineering. And thanks to the plummeting US dollar, companies can now often pay as well or better than US firms.

My colleagues at other companies are saying the same, and supposedly Toronto is the same story. In fact, I haven't been commenting on this site much lately 'cause I've been working 12-hour days trying to get on top of our HR needs before Christmas break... just got in from work and it's after 1am... gah!

Karen, I agree with everything on your list. Your comment at the end about the US not being the greatest country anymore, though, can't agree with that. Sure, there are lots of things wrong with this country, just like any other country. And now half the country has chosen to re-elect a man who lost my respect a long time ago.

But we're still the greatest country in the world because of the Karens and Toms and PADs we have here. People who fight for what's right and believe in the promise of freedom that this country stands for. Freedom of speech, religious freedom, freedom to organize. Things may look bleak to some of us now. They've been bleak before. But we'll come through this and we'll win. Because I still believe that most Americans know what's right and will do what's right. We may be fooled, like some were in the recent election, but we're not fools. I love my country and I'm sure you do, too. Don't give up on us, Karen. We need folks like you.

"Your conspiracy argument rings hollow, PAD. There has been a veritable deluge of anti-Bush stuff on book shelves in the past eight months or so, including a boatload of comic-related material."

Well, two responses come to mind. The first is, how much of that material passed through customs? Ooo, I know, I know! Answer is: Little to none. So the opportunity to sandbag it wasn't there.

The second is, I never postulated a conspiracy theory. I think this is the work of a couple of local customs agents, abusing the trust and authority accorded them as representatives of the US government and the Constitution. And these guys (or, who knows, perhaps even this guy) had his sense of patriotism personally offended and came up with a reason to keep it off the stands. A reason that simply is insupportable weighed against First Amendment considerations.

I think you will generally find, throughout history, that the reasons people offer for doing wrong are simply rationalizations because they know the real reasons won't fly (which is why Bush's story on Iraq kept changing).

What's pernicious about this case, though, is that if it's then allowed to stand, suddenly it's more than a guy or a couple of guys being humorless jerks imposing their will in flagrant disregard for the First Amendment. Suddenly it's a precedent, and customs agents elsewhere who would never have flagged parody material only because they thought it wouldn't survive a challenge will now feel empowered to do whatever the hell they want when it comes to curtailing material they find personally vexing.

Now if you want to say I'm overreacting, if you want to shrug it off or believe it's a legit grievance, that's perfectly fine. Me, I prefer to err on the side of free expression.

PAD

"The unemployment rate in BC is now at its lowest level in more than ten years, mostly thanks to growth in science and engineering. And thanks to the plummeting US dollar, companies can now often pay as well or better than US firms."

Glad we could help...I guess.

PAD

The sky is falling, better send donations to CBLDF!

Peter David wrote...
Glad we could help...I guess.

As much as it pains me to admit it, your president is doing absolutely stellar things for our economy. Our dollar hasn't been this high in about 12 years.

If he wasn't running your country (and one or two others) into the ground, I'd say keep up the good work!

Ken took the time out of his day to post:
The sky is falling, better send donations to CBLDF!

Glad you could contribute something useful to the conversation, Ken. {rolling of eyes}

Apparently, Jarissa, it is more than you have contributed.

What are you talking about, Ken?

I contributed a link to an animated feature -- a moving comic, you might say -- that satirizes current government and society, however gently, and is therefore on-topic as a potential future target of the "$satire_of_government=bad!" theory.

I contributed sarcasm in your general direction. I don't have the virtue of being French, so certain other options I could not justify sending in your general direction, however much you might have earned them.

I contributed humor to the conversation -- granted, humor likely to be ignored by most folks, but maybe it'll give someone a brief chuckle as they read along. A sense of humor is often useful when facing weighty problems such as limitations on free speech versues concern that "them liberals" are overreacting yet again (if I correctly understand the opposing viewpoint, and my apologies to that side of the fence if I got it wrong). Otherwise, everyone just gets mad and hollers and stomps around, and nothing *useful* gets done.

Also, since I had to add html to my post, I know that I put more thought and effort into my contribution than you put into yours. I even tied yours back into the greater topic, making you more relevant! See how I did that? I'm gracious like that. {evil grin}

Additionally, by adding the "rolling of eyes" to my post, I raised the bar on overall maturity from where your post had set it. Adolescents roll their eyes at everything as a form of sarcasm-laden mockery. Kindergarteners proclaim ludicrous, marginally-relevant extrapolations of the debated position they don't like, such as "Totally nonsensical extreme case that couldn't happen! Must be time to do what Those Guys advocate!" as a form of sarcasm-laden mockery.
The next person, other than you or me, who posts will thereby have a great opening for raising the maturity level by another ten years or so. Won't that be keen? We might even get grown-up varieties of sarcasm-laden mockery in the next riposte -- oh, wait, *adult* ripostes don't lean on mockery, they instead raise valid points that either support their own position or undermine the opposing position (or, better yet, both at once).
Oh, well. Could someone shoot for "I'm twenty and I! Know! Everything!" sarcasm-laden mockery, then, please? We're working on a trend, here!

