As has been mentioned elsewhere, "Funky Winkerbean" is dealing with the hazards of selling comics in an increasingly reactionary world. Interested parties are invited to check out the beginning of the storyline here:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/funky.asp?date=20050303
Idiots are invited to suggest the strip is due entirely to me being alarmist.
PAD
I think I'm going to stop reading Funky for a while now. Not because of the CBLDF-ish plot, but because it's yet another Evil Mother-In-Law (-to-be, in this case) story, and For Better Or For Worse used up ALL of my willingness to read that sort of storyline.
I was wondering where this strip was going with some of last weeks comics... and now I see. Sad thing is I know this actually happens. Very scary.
Maybe I need to read the newspaper more, but I just don't get it.
As if I needed more reasons to grind my teeth. Dang, I can't beleive that I'm reliving the 50s witch hunts all over again! Grrrr.
darrik, did you read the next couple of strips too, or just the one pointed to?
I really hate this country, these censorship religio-facists really need to be stopped...
Why couldn't the PTC and their ilk have been housed in the World Trade Center instead of honest, hard-working people?
Wait, I have the incredible sense of deja vu...like I've seen something like this before.
Of course, the major difference here is that if the material was distributed to a miner, it wasn't by the store owner, but by a parent/relative of the child. I don't follow the strip at all, so I don't know more than the 15 or so panels used to tell the current story.
Which brings up an interesting scenario: Would a parent, say a father, that gives his 14 year old son a Playboy be convicted under the same GA law the shop owner was arrested on? Or is nudity not obscenity when it's presented by a parent?
It seems clear that this strip is making stories based on the events in GA and elsewhere. Combine this with the student getting disciplined because he wrote a zombie story using his school as a setting, and we're really only a few steps away from employing Thought Police. And for those that say I'm siding with PAD in crying that the sky is falling, well, maybe I am, but only because it may indeed be falling. Every effort taken to restrict free speech brings us one step closer to in fact losing our ability to speak freely.
See the recent news stories of employees getting fired for saying things about their work on their own private blogs. I understand that there's no free speech protections from private actions, but it shows a willingness in our society to admit that there really are very few protections of free speech. And those we have are shrinking (Bush's use of "Free Speech Zones" during his run for re-election).
Those Chicken Littles are starting to sound less crazy.
And no, I'm NOT paranoid, and they ARE out to get me.
"darrik, did you read the next couple of strips too, or just the one pointed to?"
D'oh!Well now it makes sense.
That "whooshing" sound I just heard wasn't Superman flying by...it was Bladestar heading headfirst into "missing the point" land.
Complaining about people trying to enforce censorship, and in the very next breath basically wishing those same people had died is taking hypocritical so many levels above normal hypocrisy that there should be a new word for it. Defend your right to free speech all you want, but unless someone is actually trying to kill you because of your ideas, there's no reason at all why you should wish any harm to befall them for essentially engaging in their own right of free speech.
"(Bush's use of "Free Speech Zones" during his run for election)"
hate to say it, but Kerry had the same thing
When did funky turn from a gag comic to a soap opera? Not that it was ever that funny, but I just read over a week of strips and not a single joke. And I understand the seriousness of the story, but how can you possibly take someone named "Funky" seriously? Next I bet we'll see Funky Flashman teaching us about voter registration.
darrik, I don't think it's entirely accurate to state that Kerry did the same thing. If you're referring to the Boston DNC, the free speech zone was established by the city, not the DNC. And it was a block away. Not to mention, that was the Party's convention, not a public gathering, and thus not something the general public should have been allowed to attend in the first place.
Bush, on the other hand, routinely used the Secret Service to require cities Bush campaigned in to set up free speech zones, and these often were miles away from where Bush was appearing.
Unless you have evidence that Kerry did something similar when he was out campaigning, and that he was the one pushing for it, then it's nowhere near the same thing.
Hey Peter, I didn't know you were ghost writing Funky Winkerbean. But you can't fool me! Your agenda is all too clear! (Relax people. It's called "being facetious".)
Peter, if you're an alarmist then I'm at the head of the line to be the next Pope(AKA cosmic improbibility #138).
Seriously, though, there are people out there that want to stir up the kind of trouble alluded to in the Winkerbean strip. As I've mentioned before I call them The Cult of the Child: The sycophants who will stoop to all manner of trickery and deceit to further their agenda of cleansing society.
They've been known to organize and operate under other names like The Parents Television Council and The Parents Music Resource Center. They all use phrases like "family friendly," "for the children," and "family values."
Sure, the way I portray them comes off as me being the alarmist. I'm just fed up with them and their antics. They attack the First Amendment in the guise of saving young minds. The sad part is that many of them probably can't see that they are attacking the FA because they are blinded by their zeal. Hell, their ideas are even laudable if exercised only within their jurisdiction, that is to say their OWN homes. It's when they cross that jurisdictional boundry that I call "Bullshit," throw a flag onto the field, and want to make them regret entering this lions den.
The source for their anger or frustration... whatever it is... comes from the same place that people use to judge me as evil incarnate. They have many excuses to do so. I smoke. I listen to Heavy Metal (the real stuff, not the self-absorbed crap we get on radio). I don't believe in God. I own swords, knives and a gun. I wear a black trench coat. I shave my head. I wonder aloud why priests in the Church of Satan are never on the evening news for molesting a child.
And I've decided it's not my place to force people to live by my rules in their homes. I have no jurisdiction in their homes. They can watch the Disney Channel 24/7 and worship Merle the head of lettuce for all I care. Just don't try to convince me that the Power Rangers are too violent or that comics are just for kids or that my black trench coat is a sign that I'm up to no good.
Peter you're not the alarmist. The alarmists are the people out there spreading fear to bury trust.
Not to hijack the discussion on Funky, but it's not exactly a secret that the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign was a lot tougher on "inappropriate" visitors than Kerry-Edwards 2004 was.
The experiment: A college professor wears a Kerry-Edwards shirt to a rally for President Bush, then a Bush for President shirt to a John Kerry rally.
Result: Bush people make the subject remove his shirt, then give him the boot. The Kerry people don't make a peep.
There were numerous other stories along the same vein during the campaign, but few of them got enough attention to warrant major media coverage -- certainly not enough to shake the Bush apologists out of their ennui...
--R.J.
Mitch Evans:The source for their anger or frustration... whatever it is... comes from the same place that people use to judge me as evil incarnate. They have many excuses to do so. I smoke. I listen to Heavy Metal (the real stuff, not the self-absorbed crap we get on radio). I don't believe in God. I own swords, knives and a gun. I wear a black trench coat, I shave my head.
I'm not disagreeing with your politics, but based on that description, you do sound pretty scary dude.
Bullshit Bobb.
Elimintating enemies of freedom is the stated goal of your beloved Bush... these censorship loving assholes are ENEMIES of the USA!
But I bet Bush would make excuses to eliminate them...
Oh and bobb, talk about missing the point.
They are trying to force their ignorant beliefs on the entire country, I advocate letting everyone decide for themselves. They are the enemy of freedom.
What will you do when they start attacking things you like/approve of?
Didn't think you'd have a real answer...
Should be "Bush wouldn't make excuses to eliminate them."
Evil must die, and those trying to take away our rights are evil. Pure and simple. Wait till they go after one of your sacred cows. Free speech is Number 1 in the Constitution for a reason...
"darrik, I don't think it's entirely accurate to state that Kerry did the same thing. If you're referring to the Boston DNC, the free speech zone was established by the city, not the DNC. And it was a block away. Not to mention, that was the Party's convention, not a public gathering, and thus not something the general public should have been allowed to attend in the first place."
I'm not very good with facts, am I?
Um............I don't get it. What, pardon my nearsightedness, is in that strip that I'm missing?
A co-worker told me that her sister believed John Kerry to be Evil and that, if he were elected President, that the Bible would be outlawed and banned. I find this viewpoint to be utterly psychotic and so removed from reality that is frighteningly silly. I find it difficult to believe rational adults would believe such tripe. Yet, people in that very same camp see nothing wrong with trying to force other material to be deleted from the public circle. For me, there is no difference between banning the bible and banning a comic book. Trying to shut down a comic book store is no different from trying to shut down a Christian Book Store, both acts are wrong.
Luigi, the Mom figure finds something in a bin called Manga XXX, and thinks it's an "adult comic."
What I need to do is go back and see if it's in an "adult's only" section.
Bladestar, so much to respond to....
First, if your view is that those trying to get the government to engage in consorship are evil, then I retract my statements. Kind of. If you see them as the enemy, then your statements are more or less consistant. Although I'd imagine you'd want to do the deed yourself rather than have fortune or fate step in and remove your enemies for you.
Second, I voted for the "other" guy. Bush is in on way "my" Bush, nor would I want him to be. I just don't see him as the enemy. A rather skilled diplomat capable of leading and motivating the blindly loyal on a religous basis, yes, but not someone I'd want dead.
However, I would support a UN lead investigation into whether he should be tried as a war criminal for his actions against Iraq.
darrik, I hope you take this in good humor...