The reality is that all of us fans of comics should be scared. Comics are an easy target for the religious right and hypocritical politicians masquerading as district attorneys. It is easy to see that Peter could easily be made a target of their focus with FALLEN ANGEL. "How dare Peter write sex scenes in a comic! Comics are for kids!!! et al.

What also concerns me is that a lot of comics are printed up in Canada. I wonder how easy it would be for DC or Marvel to be blocked by Customs.

You know, it's kind of funny...I just finished re-watching the second season of Babylon 5 on DVD...

"The Night Watch exists to protect our people from misinformation and harmful ideas."

Life imitating art? I sure hope not...we all know how that worked out for the Night Watch.

Here is my two cents worth:

It may not be intentional, but the series of similar postings about the censorship issue does give one a feeling of Chicken Little yelling, "The sky is falling." While I understand PAD's desire to (paraphrasing) "nip it in the bud," it is easy to jump to the conclusion that this is a conspiracy by the current powers that be.

I lived in Dallas during the time when Jesus of Keith's comics was wrongly accused. The charge was a joke. I am clearly a conservative (as many of you know) and was disgusted by the contents of the comic in question. But having shopped regularly at the store (their prior location), I knew that they did go to an effort to keep kids out of the more mature comics area. In addition, the comic was sold to an adult, not a kid. If I had been on the jury, he would have been found not guilty in two seconds. (Of course, I would have had to have lied to have been on the jury since knowing him would have disqualified me from serving.)

All that to say this: I have a respect for the CBLDF. I see it as more than just trying to protect "porn," etc. And as PAD noted, I am sure Keith's did NOT need the type of publicity that was generated. So I am sympathetic to this issue. I would want to know more to understand what exactly is going on (since there can be more to the story than what is reported) before jumping to conclusions. But if the story is as stated, clearly it should be immediately stopped, struck down, whatever.

Having been on the other side of things when Clinton won a second term, there is part of me fascinated with the "sky is falling" and "this country, as we know it, is over" types of attitudes. Recent history has shown, things can change rather quickly. Our country has a tendency to swing back the other way after a certain anmount of time. So before you completely write off this country and say that Bush has ruined it forever, take a deep breath, count to 10, and repeat after me, "This, too, will soon pass." Unfortunately for my side of things, Bush only has 4 more years. There is no clear Republican to carry the torch when he is done. So don't give up hope for life as we know it just yet.

Jim in Iowa

Bladestar wrote
"Now wonder this country is going to down the tubes..."

To quote George Carlin,
"Those must be some big f**kin' tubes"

“4. We are engaged in a war with no end in sight.”

I’m not sure about that one. So far Bush has just used his “war on terror” as an excuse to carry out his personal vendetta against Hussein and ignore those who think what he’s doing is wrong (like, y’know, the UN). Once Bush is done stomping the man’s former nation future into the ground and ensuring that the middle east becomes an even more unlivable hellhole I’m half convinced that he’ll declare victory on the war. That’ll take at least the rest of Bush’s term though.

Of course it’s possible that the Republican party will let the war go on forever and use Bin Laden as the bogeyman that helps the Warmonger…er…Republican party stay in power. Heaven forbid they actually try to find Osoma, though.

“5. Science seems to be a dirty word to this government.”

Yep, and I have two words for anyone who doesn’t believe that; stem cells.

“7. Many in this country don't believe the election results.”

Why would we? This guy blatantly stole the 2000 one. This time around it didn’t look much better. Voter registration forms were “lost” only to have them turn up shredded in the garbage weeks later. Hell, even though I DID manage to get registered, I never got the absentee ballot I sent for so I was robbed of my opportunity to vote for Kerry. The only reason I’m not more outraged by that is that I don’t think my state has had its electoral votes counted toward the Democrat since JFK and Kerry hardly has the charisma of a Kennedy so can’t see that trend changing.

“10. No less than eleven states have shown that they view homosexuals as second-class citizens or worse. “

This bullshit about how gays shouldn’t be able to marry just kills me. Apparently the right to the pursuit of happiness only applies to us straight people. Additionally, if these bigots are so concerned with “protecting the institution of marriage” (or however they worded it) then they ought to just make it harder to get divorced or something.