You're about as good with facts as Foxnews is.
ba-DUM-bum....
low blow, cheap cheap shot, thank you thank you, tip your waitress....
I dunno about y'all, but I can never get into 3 pannel drama comics, good intentions of the artists or not. Its too burned into my brain that 3 pannels = some attempt at humor.
Some points about Funky in general;
It's been a soap strip with occasional jokes for several years now, ever since Batuik did a Doonesbury and jumped the strip ahead such that the primary high school cast had now graduated from college or otherwise lived four years off-camera.
Tom Batuik is friends with both local-to-him Tony Isabella and John Byrne (who did a six week run on the art a year or so back). It's pretty reasonable he'd be aware of CBLDF style issues.
Finally, he apparently is months ahead on art and storylines, based on various past comments. This story is almost certainly not directly inspired by the GA case, although he might be making some modifications based on it (I don't know if he does such or not, but I'd assume it's possible).
"You're about as good with facts as Foxnews is."
lol! finally, something involving comic strips that's funny.
hmm, on a more serious note, I could probably get a well-paying job there.
Bush, on the other hand, routinely used the Secret Service to require cities Bush campaigned in to set up free speech zones, and these often were miles away from where Bush was appearing.
I attended a Bush rally in Cedar Rapids, IA. the "free speech zone" was about 100 feet from where everyone had to enter and leave, not a mile away. Most of the protesters were vocal while staying polite, but there were definitely a few that were both obscene and threatening.
When it comes to a sitting president of the United States, whether Democrat or Republican, there is a Grand Canyon of difference when it comes to security issues compared to his opponent. While it is possible that this fact can be abused, the reality is the President is very much a target. And in a post 9/11 world, it is beyond stupid to pretend otherwise. The fact that a protester cannot physically get close to the President is rather beside the point. With modern media, a group of 10 or 10,000 can equally be heard.
That's my 2 cents worth.
Iowa Jim
Since moving to Iowa, my local paper does not get Funky, so I was unaware of the strip. In the past, I have enjoyed the comic strip even though it is a soap opera. It has dealt with a wide range of issues.
(For those who don't get it, PAD put you at the start of the story. You have to use the navigation strip and advance the date a day at a time to read the next segment. These strips have to be read as a whole to be understood.)
In this particular case, there is clearly a setup. I will wait and see where it goes from now. The way the mom reacts to her daughter "living in sin" is an over the top stereotype, as will be her reaction to adult comics. I have no problem with the author using the strip to bring up the debate, but this portrayal is not even close to accurate of how many conservatives, such as myself, think or act on these issues. The exaggerated "sraw man" being erected will be easy to knock down without dealing with legitimate issues. My hope is that the author will not take the easy route, but in a daily comic strip, you have very limited space to develop an idea, so we will see.
As someone else noted, comic strip writers are often months ahead of the game. It is possible he could have adapted what he was doing due to the GA case. I would be curious to find out if that is what happened.
Iowa Jim
A Greene:
Mitch Evans:The source for their anger or frustration... whatever it is... comes from the same place that people use to judge me as evil incarnate. They have many excuses to do so. I smoke. I listen to Heavy Metal (the real stuff, not the self-absorbed crap we get on radio). I don't believe in God. I own swords, knives and a gun. I wear a black trench coat, I shave my head.
"I'm not disagreeing with your politics, but based on that description, you do sound pretty scary dude."
Hi A Greene,
Well, it's not as though I wear, wield, inhale, or otherwise use all of these every minute of every day. That would be exhausting! ;)
My point is that the alarmist mentality tends to look more at what we do than what we don't do. For example I wouldn't come to your home and light up a cigarette without your ok. In fact I don't smoke in my car, even when alone, because others might be bothered by it at other times.
Two Points for the Record:
1. My sources tell me that, with the trench coat and shaved head, all I need is a goatee to put in my bid for taking over the world.
2. My sense of humor make me more goofy than intimidating. A former co-worker used to ask me what my "Big Plans" for the weekend were. I'd respond with "The same thing I do every weekend, Pinky... Try to take over the world!" He never got the joke, but I'm reasonably sure he wasn't intimidated.
The Usenet Group rec.arts.comics.strips (hi David!) has an on-going love/hate relationship with the plot-driven story arc strips, especially Funky.
It's funny timing that I picked up on Funky again just today due to the traffic in the newsgroup.
I'm waiting for The Comics Curmudgeon to weigh in on the issue,
Ok, if I was as paranoid as PAD :-) I would be worried about posting the following link to a Calvin & Hobbes site since it has the title figure taking off his pants. Surely the authorities in GA will now go rushing to every Barnes & Noble to take all copies of Calvin & Hobbes collections off of the shelves!!
http://www.ucomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1994/03/02/
Kidding aside, the fact that some over react to an issue does not make the core value involved incorrect.
Iowa Jim
The strip seems to me to be inspired by the case of Jesus Castillo, a clerk at Keith's Comics in Dallas, who was arrested and convicted of selling an obscene comicbook to an adult. See http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/3270.html
"A co-worker told me that her sister believed John Kerry to be Evil and that, if he were elected President, that the Bible would be outlawed and banned. I find this viewpoint to be utterly psychotic and so removed from reality that is frighteningly silly."
Sure, but it didn't stop the Republican Party from promoting it:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/24/politics/main645393.shtml
And proving that you can't keep a good smear down, here's the 2005 version:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-27-soc-security-aarp_x.htm
--R.J.
There are many references to the Georgia case here, but the strip more resembles past cases where an adult buys an "adult" comic and calls the police who then arrest said shop-owner.
This is like the Castillo case in Texas. See link:
http://www.cbldf.org/pr/001213-texas-overturned.shtml
If I recall, the Georgia case stems from a minor inadvertantly being given a mature readers comic.
Mitch, don't forget yoor monocle and white Persian cat when you make you bid for world domination...
Mitch Evans:1. My sources tell me that, with the trench coat and shaved head, all I need is a goatee to put in my bid for taking over the world.
That's cool, though if you gave up smoking for lollipos and started saying "who loves ya baby" you could go around solving crime, but I think that of almost all guys with shaved heads.
See the recent news stories of employees getting fired for saying things about their work on their own private blogs.
Or the fork lift driver who was fired from Miller for being caught drinking a can of Bud.
Or the fork lift driver who was fired from Miller for being caught drinking a can of Bud.
Reminds me of a relative who worked for General Motors back in the early 80's. They made anyone who drove a non-GM car, and especially a foreign car, park in the back lot so you couldn't see the cars while you drove by. Of course, those same employees driving foreign cars were then put out of work when GM shut down the plant because no one was buying their cars! (Not saying you should buy GM if it is not a quality product, but if you can't buy what your own company is making, you can't expect others to as well!)
Iowa Jim
Luigi and others: The March 3rd strip is where the story starts, but it doesn't really become clear where it's going until you get to the strips of March 6th & 7th.
SPOILER: The shop owner is being arrested for selling an "adult" comic to an adult.
Jim, growing up in Michigan, I always looked for imports in the Ford and GM employee lots. There weren't any. And I don't really have any problems with that. I do think the fork lift driver that was canned is way off base, and I've stopped drinking Miller as a result. Not that I was drinking Miller before, but it's the thought that counts. The story I read about the forklift driver didn't say if the picture of him showed him wearing his Miller nametag or uniform or whatever forklift drivers wear, but I guess if he had been identifiable as a Miller employee, I'd understand Miller's actions some. But unless forklift driver is a really presitgous position in his town, I'm guessing that not one person that saw that image said "look, the Miller forklift driver drinks Bud! Miller must SUCK!"
Jim, your experience with FSZs in Iowa might not represent the norm. I agree that there are plenty of nut-jobs that shouldn't be allowed within miles of any sitting president, and it's the secret service's job to make sure they don't. The problem is that they didn't create "people that want to kill the President" zones. They created "people that want to voice disagreement with the President" zones, and then forced people into those areas not based on security reason, but on ideological reasons, on the pretense of safety. If some crazy had shown up in a "4 More Years" t-shirt and a gun, and could have hidden the gun, he'd have been allowed access to the rally.
Iowa Jim writes:
> When it comes to a sitting president of the
> United States, whether Democrat or
> Republican, there is a Grand Canyon of
> difference when it comes to security issues
> compared to his opponent.
I'd love to see you try to say that to Ethel Kennedy.
> While it is possible that this fact can be
> abused, the reality is the President is very
> much a target. And in a post 9/11 world, it is
> beyond stupid to pretend otherwise.
The day after an assassination attempt President Harry Truman took his customary morning walk through the streets of Washington as usual. Whan asked about possible danger, he said "It comes with the job."
(The differences in character between Truman, who came under enemy fire in World War I, and George W. Bush, who...well, I leave it as an exercise for the reader.)
> The fact that a protester cannot physically
> get close to the President is rather beside
> the point. With modern media, a group of 10
> or 10,000 can equally be heard.
I'm not trying to attack you personally, but this statement leaves me floored. I ask you honestly, are you truly this naive, or is this an simulation of such for rhetorical reason?
Iowa Jim writes:
> The way the mom reacts to her daughter
> "living in sin" is an over the top stereotype,
> as will be her reaction to adult comics.
On the contrary, it's quite common, including my own parents'-in-law attitude toward my relationship with my now-wife during our engagement. If anything, the mother-in-law in the strip was restrained, limiting herself to the one little snipe at her "sin-in-law". In reality, in my direct observation and experience, nobody of that persuasion limits her/himself to one snide remark and then proceeds to behave more-or-less politely, ever.
Jim, growing up in Michigan, I always looked for imports in the Ford and GM employee lots. There weren't any.
My relative worked at the South Gate Plant in Southern California, which closed in 1982. He later worked at a plant in Michigan. While there was far less imports, they most certainly did exist! The fact that you didn't see them was most likely because they were forced to park in a more hidden location.
That being said, I was not trying to defend the firing, just noting how another company handled a similar issue.
Jim, your experience with FSZs in Iowa might not represent the norm.
A small town is often different than a big city, so I am quite sure that is the case.
I agree that there are plenty of nut-jobs that shouldn't be allowed within miles of any sitting president, and it's the secret service's job to make sure they don't. The problem is that they didn't create "people that want to kill the President" zones. They created "people that want to voice disagreement with the President" zones, and then forced people into those areas not based on security reason, but on ideological reasons, on the pretense of safety.
I have two problems with your response. First, I do believe in free speech, but I am not sure that guarantees an indiviudal that they have to be able to get physically close to the person they want to talk to. In other words, any attempt to stop someone from disagreeing with the President is wrong. But please explain why that requires the President be close enough to listen? If they are keeping the protesters in a place where the media can't cover their existence, than you may have a point. But I don't see a guaranteed right that they have to be where the President can hear them personally. Sure, it could be idealogical. So what? I didn't agree with everything Pres. Clinton did, but I don't believe I personally have the right to get in his face a tell him so. And he does not have any obligation to listen to me. The same for those who have a problem with Bush.
Iowa Jim
> When it comes to a sitting president of the
> United States, whether Democrat or
> Republican, there is a Grand Canyon of
> difference when it comes to security issues
> compared to his opponent.
I'd love to see you try to say that to Ethel Kennedy.
The exception does not make the rule. John F. Kennedy was also assasinated. The reality is, there have been far more attempts on a president than on a candidate, and far more actual assasinations. I don't in any way deny security to the candidate, but there is a far higher victory (especially in the current day of terrorism) in killing a sitting President who is fighting terrorism than in killing his opponent (regardless of who that might be).
> The fact that a protester cannot physically
> get close to the President is rather beside
> the point. With modern media, a group of 10
> or 10,000 can equally be heard.
I'm not trying to attack you personally, but this statement leaves me floored. I ask you honestly, are you truly this naive, or is this an simulation of such for rhetorical reason?
In what way am I naive? How, exactly, does it make a difference if protestors are forced to protest at a greater distance if they are still allowed to protest and if they are still covered by the media? Or do you think Bush is really so easily swayed by public opinion that seeing a protestor will suddenly change his mind? Should Bush be forced to stop and listen to each protestor?
Obviously, if any leader keeps him or herself so insulated from knowing the public that they have no idea people are upset, that leader will lose any effectiveness as a leader. I am not saying Bush shouldn't know there are protestors. But forcing any leader to face protestors is just absurd.
The double standard on this issue is quite amazing. Federal judges have ruled that protestors may stay away from the doors of abortion clinics. They are greatly hindered in what they can do to protest what they see as the murder of an innocent life.
In both cases, I think the protestors should be allowed to be there, but not in such a way where the person being protested is forced to listen. It doesn't accomplish much anyways.
In the bigger picture, protest is not just for the person involved, it is for the community. And it is on that level that protests should not be hindered. Protestors should be able to make their case for or against Bush, for or against abortion, etc. That is the best way for our democracy to flourish. By letting people be informed and allowed to make choices, but within the boundaries of respecting the rights of each individual.
Iowa Jim
> The way the mom reacts to her daughter
> "living in sin" is an over the top stereotype,
> as will be her reaction to adult comics.
On the contrary, it's quite common, including my own parents'-in-law attitude toward my relationship with my now-wife during our engagement. If anything, the mother-in-law in the strip was restrained, limiting herself to the one little snipe at her "sin-in-law". In reality, in my direct observation and experience, nobody of that persuasion limits her/himself to one snide remark and then proceeds to behave more-or-less politely, ever.
My point is not that such people do not exist, but that they are not the norm. Nor do they represent how everyone who believes it is a poor choice to live together before marriage would handle a person who makes such a choice.
I do agree that if someone makes snide remarks, that it does not stop there. The remarks reveal what is beneath the surface. I have seen the same thing happen the other way around where relatives have made snide remarks about my religious beliefs and have made life miserable for my wife because of their liberal beliefs.
Being rude, harsh, snide, and demeaning comes from someone being insecure in their own beliefs and wanting to cut others down, not from whether their beliefs are "conservative" or "liberal." My point is that the comic strip is playing on the stereotype that conservatives have to treat others like this because of their values, not because of a moral weakness that has nothing to do with their political/philosophical/religious values (and, in fact, runs counter to those very same values).
Iowa Jim
RE: Poor choice to live together before marriage.
This belief obviously comes in part from my religious convictions. But it also comes from an enormous amount of surveys and observation. Those who live together before marriage have a much higher divorce rate than those who did not. Those who live together before marriage are generally less satisfied in their marriage than those who did not. You may disagree with me on why those statistics are true, but the data sure suggests that living together before marriage is not the best option.
That being said, I can make plenty of other poor options myself in other areas of my life. I could be 50 pounds overweight due to binge eating and have $50,000 of credit card debt. (Neither is true, but you get the point.) There is no place for being rude or snide to people who make poor choices. The loving thing to do is to respect them as individuals, and if they are interested in help, offering it to them to overcome their poor choice. In the case of my many friends who live together, it is a non issue. They know my belief on the matter, but they also know I respect their personhood.
Bottom line, you can have a moral belief and still respect those who disagree with you, whether you are conservative or liberal.
Iowa Jim
Bladestar:
"Mitch, don't forget yoor monocle and white Persian cat when you make you bid for world domination..."
The monocle could work. It might even be 'retro' enough to give me some notice in the fashion world. Persian cat? I don't know... I'm single and single guys with cats... It just seems wrong somehow.
A Greene:
Mitch Evans:1. My sources tell me that, with the trench coat and shaved head, all I need is a goatee to put in my bid for taking over the world.
"That's cool, though if you gave up smoking for lollipos and started saying "who loves ya baby" you could go around solving crime, but I think that of almost all guys with shaved heads."
Hi A Greene,
You know, I thought about that until I saw the difference in pay scales...
"Reminds me of a relative who worked for General Motors back in the early 80's. They made anyone who drove a non-GM car, and especially a foreign car, park in the back lot so you couldn't see the cars while you drove by."
I've heard similar things said about Coca-Cola/Pepsi employees. Stuff like, if you were a truck driver and delivering Coca-Cola, having lunch at a Pepsico-owned restaurant (KFC, Taco Bell, etc.) was enough to get you fired.
--R.J.
Those who live together before marriage have a much higher divorce rate than those who did not. Those who live together before marriage are generally less satisfied in their marriage than those who did not.
And then there are those who lived together, decided it wasn't going to work out, didn't get married and therefore never got divorced, but were not included in said studies.
I wonder how much that would skew the results.
I once had a discussion with an acquaintance about the living together before marriage issue. A mutual friend of ours was getting married after living together with his girlfried for six or so years. I quipped that the marriage would probably last in months the number of years that they had been together - to my dismay it did. My friend, who had scoffed at my prediction and was stunned by the sudden ending of the relationshoip, later told me about how his brother, who had been living with his girlfriend for years before getting married, encountered similar problems. Evidently the relationship became very rocky after it became a marriage and it took counseling to salvage it. He could not understand why. I told him about how a friend of my mother and father's had gone through the same thing, but the marriage ended in divorce. Why? My mother told me that, after they got married, the man told his now wife, "Well, you're my wife now, so you should make my lunch." She could not grasp how, after making his own lunch for years, he was suddenly insisting that she make it for him simply because they were married. He felt it was her wifely duty, or some such nonsense.
I think it all boils down to marriage changing the dynamics of the relationship. Behavior that might be tolerated in a dating relationship can be considered completely unacceptable for a spouse. I won't pretend that it boils down to the difference between "playing marriage" and "being married", but the alteration in viewpoint does change the relationship - and sometime not for the better, no matter what your politics or religious belief. I think it has more to do with how you see your parents interacting that "educates" you about how married people are supposed to "act".
"Those who live together before marriage have a much higher divorce rate than those who did not. Those who live together before marriage are generally less satisfied in their marriage than those who did not. You may disagree with me on why those statistics are true, but the data sure suggests that living together before marriage is not the best option."