Because if you make divorce harder, you'll see the number of kids growing up in really f-ed up homes and getting really f-ed up as a result will skyrocket, as will incidents of spousal abuse and probably "spousicide"...

I said ... Peter said Folks from South Carolina--chill. I apologize if I offended you. Only 49 more to go. Tehe! :0)

I should have clarified my statement. It should read ...

Only 49 more states to go. :0)

Zach said “5. Science seems to be a dirty word to this government.” Yep, and I have two words for anyone who doesn’t believe that; stem cells.

And I have a few words for you. Bush was the only President ever in our history to use federal funding for stem cell research. So sing another tune why don't ya.

Good grief.

Mitch said I want to make it clear to everyone here that I am not attacking Novafan in any way.

Oh come on Mitch. Just about everybody else does it without any reservations (should I name names?).

What makes you any different? :0)

Karen said Who said anything about human cloning? I just want them to stop gutting environmental regulations. Respond to what I write. Not what you think I've written.

What you said was 5. Science seems to be a dirty word to this government.

With that statement, you left it wide open to what people could comment on. You didn't give anything specific like environmental regulations until after the fact.

This all scares the living crap out of me. I don't quite think we've quite packed up and gone on the Orwellian Vacation, but we as a country have definitely gone to the travel agency. Anyone out there applying to be the new Dr. Righteous? I decide what's appropriate for my son, or, for that matter, for me. I think that everyone that posts on this board is intelligent enough to decide the same things for themselves. I just hope that we're all smart enough not to let this kind of thing continue.

Novafan,
A comment about science being a dirty word to this administration is a far cry from calling for human cloning. This administration uses junk science to justify what they want, rather than using real science to justify what this country needs.

Tom Keller,
Wow, I'm blushing. That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on this site. Thank-you very much. I still think, at this point in time, that this country is hardly the best in the world. We are currently bullies half the time, and the other half we just ignore other countries concerns. They took us out of the Kyoto treaty and the International court because they don't think we should have to follow rules others do. IBM just sold it's personal computer division to a company in China, a country that holds a massive trade imbalance with us, in their favor. One of these days China and Japan are going to say no more credit, and then you will see our economy plunge into a black hole. Good thing the real scientists found something that can escape from them, so we have that infinitesimal chance to get out of it. See, this is a great blog. I've learned about science here!

Oh, and with censorship on the rise, we won't be able to complain with impunity for much longer.

I still can't find the article that says the Army is having problems getting new recruits this year, but for those of you who think everything is going fairly well:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1397131,00.html

PAD wrote: "What's pernicious about this case, though, is that if it's then allowed to stand, suddenly it's more than a guy or a couple of guys being humorless jerks imposing their will in flagrant disregard for the First Amendment. Suddenly it's a precedent, and customs agents elsewhere who would never have flagged parody material only because they thought it wouldn't survive a challenge will now feel empowered to do whatever the hell they want when it comes to curtailing material they find personally vexing."

That's a reasonable argument, and there's nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution. However, I really don't think it was the first anti-Bush print job to pass through customs. Lots of U.S. publishers are getting their stuff printed overseas these days, and the odds of this comic being the first anti-Bush publication (or even one of only a handful) to pass through customs are slimmer than the odds of me directing "Hulk 2."

I keep seeing posts that say PAD is overreacting. Look to history (as those in power do not care to do) and try to tell me that those in power don't crave more and more power, impose their wills and ideologies on their people, until they don't recognize where they live anymore. Do you think the dictators in history started with sweeping changes? No, they began small and worked their way up. We no longer have the checks and balances we used to, and if the minority opposition party doesn't get it's act together, we are looking at difficult times ahead. The time to fight is before they take our rights away. You can't just say this is a small thing that will go away. You don't really know that, unless you work to make sure we can keep our rights. I don't want to wake up one day and find I can't read what I want because someone else decided it wasn't approprate for me. CBLDF is just one of the groups on the front line. We need to support them now, to win the battles that seem to come more often anymore.

James Lynch posted: I thought the standard was that something violated copyright if it could be too easily mistaken for the original. (Negativeland got hit with this for doing a U2 parody whose cover had "U2" in massive letters, which the court ruled could make people think it was an album by U2.)

It's worth correcting this though I agree with James' point: the problems with the Negativland piece -- brilliant though it was -- went far beyond the cover. The piece was not a parody, it was a sound collage, and it employed unlicensed samples of both U2's music and of profane outtakes from Casey Kasem's radio show. Had it just been a parody, with newly-recorded music (a la "Weird Al" Yankovic), it would have been fair use. Their peice went far beyond fair use.