Not to sound snarky, but do you have source for these stats? Then run pretty counter to what Ive observed in people close to me, so Id be interested in seeing the studies.
"But it also comes from an enormous amount of surveys and observation. Those who live together before marriage have a much higher divorce rate than those who did not."
But is it not a logical fallacy to simply assume that a correlation indicates causality?
How about this alternative explanation: traditional values discourage both divorce and cohabitation. Non-traditional values accept both. People who are OK with cohabitation are more likely to consider divorce an option if the marriage goes sour. People who aren't OK with cohabitation (and therefore don't move in together) are more likely to stick it through.
Thanks for the link PAD! I've bookmarked it and plan to follow the storyline.
At least one case pre-dates the Texas case and was in Georgia.
I wonder how many people talking about the 1950s "witch hunts" know that Dr Wertham was actually a liberal psychologist trying to use violent comics as an excuse for vicious juvenile killers in order to get them a lighter sentence?
Nah, that would require actually reading Seduction of the Innocent, rather than railing about it.
However, I would support a UN lead investigation into whether he should be tried as a war criminal for his actions against Iraq.
Sure. The U.N. can get right on that after they finish investigating their own Oil-For-Food scandal.
-Dave O'Connell
\\I wonder how many people talking about the 1950s "witch hunts" know that Dr Wertham was actually a liberal psychologist trying to use violent comics as an excuse for vicious juvenile killers in order to get them a lighter sentence?
Nah, that would require actually reading Seduction of the Innocent, rather than railing about it.\\
I read it in college. Also did a term paper on it for my sociology class. The book is all about how comic books are responsible for all the problems related to children. But most of his 'studies' & arguments were flawed. A couple of examples (Items in parenthesis are mine):
Batman & Robin were gay - because they:
* Often sat on the same piece of furniture.
* They frequently save each others lives.
* Wertham had a gay patient who fantasized about being either Batman or Robin.
Comic books take economical advantage of children because they (the children) often trade the books among each other.
Comic books (which then cost 10 cents) only cost a cent or two to produce. (No source given for this number, no mention of how much goes to distributor, retailer, or to pay for copies returned & pulped).
Comics will change titles but keep the numbering. (I'm told this has something to do with postal regulations)
Reading comic books leads to illiteracy.
Juvinile Deliquents read comic books, therefore comic books cause juvinile deliquency. (He also writes elsewhere) It's true that many children read comic books and do nothing wrong. This means nothing.
While it is true he testified in several cases, His 'studies' don't hold up. In the book he refers to some of these cases, but says nothing of the final verdict, if his testimony had any effect, or even citeswhat the cases were so a researcher can verify his claims.
I think Wertham was little more than an opportunist using comics as a scapegoat to make himself publishable (Which he gets paid for), a court witness (Which he gets paid for), and to make speech appearences (Which he gets paid for).
Correction to my previous post:
Comics will change titles but keep the numbering. (I'm told this has something to do with postal regulations)
Parenthesis in this item Wertham's, not mine. This shows the extent of his 'research'.
Wait, I'm single and have a cat. How is that wrong, Mitch Evans? I'm confused.
Can we make a rule that when someone makes a claim about 'surveys say this' and 'surveys say that', they have to identify the surveys? IowaJim, this means you.
Michael Brunner, I agree with every one of your comments in response to my post. The Batman and Robin are gay meme was particularly silly.
I think it all boils down to marriage changing the dynamics of the relationship.
The only thing that changed for my wife and I when we got married is her last name changed, and some minor changes to how we did our taxes.
I tend to think that anybody who thinks it severely changes the dynamic, when you've already been living together (particularly for an extended period of time, like several years), is rather deluded.
Thanks brainster.
By the way, according to Wertham's second item of gay "proof", Does that mean that most cops, firemen & front line soldiers are gay?
"The U.N. can get right on that after they finish investigating their own Oil-For-Food scandal."
Yes, because everyone knows corrupt officials are far more evil than someone who starts a war that kills tens of thousands. And the Bush Administration has absolutely no tolerance for folks who make deals with ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein (*cough*ahem*Rumsfeld*cough*)...
--R.J.
Well, the so-called adult comic--and we haven't seen the inside of it, so who knows yet--was shelved at the same eye level as and next to THE HULK, which ain't good business practice for any smart comic book store. But it's an interesting and compelling piece so far of the type of situation that we are all aware of but the general public doesn't know about. Of course, this may just lead them to see the moral of the FUNKY story as "your local comic book store sells pornography..."
Here are some articles that deal with studies done on living together. The articles cites the original sources for the studies.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/facts/a0028316.cfm
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/facts/a0028317.cfm
Someone asked the legitimate question, is there truly a cause and effect here? The studies would indicate yes. But read the articles for yourself.
I am sure some will complain these articles are hosted on a pro-traditional family website. So what? That doesn't make them untrue. Let the facts contained in the article speak for themselves.
As for ancectodal evidence, I have some friends who lived together and are doing just fine. Then there is my brother and sister-in-law who lived together before getting married, lasted 14 years, and suddenly went through a quite vicious divorce. I don't think living together is a "death sentence" for a marriage, but I do think it is not the healthiest way to get it off the ground.
Iowa Jim
Craig J. Ries said of my comment -
"I tend to think that anybody who thinks it severely changes the dynamic, when you've already been living together (particularly for an extended period of time, like several years), is rather deluded."
To which I reply:
Deluded? I certainly think not. Mistaken due to predominantly negative experiences shared to me coloring my opinion, yes. That could certainly be the case. One friend jokingly calls me the Lord of Darkness, because my outlook edges towards the bleak. But I will stick to my philosophical guns, the change in the relationship can be difficult for some people - it depends entirely on their expectations for the relationship and that is strictly a person to person thing. I have some good friends who live together who may or may not get married some day. If they do I do not expect anything to change between them whatsoever, the relationship appears that solid and strong.
What this has to do with Funky Winkerbean, I do not know. ;-)
Lots of anecdotal evidence going around.
I can prove Kerry people were more intolerant than Bush people!!!!
Let's see:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2004_11.php#008512
On Tuesday we noted that thirty vans rented by the Republican Party in Milwaukee to drive voters to the polls had been disabled by having their tires slashed.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2004_09.php#007708
A shot apparently was fired at the Republican Party headquarters in downtown Huntington while President Bush's speech accepting the GOP nomination for president was being televised.
http://instapundit.com/archives/020616.php
When the Bush supporters refused to leave, the anarchists tore the sign out of the Bush supporters' hands and stomped on them. When ProtestWarrior leader Gil Kobrin objected, several male anarchists knocked him to the ground, kicking him in the back and punching him. Other anarchists punched and shoved Kobrin's 12 colleagues.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/blog/archives/013644.php
It seems that the Democratic National Committee and the Kerry Campaign are making a habit of trying to use lawyers' threats to keep critical ads off the air.
http://instapundit.com/archives/017019.php
Kerry's campaign is threatening to sue stations that air the Swiftboat Vets ad. They're claiming that the people pictured aren't who they say they are.
There's enough crap going on on both sides. No need to be holier than thou, because when it came to the 2004, we were all sinners.
As for Funky W. - interesting idea. Seems too likely to descend into straw man caricatures, but then again, those who do crap like this (try and get comic stores shut down) generally are carticatures. Luckily, they represent a small minority (on both sides - there are liberals I know who want to censor comics because of sexism inherent in "good girl" art).
Let he who is without sin cast the first lawsuit......
Iowa Jim: "Here are some articles that deal with studies done on living together. The articles cites the original sources for the studies.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/facts/a0028316.cfm
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/facts/a0028317.cfm"
Sweet Christmas, is that a load of crap. Aside from the common fallacy of assuming that correlation equals causation (as anyone who's taken an introductory statistics course will tell you, it doesn't), Stanton really raised my hackles on that second article. For starters, by specifying "biological parents," he's spitting in the face of every adoptive couple out there. And since that includes my own parents, he gets a great big "fuck you" from me for that one. (Asserting this effect was unintentional will earn no points with me. Any competent writer would have recognized and considered its potentiality; that he obviously didn't makes him a schmuck.)
And then he just makes stuff up. Like this: "Historically, poverty has been a result of unemployment and low wages. Today, it is primarily a result of family structure." Nooooooooo, it's a result of unemployment and low wages. I live in the Bronx, so I know plenty of poor two-parent families. A marriage certificate doesn't magically make someone not poor.
But in terms of erroneous conclusions, this rhetorical abortion takes the cake: "Research published in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect found that a girl is seven times more likely to be molested by a stepfather than a biological father. The study goes on to report that when biological fathers did molest their young daughters, a mother was not residing in the home who could protect the child. What is more, the nature of sexual abuse by stepfathers was more severe than by biological fathers. Every little boy in a male same-sex home will be living with at least one non-biological father as well as with a biological father without a protective mother present. The research says this child will be in much greater danger than a boy or girl living with a married mother and father." Congratulations, Mr. Stanton, your flagrant abuse of logic and deliberate perpetuation of a hateful sterotype just earned you the coveted "Double Fuck You" award. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: a douchebag.
For the love of God, Jim, I really hope you didn't read either of those articles thoroughly before you used them to illustrate your point.
While discussing the impact of families, I wonder: When opponents of gay marriage talk about how families should only be a man and a woman, where are the single parents? Where are those fathers or mothers, the single parents, the single people who have adopted children, the widows and widowers, who are being told their families are less because they don't have a partner (of a different gender, naturally)? Why aren't these people pointing out the strength and quality of their families? What do they think and feel when they hear that a family must include both mother and father?
Well, as a single dad (widower) who was caught by the social security safety net (survivor benefits keep my ten year son fed, clothed, and in day care), I would be glad to take on all comers.
For starters, by specifying "biological parents," he's spitting in the face of every adoptive couple out there.
First, he was quoting a conclusion from a child advocacy group. And you are completely missing the point. If you look AS A GROUP at kids who live with someone other than their biological parents -- and that would include such things as live in boyfiends/girlfriends, step parents, and other legal guardians, as well as parents who adopt -- it would make sense that they do not do as well socially, emotionally, etc., because in many of those cases they have been torn from their families. A kid adopted by birth into a loving family would do well in most cases.
Obviously, there are cases where biolgical parents are criminally cruel to their kids. But statistically, it happens far more with step parents, live in boyfriends/girlfriends, etc. The article does make this point very clear.
And then he just makes stuff up. Like this: "Historically, poverty has been a result of unemployment and low wages. Today, it is primarily a result of family structure." Nooooooooo, it's a result of unemployment and low wages. I live in the Bronx, so I know plenty of poor two-parent families. A marriage certificate doesn't magically make someone not poor.
Actually, I don't have the source yet, but this was not made up. A study was just published that made this very point. The number one indicator for a family being poor WAS their family structure -- namely, that the person was a single parent. Again, this does not fly in the face of common sense. A single parent would have a lot more to deal with than a couple, even if only one of them works (paying for childcare comes to mind).
But in terms of erroneous conclusions, this rhetorical abortion takes the cake: "Research published in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect found that a girl is seven times more likely to be molested by a stepfather than a biological father. The study goes on to report that when biological fathers did molest their young daughters, a mother was not residing in the home who could protect the child. What is more, the nature of sexual abuse by stepfathers was more severe than by biological fathers. Every little boy in a male same-sex home will be living with at least one non-biological father as well as with a biological father without a protective mother present. The research says this child will be in much greater danger than a boy or girl living with a married mother and father." Congratulations, Mr. Stanton, your flagrant abuse of logic and deliberate perpetuation of a hateful sterotype just earned you the coveted "Double Fuck You" award. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: a douchebag.
On this part of the article, I give you a partial point. He is extrapolating something beyond the actual data when he applies it to same gender parent homes. However, I do think there is a greater risk of abuse (verbal, physical) in general, just not of molestation. But that is just my opinion.
For the love of God, Jim, I really hope you didn't read either of those articles thoroughly before you used them to illustrate your point.
I did read them. I was also clear in saying to consider the evidence. In one case I think you way overreacted and are warping what was actually said. In the second case, you have a legitimate point. My main point in posting them was concerning whether a couple who lived together was more likely to divorce. I posted the wrong link when I did so. I meant to post this one rather than the one about children:
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/cohabitation/a0025248.cfm
I think the ones about the adults is stronger than the one on children, though I do agree with some of what the one about children contained.
Iowa Jim
What do they think and feel when they hear that a family must include both mother and father?
Actually, I (and others like me) are not saying that. What we are saying is that it is much better for a child to be raised by his/her biological father and mother than any other arrangement, all things being equal. Yes, a single parent, adoptive parents, step parents, etc., can do a good job. But it will take more work and there are more obstacles to overcome, again, all things being equal.
A single parent CAN be a great parent. Having two loving parents, one of each gender, provides a better social and emotional environment for a kid to be raised.
Iowa Jim
Here are some articles that deal with studies done on living together. The articles cites the original sources for the studies.
Okay, then. Leaving aside my opinion of the author's tendencies to leap to suspect conclusions, let's simply look at these articles you posted to support your claim that "people who lived together before they were married are more likely to divorce than those who did not."
1) The first one DOES NOT IN THE LEAST make the case you claim. It mentions living together precisely once, and only to say that it does not provide the same health benefits as marriage. Nothing is said about those who live together and then get married. Zip. Nada. Zilcho. Go ahead -- show me what I missed.
2) The second one DOES NOT MENTION LIVING TOGETHER AT ALL.
In other words, you're not just wrong in this particular case, but you're coming dangerously close to simply lying about your sources.
How exactly is this supposed to bolster your point in any way, shape, or form?
TWL
Okay, the third article you posted does in fact make the case you claimed the others did. That's a start.
All the article does is patch together various one-sentence quotes from papers all over the map. This article in and of itself is not making a convincing case.
I would, however, be intrigued to see the articles Stanton is using as sources. I wouldn't be surprised to see if their conclusions are nowhere near as blunt and "obvious" as he makes them out to be, but that's not a call I'd make in advance. If anyone can provide access to some of the original studies, I'd love to know about it.
Anecdotally -- neither my mother nor my uncle lived together before their respective marriages. Both divorced. My wife and I did (perhaps not "officially" as in sharing rent, but in pretty much every other way). In fact, virtually every couple I knew in college did in some form.
Those who went ahead and got married are, with a 100% success rate, still married after 10-15 years.
Perhaps Cornell is atypical in creating remarkably stable couples. Perhaps my experiences bear no relationship to most of reality.
On the other hand ... y'know, I'm an empiricist. I'll take the examples I know as representative well before I assume that every single one of them is an anomaly.
TWL
"I wonder how many people talking about the 1950s "witch hunts" know that Dr Wertham was actually a liberal psychologist trying to use violent comics as an excuse for vicious juvenile killers in order to get them a lighter sentence?
Nah, that would require actually reading Seduction of the Innocent, rather than railing about it."
I did read it, and was appalled by the flawed methodology. It boiled down to this: He interviewed juvenile delinquents. The juvenile delinquents read crime comics. Wertham therefore drew the conclusion that the comics were the cause for the delinquent behavior, and that is the lynchpin of his entire book. He offers not a shread of convincing causational evidence. He doesn't even begin to prove the notion that these kids would have been just fine if not exposed to comics.
Hell, nowadays if researchers found JDs reading crime comics, they'd be thrilled they were reading at all.
PAD
"Torn from their families?" You really don't think things through before you post them, do you? I can only conclude from this that you, Stanton, and his sources are wholly and willfully ignorant about the realities of adoption.
Looking at that article again, I'm hard-pressed to see if anyone involved in it or the studies it cites spent even a microsecond of thought on adoptive parents. And I reserrve my right to be pissed off about that, because adoptive parents deserve recognition and respect, and they don't get damn near enough of it from people who claim to care so much about the "family." Considering how many biological "families" are unplanned, couples who not only make the conscious choice to create a family, but go to heroic efforts to do so, merit more than casual dismissal by the so-called "authorities."
The best environment for any child is one where they are loved and cared for. Married, heterosexual biological parents are not, repeat NOT, inherently more likely to love and care for their kids than single, adoptive, or homosexual parents. And that's what this comes down to: Accusation of deficiency in parenting because of failure to meet an aribtrary standard.
and that is the lynchpin of his entire book
Leave me OUTTA this. :-) (Especially since it's normally spelled "linchpin", though your version's an accepted variant.)
TWL
Name-Sensitive Grammar Cop
Having two loving parents, one of each gender, provides a better social and emotional environment for a kid to be raised.
Sure, right. Keep telling yourself that.
Granted, I don't consider myself an emotionally unstable person as an adult, but I was as a kid.
Sure, I had two loving parents... who didn't get along very well, who stayed together as long as possible for "the sake of the kids", etc, etc.
You just keep spitting out the bs, and I'm sure somebody out there is willing to suck it up.
Me? I'll live by the experiences I had growing up and say that just because, according to some statistic, you're a happy perfect little family, you're not.
I still am not sure how it ever came to this, as we were "discussing" (only in quotes because all this is written, not spoken - Semantics, I know but I guess I'm a stickler) Funky Winkerbean(sp?) and all his not so hilarious antics; but for the good of the children I have a few cents I'd like to throw in the communal pot.
I do think that, in general, two parents (of opposite sex or same sex) are better than a single parent. I think that the situation is a child raised by two biological parents (or in the situation of gay couples, at least one biological parent) who raise the child in a loving and caring enviroment. it's just the easiest all around.
That being said, I have the utmost respect for people who adopt kids and think that an adopted enviroment can be just as strong, loving and nuturing as a biological one (boy that was phrased poorly but you get what I mean). the fact remains that adopted kids are more likely to act out against their adopted parents and have a more difficult childhood. This has nothing to do with poor parenting.
It has to do with the post traumatic stress of being taken from their birth parents (even if it was before they can remember it's a subconsious thing). Also there is the desire during ones adolescence to create an independant identity. I'm spekaing in general terms now, but ones idenity is partially derived from one's parents. It's harder to do so if you know your parents aren't blood relations, because there is someone else out there who is. A common retort (true with step parents too I think): "You're not my real father/mother/parents."