(And again, I personally think the piece is brilliant.)

In other news, Wal-Mart is being sued over the lyrics on an Evanescence CD. They're also suing the label and are threatening to take the suit national. All because the CD didn't carry the (strictly voluntary) Parental Advisory sticker (Wal-Mart's policy is not to carry albums that carry the label, and some artists copromise and release "clean" versions of their albums to appease Wal-Mart). I think the lawsuit has no grounds, personally, and I don't see how they think they can get a court to order Wal-Mart to not carry the album.

(Interesting side note: I have personally purchased two CDs at Wal-Mart in the last few weeks that did not include the Parental Advisory labels but that did include uncensored profanity -- Modest Mouse's [i]Good News For People Who Love Bad News[/i] and Gwen Stefani's [i]Love, Angel, Music, Baby[/i]. I refuse to purchase censored CDs -- I want to hear what the artist originally intended -- so in both cases, this was a pleasant surprise for me -- but obviously, this goes beyond just Evanescence. Wal-Mart's argument -- and I agree with them -- is that they cannot possibly screen every song on every CD they carry. Personally, I think they should offer both versions and let the consumer decide).

OK, just put my money where my mouth is. Money is kind of tight around here, but this is important. I am the newest CBLDF member.

Novafan: "Mitch said I want to make it clear to everyone here that I am not attacking Novafan in any way.

Oh come on Mitch. Just about everybody else does it without any reservations (should I name names?).

What makes you any different? :0)"

Hell, I don't know what makes me different. Perhaps I'm just and angry idealist who's tired of the direction we as a nation lean sometimes.

Or maybe it just that I'm the guy who secretly turns the radio all the way up in his friends car as we get out after he's cut the engine just to see his reaction when he fires the car back up later.

I really don't have a clue.

Julio Diaz: "In other news, Wal-Mart is being sued over the lyrics on an Evanescence CD. They're also suing the label and are threatening to take the suit national."

I don't think this has as much to do with censorship as it does with someone looking for an easy payoff.

Here's an idea... How about voluntary labels on music, literary, and video products that indicate that it is censored and by whom? Somehow I think that those who engage in the censoring of such products wouldn't want their names known.

I read an article about this and that article indicated that there was one instance of the dreaded "F-word" ('Fuck' for the uninitiated).

Meanwhile in California a deposition from a high-ranking member of the clergy indicates more instances of sexual abuse toward children in the church.

It's a damn good thing we people monitoring these music CD's (irony).

Salutations,

Mitch Evans

To those insulted by PAD's remark on South Carolina:
*laughs* I'm from the South...and actually, I'm worse. I'm from TEXAS. I FREELY make fun of myself in much the same way. Chill, people, he was speaking lightly. Remember that next time you say something laughingly about "them dayam Yankees." Try to LAUGH at something you're proud of or something you like--it makes life go that much easier when someone else makes light of it.

As for the censorship...It's crap and I'm not surprised. Might as well stop all those newspapers from publishing political cartoons, right? Oh noes! They made fun of the president! That's NEVER happened before to ANY other president!

All because the CD didn't carry the (strictly voluntary) Parental Advisory sticker

My wife was checking around on some other articles about this, and apparently if you listen to it (or purchase, whatever) through Wal-Mart's website, it IS censored.

So, how they could get it there, but not in stores, should be on Wal-Mart's shoulders.

Craig J. Ries posted: My wife was checking around on some other articles about this, and apparently if you listen to it (or purchase, whatever) through Wal-Mart's website, it IS censored.

So, how they could get it there, but not in stores, should be on Wal-Mart's shoulders.

Not exactly.

Walmart.com is almost a different division of the company, totally separate from the bricks & mortar stores. In fact, the physical stores will not even honor walmart.com's prices. The people that censored the sample of the song online have nothing to do with the physical stores.

I hate to defend Wal-Mart, but the facts are the facts.

All this talk of censorship reminds me of the one time that I recall in which censorship made something better. It was a song by Adam Sandler singing about his car. The censored version was funny with horns sounding and the like while the uncensored version was boring.

And I have a few words for you. Bush was the only President ever in our history to use federal funding for stem cell research.

Bush is the first President who COULD use federal funding for stem cell research. Not that he understands what is is.

Idiot.

And I have a few words for you. Bush was the only President ever in our history to use federal funding for stem cell research.

All those of you here more well read than me on this topic, please correct me if I am wrong, but... Even if Bush is the only President in history to federally fund stem cell research, isn't he only allowing it on 20-some lines? No new lines of stem cells can be created or used with federal funding?