Adopted kids will still grow up to be well adjusted perfectly normal adults. (I have no nubmers or statistics unfortunately, all information given has been gleaned from growing up with a social worker mother) But if we want to "protect the children" we don't look at them when they are adults, we only look at them when they are children so this fact is often over-looked.
I want to iterate for any reactionaries out there, this is only broad strokes, not true for all adoptions. One of my ex-girlfriends was adopted as was her older brother and neither of them ever had any problems I mentioned above. All their problems came from school not from home, and that is a different issue altogether.
Whoops, in the second paragraph it should read "the best situation" not just "the situation."
Man it's late, why am I not asleep?
Damn, I go to work and all hell breaks loose here!
I haven't read the Funky strip yet, but I will. I usually catch up on most of the serial strips about once a month so I can get the full story.
Now, so much to comment on...
Bladestar, just when I think you can't say anything stupider...you manage to outdo yourself. If anyone on the right wing said something like "if only the WTC was full of the leftist Hollywood types like Martin Sheen, Barbara Striesand and their ilk, instead of hard working people..." the outrage would have been unprecidented. Wishing someone dead because you don't agree with them sure sounds like the terrorists won. You've taken their message and methods to heart.
-------------------------------
"See the recent news stories of employees getting fired for saying things about their work on their own private blogs."
One more time for clairity. The story about the employee getting fired is bullshit. The employee was a columnist for the local paper. She was reprinting her columns on her blog, but the newspaper held the rights to them. The newspaper was sold to new owners that came in and fired most of the staff, and this person was fired in the second wave.
http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/stories.php?story=05/01/17/5263550
-------------------------------------------------
On protesters...Let's see. The CAMPAIGN is paying for the event. They have all rights to let in who they want. If you were running for office, wouldn't you want a rally with people that support you instead of a rally with group of people trying to outshout you when you were speaking. That would lead to more unrest and possibly a riot from the supporters. That is not the image any candidate is trying to put out there.
Craig J. Ries:
"Sure, right. Keep telling yourself that."
Don't have to. The Associated Press had a nice article about the subject on February 9th of this year, entitled "Nuclear Family Children Do Better," citing the results of a study by economists Donna Ginther of the University of Kansas and Robert Pollak of Washington University in St. Louis. Oh, but I guess they're just "bigots," right?
On Funky Winkerbean... sure, WE are interested in the topic, but the exectuion is pretty lame. There had to be a way to handle the subject matter with more humor, as befitting the three-panel format. I can't imagine any casual comics page reader would even care about this strip, since it isn't funny, and thus won't bring any outside attention to the legal issues.
So many things to talk about here:
Iowa Jim wrote:
"A single parent CAN be a great parent. Having two loving parents, one of each gender, provides a better social and emotional environment for a kid to be raised."
That's not necessarily true. Take the case of James Roszko, a fellow who apparently had "two loving parents", and became something less than Jim would have envisioned. In fact, three days ago he committed the worst massacre of RCMP officers since the Riel Rebellion. The link for a current story about this tragedy invoking forgiveness for the perpatrator is:
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2005/03/07/952594-sun.html
The interesting thing about this situation is that I listened to a live interview with Mr. Roszko's father on Sunday morning. To nearly every question posed to him, the father would invoke some sort of bible passage to help explain either his own feelings or how his son may have gone from good to evil.
So here we have a classic example of religious conservatism, and I will bet you money (big money) that this particular child was more than likely stifled by that type of upbringing to the point where he became a sociopath. I suspect that in many arch-conservative families the children are taught to blindly follow very constrictive views. They react to this upbringing in many different ways, just as many in other types of upbringing situations react differently, as we all know that this is "what makes the world go 'round". But that's where you get a lot of the pro-censorship zealots who try to remold free society into their particular concept. (You also get all kinds of other more severely afflicted individuals through parental repression.)
I would wager you that a larger proportion of children brought up in religiously restrictive homes (in ANY faith whatsoever) have a better chance of having severe problems later in life. Heck, we often read about them from day to day. Let's take RTK as another example. Now there was what everyone thought to be a fine upstanding, church-going citizen!
The point I am trying to make is that you cannot draw definite conclusions about how any parental situation may turn out without having intimate knowledge of every aspect of the parent or parents. I know of children from single-parent families who are just fine and some who are not so great. I know of children being brought up in common-law situations who are the same. And then there is the issue of same-sex partnerships. I personally do not choose that lifestyle. Yet who am I to restrict that lifestyle to others who love and cherish each other as much as I love and cherish my wife?
And to that topic, I like to kid Barb about how long we've been "married". Officially it'll be 25 years on June 15th. However we met at a social on March 12, 1977 and I espouse that we were "married" from that day forward. So we're gonna go and do something special for our 28th "anniversary" this weekend.
Is there a secret to this? Well, this is gonna sound strange, but I think the whole thing comes down to a combination of just sensing what the other person is feeling and being respectful of those feelings, combined with communication. That's the big thing: COMMUNICATION. Never go to bed mad at each other is a good rule of thumb taught to me by both my parents and my in-laws.
Now to an unrelated topic: Earlier this year I wrote that Will Eisner's death really left me feeling like huge Black Hole had just sucked a significant piece out of the comics universe. I said I would expand on this, so please indulge me for a second.
For those of you over ..... well, I'll say 35.....anyway, for those of you who can remember the 1970s, you can probably relate to that fact that in media and entertainment the longevity of many performers/creators/artists, call them what you will in the industries has gotten shorter and shorter. With that phenomenon we have lost our relationships with mainstays, because there aren't that many left and they are not being replaced by today's current crop. Think about it: where are the Crosbys, Hopes, Burns, Berles, Bennys, Schwartzes, Barks-es, and indeed Eisners of today? (And if you want to go back further, the Cantors, Bogarts, Woods, Coles, etc?)
Who is there today that commands the same level of awe as a lot of these guys that we grew up with? Worse, who are today's fans going to look up to as innovators who took the medium to a new level? I think that's the worst thing about Will's passing: It really brought home to me the sense that the cornerstones of the business, the guys who invented it and evolved it aren't there anymore and there aren't a lot of people out there who could take their places. Do you get what I'm trying to say in my not-so-eloquent way?
Hmmmm, it looked pretty stupid to me. The dizzy bitch didn't even pretend to buy them for her kid and was out to get someone period. The comics were up high on a shelf and she had to take them out of what looked like a shelf with covers. I'd get a good Jewish lawyer that eats human flesh (quoting Harlan Ellison here) and get her in court for false arrest and defamation...
PAD -
your read of Wertham is a good one, but you miss the main fact -
Wertham was a liberal (he also complained comics were racist and sexist as well).
So why is everyone claiming only conservatives ban comics?
There's enough blame on all sides.
Iowa jim: Since moving to Iowa, my local paper does not get Funky
This is instantly one of the funniest phrases I've seen in days!
JAC
Iowa jim: Since moving to Iowa, my local paper does not get Funky
This is instantly one of the funniest phrases I've seen in days!
JAC
The story about the employee getting fired is bullshit.
Wasn't there one the other day about a flight attendant or something getting canned for having a blog?
Ahh, yes, here it is:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/07/tech/main678554.shtml
Oh, but I guess they're just "bigots," right?
No, you are for making a pathetic assumption that being gay must mean you're a friggin crack whore or something. "Cleaner lives"? What a joke.
Wertham was a liberal (he also complained comics were racist and sexist as well).
So, are you saying that racism and sexism are conservative values? :)
So why is everyone claiming only conservatives ban comics?
I'll be the first to admit that both sides have had their share of assholes, but Wertham's crusade was 50 years ago. Today, the overwhelming number cases of censorship against comics (Jesus Castillo, the Atlanta case) have been initiated by conservatives.
Jim, I read the articles that you posted. They were . . . interesting. They don't really contain any of factual information, just some broad statements and quotes without any real statistical analysis to back them up. I'd have to see the source material that those articles cite to really judge the validity of their claims.
I have to call bullshit on the one claim that a child is more likely to be molested living with two gay men "without a protective mother" around. Especially since two sentences earlier, they assert that children are more likely to be molested by their mother's boyfriend or their stepfather. The completely baseless stereotype that gay men molest children aside, how can they claim a "protective mother" can't protect her children from her own boyfriend/husband, but could against a gay man?
That said, it's easy to assert that, in theory, two loving and committed parents sharing the burden of raising children equally is the ideal situation. Of course, you could count the number families that reach this ideal on one hand and still have enough fingers left over to play Rockmonanoff Number 8. Most families have to make due with the hands they've been dealt and casting aspirations at all single parents does nothing to improve the situation.