This is like people in Michigan claiming that the schools shouldn't be in trouble because they're getting the same funding this year that they've gotten for the past three years (which is less than they got in the years before that!). Costs go up, NCLB comes into effect, funding stays static, and kids educations suffer.

Oh, yeah. Bush is a great President.

Eric

Peter,

Thanks for your apology. But even with that, I think your comment slamming South Carolinians was an uncalled for cheap shot.

And your statement: "I was writing in "the voice" of Edward Rutledge, representative of South Carolina from the musical "1776"?

Well, that's lame.

I see a lot of "Northerners" portrayed negatively on TV and Film every single day. Do I use these portrayals as an excuse to denigrate REAL "Northerners"?

No. I don't.

I wouldn't be so amped up about this subject except I am unbelievably tired of watching almost everyone not from the South use these antiquated stereotypes when describing "Southerners".

Funny thing is-- these mischaracterizations still happen all the time... Even though a huge number of "Northerners" have already moved South and continue to do so.

Oh, and for everyone who thinks all Southerners still drawl out their words all the time-- like in "1776"-- think again.

Any speech therapist will tell you that the "Southern" accent is actually one of the most economical uses of the English language. Instead of drawing words out, "Southerners" actually cut off various vowels and sounds to SHORTEN words-- not LENGTHEN them.

Speech therapists will also tell you that the Southern accent is one of the most soft, lyrical accents to be found in this country.

Thanks for your apology. But even with that, I think your comment slamming South Carolinians was an uncalled for cheap shot."

And I think you're spending so much time belaboring a remark that I already apologized for and so little dwelling on the truly important issue that one or more South Carolina-based customs agents are trying to break new ground in censorship, that it's pretty clear your priorities are out of whack. So it works out.

PAD

"Bush is the first President who COULD use federal funding for stem cell research. Not that he understands what is is.

Idiot."

Although I disagree with Bush on this, in fairness it should be pointed out that he came up with that plan on August 10 2001. It seems hardly likely that the issue had sprung up from whole cloth in the 7 months he had been president then.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why Clinton didn't act on the issue, would have been a better legacy than the ones he will have.

"And I think you're spending so much time belaboring a remark that I already apologized for and so little dwelling on the truly important issue that one or more South Carolina-based customs agents are trying to break new ground in censorship, that it's pretty clear your priorities are out of whack. So it works out."

Actually, my initial response to your slam took less than 4 minutes to type. My contribution to the CBLDF took considerably longer to complete.

So I sincerely doubt my priorities were out of whack.

I spoke up for something I believe in-- which is my right.

I then responded to your story on the customs seizure by supporting and organization both you and I believe in.

See, I can separate my concerns.

NOW "it works out".

PAD, a question,

If the CBLDF can't use the name of the stores/defendents, what about just releasing the numbers?

"This month, x number of stores/people called about being pressured, our lawyer called y number of people in return, z number of cases were dropped."

Not a perfect answer I realize, but one that tells us a little bit more about how much is going on.

PAD,

I don't really give a flip about the accent thing, but I live in Charleston, and I am pissed about the way you jump to the conclusion that it's politically motivated because it happened in the south. I'm liberal, but not even my conservative friends would think about censoring something based on political beliefs.

You failed to note that they also seized another issue of Stripburger that riffed on Peanuts, a strip that had no political messages whatsoever. While I'm not happy about this turn of events, I have a hard time believing someone came up with a scheme involving a totally separate issue of the comic as a cover-up for politically motivated censorship.

Also, considering the number of yankee immigrants who have ended up in our fair city because they like the weather here, it's impossible to say that the person who did this was actually a southerner.

If you've never been here, this is my personal invitation to you to visit Charleston. You might want to come during Spoleto, an arts festival that has an audience of 70,000 people. This past political season was also fun, as students at the College of Charleston organized many voter registration drives (most of these were young democrats). One of the highlights was a bunch of DJs spinning in the main park downtown. You could also come visit my school, the Medical University of South Carolina, where some of my friends are doing stem cell research.

In case you've missed it, my point is that, while it's not perfect, Charleston isn't some den of Republicans waiting to take away people's rights just because it's in South Carolina. Just like any other place, there's a diversity of people and opinions here. Jumping to the conclusion (one not well supported by facts, by the way) that this was politically motivated because of the geography of the event is insulting. And not just regular level insulting. We're talking John Byrne level insulting.

I think a lot of other people have said all I really wanted to say RE the stem cell thing

"Because if you make divorce harder, you'll see the number of kids growing up in really f-ed up homes and getting really f-ed up as a result will skyrocket, as will incidents of spousal abuse and probably "spousicide"..."

I didn’t think anyone would actually take my “if these bigots are so concerned with ‘protecting the institution of marriage’…” comment literally. The point is that the people making that claim in order to support their “family values” views regarding homosexuality as some kind of enemy to heterosexual marriage are out of their minds since one has nothing to do with the other. Besides, as you pointed out, the alternative I jokingly segregated that would actually “protect” marriage would turn out to be pretty nightmarish in practice.

Zach,

But you know it's true. If the legal alternative of divorce is removed or made too difficult, this is EXACTLY the sort of the thing that will rise.

I'd rather see kids have one happy parent than two miserably unhappy/hateful parents.

And the violence levels in this country overall seems to climb evey year, lending credence to the other half of the statement...

Here in M I they've been talking for years about making divorces harder to get...

Marriage Counseling should be required before divorce and it might make both people happy. Divorce should not be anywhere near as easy to get as it is now.

Ken:

>Marriage Counseling should be required before divorce and it might make both people happy. Divorce should not be anywhere near as easy to get as it is now.

I'd argue that the ease of divorce should not be the issue, but perhaps the fopcus should be that marriages should not be as easy to get as they are now. More process-oriented. While I'm hesitant to support any mandated counseling for marriage as it is simply a legal agreement between 2 people, making divorce more difficult would most likely only add to the frustrations of a couple and increase the anger that they direct towards one another. Forcing them to jump through hoops, will not necessarily affect positive change in attitude or emotions of a couple.

Fred

You are right, it shouldn't be easy to marry. But, it also shouldn't be easy to divorce. Most couples go into marriage unprepared. Marriage counseling prior to marriage should be required and prior to divorce should be mandatory.

What I find ironic is that the people who are claiming that divorce is best for the kids are the same that feel that nothing should be censored in the interes of the kids.

Ken:

>You are right, it shouldn't be easy to marry. But, it also shouldn't be easy to divorce. Most couples go into marriage unprepared. Marriage counseling prior to marriage should be required and prior to divorce should be mandatory.

Some churches require a pre=marriage retreat and/or counseling for couples. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal agreement between two people. Who is to say how prepared or unprepared a couple is for marriage? I certainly don't want the government deciding that. It's not their responsibility nor their right to be involved in this decision-making process or that of divorce.

>What I find ironic is that the people who are claiming that divorce is best for the kids are the same that feel that nothing should be censored in the interes of the kids.

In all of my time working with people, I've never seen a strong connection. Do you have any sources for this statement or is this statement based on your own observation?

I just can't believe that people want to make it harder to divorce. Doing so would just give one spouse the license to cheat. Even if a divorce could happen eventually, it would be a major trauma to force the other spouse to have to stay in the marriage in such circumstances. If the marriage is going to be saved, it has to be done so because the parties want to save it. Not because they are compelled to do so.

I just can't believe that people want to make it harder to divorce. Doing so would just give one spouse the license to cheat. Even if a divorce could happen eventually, it would be a major trauma to force the other spouse to have to stay in the marriage in such circumstances. If the marriage is going to be saved, it has to be done so because the parties want to save it. Not because they are compelled to do so.

You are assuming too much. Most suggestions to make divorce more difficult deal with "no fault" divorce. Circumstances, such as adultery or abuse, would clearly be grounds for a divorce.

I would agree that it would be bad to "force" a couple to stay together. But if there are kids involved, it is bad when it is too easy to get out. Go work with some teens for a while and you will quickly learn that divorce has an enormous impact on a kid. If there is abuse, clearly the kid needs to be protected and a loving parent will separate or divorce the guilty spouse. But a lot of divorces are not for that reason. They are simply from selfishness.

Yes, both parties have to want to save the marriage for it to work. But if there is no expectation to even try (assuming there is no abuse, adultery, etc.), then we are setting the bar way too low.

Jim in Iowa

The Wal Mart suit over Evanessence isn't even about censorship, it's about money...how much the lawyer can make in settlement. I hope he gets zip. I hope Wal Mart takes his ass to court and break him.

Wal Mart has a voluntary policy to not carry CDs with the voluntary parental advisory sticker on it. As far as I know, it's not a policy to not sell items that contain profanity, or sex, or drugs. As others pointed out, Wal Mart sells plenty of CDs with profanity. I think they also sell books that contain profanity and sex in them.

There's no merit to this case, other than some hack lawyer (and I'm a laywer myself, so it's ok for me to call him a hack) trying to make a name and a fortune for himself. And I really hope Wal Mart's legal team really enjoys themselves as they squish him into the ground and into bankruptcy, so the next hack who thinks he can invent a cause of action thinks long and hard before taking that risk.