Jim, I agree with everything you say about Freedom of Speech not including a right to be listened to. But, aside from the party conventions, how can the President's exercise of the Secret Service to regulate where opposition can gather in public be compatible with free speech? If the President doesn't want to hear what the public has to say about him, he should stay out of the public. Controlling people's access, in public places during public events, is in no way compatible with free speech. Bush's use of FSZ was hidden under the guise of security. I say guise, because only people carrying anti-Bush placards or shouting anti-Bush statements were relegated to the FSZ. If they had limited the number of people allowed to gather at the campaign appearances, and then closed them off, with a spill-over area set aside for extras, that would have been a legitimate security measure.
This doesn't apply to the party conventions, which are private matters, and not open to the public.
Craig J Ries:
""Cleaner lives"? What a joke."
Taking one comment out of context and spinning it as "bigotry?" Yes, I agree. What a joke.
"you are for making a pathetic assumption that being gay must mean you're a friggin crack whore or something."
No, I'm just "living by the experiences I had growing up." The examples I've witnessed firsthand were often decisions made because of dysfuntional or abusive homes (or no home), learning disabilities, or involvement with drugs and crime. The prevalence of these circumstances don't just follow around unfortunate individuals who were already gay; the choice to be gay is more often born of these unfortunate circumstances.
It is a well known fact in the community of those professionals that assist in picking up the pieces that most predators are heterosexual men victimizing children. A huge proportion of these perpetrators were, themselves, victims. Females are victimized as children moreso than males. There is some research that indicates the sex of the child is a non-issue to child molesters.
For anyone interested, here is a brief write-up with some solid stats on the topic of gay men and pedophilia:
http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm (Note the credable citations)
Also:
http://www.therapistfinder.net/Child-Abuse/Pedophile.html (Links to a score of American Psycholigiucal Association findings)
Further, the DSM-IV does not recognize homosexuality as being a factor in identifying pedophiles. These factors and hard stats are certainly not infallible, but speak volumes more to me of identifiable patterns than throwaway spouting of people with an already identified agenda against homosexuals.
Fred
Powell said:
No, I'm just "living by the experiences I had growing up." The examples I've witnessed firsthand were often decisions made because of dysfuntional or abusive homes (or no home), learning disabilities, or involvement with drugs and crime. The prevalence of these circumstances don't just follow around unfortunate individuals who were already gay; the choice to be gay is more often born of these unfortunate circumstances.
To which I reply:
Well, well, well. When did you make the decision to be straight? Really, you speak of personal experience. Tell us how you wrestled with the urge to have a passionate affair with some one of the same gender, but made the choice not to. I think we can all get great insight into this issue if you share your personal struggle with us.
As far as the that broken home, learning disability (which is so odiously offensive and wrong headed I find it hard to believe someone would hold that view) and drugs and crime nonsense - I do believe there are just as many, if not more, straight people who suffer and struggle with those issues than homosexual.
Personally this board is far too anger inducing. I think I'll let you take on hate mongering dickwads like this loser by yourself. I have a son to raise and steer clear of sick minded individuals such as PP.
Fare thee well all.
Den -
well, in the 50s the conservatives weren't exactly at the forefront of the civil rights movement.
As for nowadays - as I've said, I've known feminists who advocate the censorship of comics based on their "objectification" of the female body.
But, I'm a moderate, so I am cynical about all sides of nay issue.
Powell:
>The examples I've witnessed firsthand were often decisions made because of dysfuntional or abusive homes (or no home), learning disabilities, or involvement with drugs and crime. The prevalence of these circumstances don't just follow around unfortunate individuals who were already gay; the choice to be gay is more often born of these unfortunate circumstances.
Short of these individuals that you speak of telling you that they are gay due to the issues you've stated, I have a difficult time believing that you know this as fact and are not drawing your conclusions based on your religious and moral beliefs.
Fred
Sure, I had two loving parents... who didn't get along very well, who stayed together as long as possible for "the sake of the kids", etc, etc.
Me? I'll live by the experiences I had growing up and say that just because, according to some statistic, you're a happy perfect little family, you're not.
If your parents could not get along and stayed together just for the sake of the kids, then I would not define that as healthy. They may have been loving towards you, but if they are not loving towards each other, that is a very tense environment in which to be raised.
No parent is perfect. And being rasied by even the best parents guarantees nothing. But what I have seen over and over is that there are some families that look good on the surface, but when you get beneath the outward appearance, it is not healthy. A parent can be religious and never hit his kid, but if he is emotionally cold and distant, the kid is going to struggle because he will not have a loving father figure to turn to. How that kid acts on that struggle will differ. Some will act out in violence or anger, others will withdraw, and others will find a surrogate father figure.
All of that being true, the research I have read still comes down to two things. First, even in a difficult home, a child *on average* still does better with both biological parents than with a single parent. Second, a child tends to better develop emotionally when he or she has both a male and a female parent at home raising the child. Again, the lack of a parent of either gender can be overcome through finding a substitute, but studies are clear that when one is not found, the child will almost always have issues.
Iowa Jim
Jim, just out of curiosity, how much of this research has been sponsored by conversative, religious organizations? The reason that I ask is that most of the literature that I've read suggests that children prosper when they have supportive adult figures in their lives that allow them to feel safe and secure in their world. Unbiased research tends to begin with a focus on disproving a hypothesis, not confirming one. The research that you are speaking of sounds like the stuff that is inevitably traced back to people with an agenda. Do you have any links or article references?
Thanks,
Fred
Jim, the question your point on the average indication of a stable, good upbringing for children begs the question of why we should strive for the average? We've had discussions before, and I've seen you acknowledge, here and before, that individual homes that fit the "normal" mold can result in a harmful environment for a child, and that homes that don't fit the standard can result in productive, safe, positive environments for a child. My question is, are you in favor of trying to force everyone else to fit the average home model of 1 set of male-female parents, or just putting that forth as the historical average? Or, are you advocating that all families be forced to adhere to the average model?
It seems like you're in a way arguing against yourself. You're attempting to put forward the idea that the model home of hetero parents is the ideal we should all strive for, yet admitting that fitting the appearance of that model is not really the key to a productive, save environment fit for raising children. The keys are the attitudes and emotions of whoever, be it father-mother, mother-mother, father-father, or a single parent, maybe even a grandparent or older sibling, that is the key to a favorable child rearing environment.
It kind of reminds me of the ideals behind the No Child Left Behind approach to public schools. That there's a One Size Fits All solution to every problem. There isn't. Individuals should be given a range of choices, and the freedom to make those choices, to best address the needs of their family. That includes what form the child-rearing household should take.
Jim, just out of curiosity, how much of this research has been sponsored by conversative, religious organizations? The reason that I ask is that most of the literature that I've read suggests that children prosper when they have supportive adult figures in their lives that allow them to feel safe and secure in their world. Unbiased research tends to begin with a focus on disproving a hypothesis, not confirming one. The research that you are speaking of sounds like the stuff that is inevitably traced back to people with an agenda. Do you have any links or article references?
Fred,
Unfortunately, I have not kept the original articles. Some are definitely from religious and/or conservative sources, but others are from papers like the Dallas Morning News. Some are from more liberal sources. I realize not all research has come to the same conclusion. In some cases, the bias (on either side) has tainted the conclusion. But I have yet to read any research that found, on average, that a kid thrived better with supportive adults who were not his or her parents than those who did have supportive parents. The most that could be said is that there was no difference.
In regards to children prospering if they have supportive adult figures, I believe that is true. The question is they prosper even more if those suportive adult figures are their biological parents. My understanding is that, on average, they go.
Using an anaology is always a risk, but I will try one: A car can run on more than one kind of fuel. But it tends to run best on the fuel it was designed to use. I would expect a kid to thrive if he or she had supportive adult figures. I would expect a kid to thrive even more if there was one of each gender since they have to live and cope in a world with both genders. I would also expect that the kids would normally thrive the best if those supportive adults were the parents.
Having spent a lot of time with children and youth both in the community and in my church, I have seen this happen over and over. I am not in any way downgrading the help or importance of outside supportive adults. What I am doing is highlighting the unique and crucial role that the biological parents can and should play in the life of their child.
Iowa Jim
Jim, the question your point on the average indication of a stable, good upbringing for children begs the question of why we should strive for the average? We've had discussions before, and I've seen you acknowledge, here and before, that individual homes that fit the "normal" mold can result in a harmful environment for a child, and that homes that don't fit the standard can result in productive, safe, positive environments for a child.
There are two different issues at stake.
First, as public policy, what is the most desirable place for a child? I am not saying we should just strive for the average, but rather saying that a stable home with both parents is far better whenever possible. No, we can't force the issue. But we can create an expectation and hold up what is the healthier standard.
Second, you have to deal with reality in specific circumstances. Take a family where the parents are constantly fighting, even though they try to be loving to the child. One option is for them to divorce. The better option, I believe, is for them to work out their problems and stay together, not just "for the sake of the child" until the child is out of the house, but because it is the right thing to do. Again, I would not force a parent to do this, and there are some cases so abusive that separation or divorce is necessary, but there are a large number of cases where it is simple selfishness on the part of one or both parents that leads to the divorce.