Jim, I think the whole concept of putting roadblocks in the way of a divorce is wrong.

If one side claims adultry, couldn't the other side deny it. Are you going to require proof or simply the allegation? If you only require the allegation, then the spouse that wants a divorce will simply allege adultry?

Damn, I could have sworn I typed “jokingly suggested” in that last post I made. “Jokingly segregated” doesn’t make a whole hell of a lot of sense.
“ Zach,
But you know it's true. If the legal alternative of divorce is removed or made too difficult, this is EXACTLY the sort of the thing that will rise.
I'd rather see kids have one happy parent than two miserably unhappy/hateful parents.
And the violence levels in this country overall seems to climb evey year, lending credence to the other half of the statement...”
True, that’s exactly how it would turn out.

Again, I didn’t actually think anyone would take my “make divorce harder” suggestion seriously.

If one side claims adultry, couldn't the other side deny it. Are you going to require proof or simply the allegation? If you only require the allegation, then the spouse that wants a divorce will simply allege adultry?

Good questions. I come from the side of cleaning up the mess after the divorce has happened. While I have dealt with kids in a horrible home situation, I have dealt with far more whose parents got divorced. Neither situation is a good one. But divorce has become too easy of an option for very stupid, selfish reasons.

There are some places requiring some form of pre-marital counseling. And I have read that studies have shown that those who do get pre-marital counseling have a far higher rate of staying together. (Sorry, I didn't keep the article so can't quote my source right now.) The requirement did NOT say the counselor had to approve the marriage, it just said they had to do it before marriage.

As some have pointed out elsewhere, we require a test for driving a car, but none for starting a family. It would not be a large burden and would not take away any rights to require a couple to attend premarital counseling. Many churches and other counselors offer this for free or at a very nominal charge.

In regards to divorce, I would be interested in seeing a good discussion on the matter in another forum.

Jim in Iowa

I'm a bit puzzled as to why Clinton didn't act on the issue, would have been a better legacy than the ones he will have.

Which will still be a better legacy that either Bush will get.

What I find ironic is that the people who are claiming that divorce is best for the kids are the same that feel that nothing should be censored in the interes of the kids.

You better find examples to back that up, because I don't see people saying that.

But then, the arguement isn't ever about making it harder for straight people to do anything - get married, get divorced, adopt kids. Only gays.

The argument of "sanctity of marriage" is used so often by those that want to "protect" marriage from gays that it's become meaningless. The argument is utterly pointless in light of the fact that Brittany "The Whore" Spears can go, get married, and have that marriage annulled two days later.

And GAYS are going to ruin marriage? Find a REAL argument, please.

"But then, the arguement isn't ever about making it harder for straight people to do anything - get married, get divorced, adopt kids. Only gays."

Was someone here arguing that, if homosexual marriage was legalized, we should have unfair barriers to entry JUST FOR THEM? I've never seen that argument, here or elsewhere, though it's possible that I overlooked it.

Despite the fact that I've religious reasons for disliking the idea of homosexual marriage, I've been saying for a while now that if homosexual marriage proponents will stand with me in arguing that marriage and divorce should both be harder to get, I'll stand with them in trying to allow them to marry legally -- provided that no one tries to force a pastor or priest to hold a marriage ceremony he feels is against his religion (granted, that provision might cause some outrage on the left, since they want to force doctors to perform abortions they don't feel morally right about, but...).

-----

I tend to be a pretty strong opponent of censorship in the marketplace. I understand the desire to censor certain things out of the public space (public airwaves, billboards, etc.), but that doesn't mean that these things should be unavailable, just that they should only be available to those who WANT them. Of course, deciding what's "acceptable" and what isn't is... difficult.

As far as this goes, I have to agree with Peter -- it's probably one or two overzealous employees, and I think it's important that we nip it in the bud NOW.

-----

On Stem Cell research:

Isn't Bush only restricting funding for research on embryonic stem cells, due to ethical concerns that such research provides incentives to create human lives (either in fertility clinics or through "natural" means) with the intent of destroying it for medical purposes? I've heard of no restrictions on adult stem cells.

Strangely, every major breakthrough I've heard of, even in more "enlightened" countries, has been made with adult stem cells. It's my understanding that embryonic stem cells tend to grow wildly when used in adult tissue, and that they're prone to becoming cancerous.

Admittedly, my understanding of the science here is flaky, and I could've been misreading something. Computer Engineering doesn't usually require an intimate knowledge of biology or medicine.

"The argument is utterly pointless in light of the fact that Brittany [insult removed] Spears can go, get married, and have that marriage annulled two days later."

I've got less of an issue with an annullment after two days (which, as I recall, they'd decided to get the next day) than I do with people petitioning for annullments after 18 years of marriage. I'm fairly certain that's only a Catholic Church thing (that is, I think the government still considers the couple divorced, even if the church doesn't), but it's still a bit perplexing to me.

Still, I get the point. The number of HETEROsexuals who think that marriage has approximately the same gravity as a first date disturbs me to no end.

Was someone here arguing that, if homosexual marriage was legalized, we should have unfair barriers to entry JUST FOR THEM?

The argument is that people want a barrier to prevent legalizing it to begin with.

Just as there have been attempts by people to prevent gays from adopting kids, etc.

But there are no such barriers (legally) to prevent a hetero couple. There is nothing to prove that they are actually a loving couple, just as there is nothing to really stop them from getting a divorce.

Yet, I believe divorce to be far more destructive to the "institution" of marriage than gays ever will be.
The whole argument boils down to the fact that alot of people in this country prefer gays to be second-class citizens.

Civil marriage is the problem. The main reason we have civil marriage is tax, property, and inheritance/survivorship. You can tax a married couple differently than singles, most property laws default ownership to a surviving spouse, etc. You can't even say child custody rights are inherant in marriage, as unmarried parents have pretty much the same custody rights as married parents.

So the solution is to remove marriage from the civil arena. If anyone wants to preserve their idea of traditional marriage, let them do so within their religion, where this kind of discrimination is allowed. Trying to defend the attempts to limit the definition of civil marriage as anything other than a religiously motivated action is a sham.

I'm not pushing that we ask people to prove they're a loving couple before they get married -- just that they're a committed couple, and that they fully understand the magnitude of what marriage means. I'd expect that of any couple getting married, whether the couple was a hetero one or not.

I'm not sure that not allowing gays to marry is necessarily relegating them to second-class citizenship. It all boils down to how we see the definition of marriage. If you see it as merely a union (conveying legal benefits) between two people who're in love, then I can understand why you'd see it that way. If you see it as something based on the male/female pairings that God commanded, then I understand why you'd see it as a bad thing that the definition is changed. I understand both points of view, and while I lean more toward the second, I respect those who hold the first.

In the end, I tend to agree that divore is more destructive to the "institution" of marriage than homosexuals are. People who're married five or six times over the span of 20 years do far more to erode the public perception of marriage as an institution than a committed homosexual couple that's together for 20 years ever would.

both parties have to want to save the marriage for it to work. But if there is no expectation to even try (assuming there is no abuse, adultery, etc.), then we are setting the bar way too low.

This is a good point; but I'm not sure that setting the bar high is something that can be legislated. A reluctance to get divorced seems to be more of a societal expectation, independent of the laws.

It's been mentioned here before, but once more: the US has twice (or more) the divorce rate of any other Western country except the UK. Yet most of these other countries make it easier to get divorced than the US does.

Also consider that "no-fault" laws in most countries have generally been enacted some years after the divorce rate rose (usually in an attempt to unburden overloaded civil courts).

That suggests that the expectation to try and make a marriage work has very little to do with the laws on the books, and that fine-tuning/supplementing divorce laws would have little to no effect.

Perhaps it's better to spend the energy on asking what's putting the pressure on couples in the first place. Crass commercialism making people focus on material needs? Unrealisticly high standards? Overwork? Britney setting a bad example? Hard to say.

(Fun facts: Southern Baptists have the highest divorce rate in the US; Lutherans the lowest. Atheists and agnostics have an even lower rate, but are still more likely to get divorced than people in other countries).

Sorry, formatting didn't work; in my previous post, the following was by Jim in Iowas, and was supposed to be quoted/italicized:

"both parties have to want to save the marriage for it to work. But if there is no expectation to even try (assuming there is no abuse, adultery, etc.), then we are setting the bar way too low."

You know, the act of seize and censor is sufficiently offensive that you don't have to fabricate imagined reasons to make it odious. By making it about something that's completely unprobable all you do it make it easier for people to dismiss the entire story as paranoid ramblings.

It is really sad i fell upon this site while looking for support our troops stuff. This is something none of you care to do. How sad that a bunch of so called adults sit around and read comic books. There is a whole real world out there. What are wrong are you afraid? Oh i am sorry maybe you can't understand me, I voted for Bush I just couldn't stand the thought of having a so called man whose wife financially supports terrorists, believes in abortion and wants to allow gay marriages. I think instead of reading you little kiddies magazines you need to get out what so of us like to call the GOOD WORD, you know the bible. By the way i am also a southerner a Georgia southerner at that. How low can you get?

Download 7 penis enlargement videos. User ratings & reviews of 55 penis enlargement pills.