Iowa Jim
Jim, I think we've had this exact discussion before, and I think we're on the same page, just saying it differently. There's a lot more playing into the situation when you bring up divorce. I agree with you in that no-fault divorce, and the commonality of it, has increased the divorce rate, and resulted in more marraiges that should never have been. When you know you can get out with relatively little pain, you won't stop and consider the huge step and changes marraige brings about.
Of course striving for the ideal is what everyone would hope for, so defending that position is no real stretch. I think where we differ is that I'm not set on an average ideal, whereas you are.
the choice to be gay is more often born of these unfortunate circumstances.
Wow, being gay is now a choice!
That should clear up any dispute as to the validity of your statements, Powell.
boy, how did this go from Funky Winkerbean to talking about politics & family values. God, I love this website.
example:
TOPIC
Who's better, Hulk or Superman?
person 1
* hulk
person 2
* superman
person 3
* republicans suck
person 2
* no way, democrats suck more
person 4
* no way person 2, you suck and you are stupid.
bladestar
* BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, I HAVE HATE & CONTEMPT FOR EVERYONE WHO IS NOT ME
person 5
* hulk is better. and democrats suck
person 6
* republicans eat their young
person 1
* democrats abort their young
person 7
* republicans want to stop progress
person 1
* do not
PETER DAVID
* this is my board & if i say bush sucks, then he sucks. Read my stuff.
person 2
* pad, you have no right to yor opinion & i'm not going to read your stuff anymore
person 8
* i'm writing joe quesada to fire your butt
person 9
* republicans burn the rainforest & club baby seals
person 10
* democrats save the whales, hug a tree & kill the unborn
bladestar
* BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, YOU'RE ALL FUCKING FUCKS AND I HATE YOU ALL!!! BLAH, BLAH, BLAH
peter david
* joe quesada just emailed me and told me to tell you to suck his dick and leave him alone, he's to busy working on DD: Father #2 which is a year late and he can't concentrate everytime you bitch about me to him. Also Brian Bendis is writing all marvel titles now except Hulk, which he is co writing. quesada also said that dc sucks because they are a republican company. make mine marvel.
person 10
* both parties suck.
person 11
* i'm a liberal republican
person 12
* i'm a conservative democrat
person 3
* democrats are trying to save the world
peter david
* joe quesada emailed me to tell you that bendis is also now writing hulk full time. thats it, didio & quesada will die. does anyone have mark allesis' phone #?
person 1
* God loves you
person 3
* there is no god, fool.
person 13
* there are many gods
person 14
* education in this country is going to hell.
(persons 1-13 & PAD all agree. bladestar goes off on another rant)
Luigi Novi asks people to privide where they get their facts from before telling them they're wrong
person 6
* fox news rocks.
person 13
* whatch cnn you conservative drone
person 15
* i think superman is better.
person 7
* cnn & michael mooore is all that everyone needs to stay informed
person 16
according to cbr, buckley has replace quesada as eic of marvel. it looks like brian bendis will be the new eic. according to sources bendis will stil write all the titles.
person 17
* bush is the antichrist
person 2
* no clinton is
person 16
* another update, avi arad names bendis publisher, eic, head writer of marvel enterprises.
person 18
* republicans
person 19
* democrats
person 16
* according to wizard, marvel is to make bendis the founder of marvel. stan lee quoted as saying "WHAT THE FUCK?" wizard also reports that bendis will take over spiderman/ black cat & daredevil bullseye from kevin smith. quesada is rumored to be dan diddio's chouffer & john byrne's head finally exploded.
person 13
* what was the topic again?
joe v.
BUmmer, Joe V. I feel like all I need to do is read your post once a week now, and aside from release notes posted by PAD, I'm all caught up...
Chadzilla:
"When did you make the decision to be straight?"
There is no decision to be "straight." You are born with a set of genitalia, and that's that. I don't deny my aesthetic sensibilities of recognizing physical beauty in persons of my own gender. But I don't mistake it for sexual attraction, either.
Chadzilla:
"I think I'll let you take on hate mongering dickwads like this loser by yourself. I have a son to raise and steer clear of sick minded individuals such as PP."
Pointing out that social ills often force people into bad life decisions is "sick minded" and "hate mongering?" Wow. I hope you've expunged your all abusive tension with that outburst and don't take it out on your son.
Fred Chamberlain:
"These factors and hard stats are certainly not infallible, but speak volumes more to me of identifiable patterns than throwaway spouting of people with an already identified agenda against homosexuals."
I don't know how we got onto pedophilia, but yeah, the gender of the victim has very little to do with that partiular sickness. But I have an "agenda against homosexuals?" Yeah, okay. That would explain why I'm listening to the new Judas Priest album right now. And why I memorized the entire Rocky Horror Picture Show. I don't have a problem with gay people. What I have a proble with is granting people special privileges for no valid reason.
Fred Chamberlain:
"I have a difficult time believing that you know this as fact and are not drawing your conclusions based on your religious and moral beliefs."
Every example on that list (even the learning disability one) is drawn from an actual person or persons that I have known. No, I don't don't expect you to believe me. Also, pretty sad that you assume I am affiliated with any religious bias. I'm Agnostic.
Craig J. Ries:
"Wow, being gay is now a choice!
That should clear up any dispute as to the validity of your statements, Powell."
There still has been no credible evidence presented to suggest that persons are "born gay." Still waiting, though.
There still has been no credible evidence presented to suggest that persons are "born gay." Still waiting, though.
I suggest you open your eyes.
There's LOTS of credible evidence. None of it is definitive, of course, because that's not how science works, but there's quite a bit of evidence that can be pieced together.
Had my "eyes open" for about 25 years years on the subject. Have yet to see anything even remotely believable.
Freud covered it pretty well in the 50's. Though I would expand his definition of "frail" to include physchological status as well as physical.
"I wonder how many people talking about the 1950s "witch hunts" know that Dr Wertham was actually a liberal psychologist trying to use violent comics as an excuse for vicious juvenile killers in order to get them a lighter sentence?
Nah, that would require actually reading Seduction of the Innocent, rather than railing about it."
jeeze, every time I hear that mentioned I think of _ComicBook: The Movie_
Is that evidence empirical and repeatable, Roger?????
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Fred,
Did you imply that studies by conservative Christians are inherantly flawed, but studies by people such as yourself aren't? Just wondering.
Joe V.
Haven't laughed that hard in a long time. Thanks.
"What I have a proble with is granting people special privileges for no valid reason."
What special privileges? What right(s) are gays seeking that you & I, as straight people, don't have?
Explain how allowing gays to marry the same as we can is a 'special privilege'.
A car can run on more than one kind of fuel. But it tends to run best on the fuel it was designed to use.
Ah, there's that lovely word "designed" again.
Design implies a designer. If marriage was "designed" by society, then society can change it without threat to the institution.
So unless you're claiming a designer other than society (and "tradition"), the analogy tends to fall down -- and if you ARE claiming a more overarching designer, then this is nothing other than a religious argument in another form.
Boy, this is sounding familiar. Weren't we here a few days ago?
TWL
Weren't we here a few days ago?
Yep. And I'm sure we'll be there again soon.
Michael Brunner:
"Explain how allowing gays to marry the same as we can is a 'special privilege'."
Anything that requires a license in this country — driving, handling hazardous materials, selling real estate, getting married — is a privilege, not a right. Criteria are set as to what would entitle a person or persons to be granted that license.
For example, my neighbors couldn't get married in this state because there was at the time (forty years ago) a law that prevented it due to their blood types being incompatible. They didn't meet the criteria for the license.
Gays are seeking the privilege of legally licensed marriage. They don't meet the criteria established by history, which is in many states not wholly defined in writing. Some groups are pushing to write a new definition that will tolerate some deviation from history. And it's those groups' pushiness that will get the definition written to specifically adhere to history.
Uh, Powell, old son, could you give examples of what specific or class of learning disability predisposes an individual to homosexuality?
Funky Winkerbean is still being published???!!!!!
* sorry 'bout that. just felt like bringing Funky back into this thread.
Some groups are pushing to write a new definition that will tolerate some deviation from history
Well, then I say we need to write old definitions into our laws: polygamy, for starters.
It's been legal in history, it's legal some places still now. So why not here?
I did not say that a learning disability predisposes a person to homosexuality. I said that I knew of one specific person who chose a homosexual lifestyle as a result of a learning disability. I do not know that her story is unique, but I presume it is not.
Craig J. Ries:
"Well, then I say we need to write old definitions into our laws: polygamy, for starters."
Again, push the Reductio Ad Absurdum button and see what the Republican neo-cons do. You want a bunch of right-wing Constitutional amendments, just keep it up.
So unless you're claiming a designer other than society (and "tradition"), the analogy tends to fall down -- and if you ARE claiming a more overarching designer, then this is nothing other than a religious argument in another form.
Man, I knew using an analogy would get me into trouble!
It was not my intention to imply that God designed marriage. As a Christian, of course, that is my belief. But that is not even close to my point.
Let me put it this way. A bird has wings and is thus able to fly. Whether I believe it was designed that way, or you believe it naturally evolved, the fact is, that is the natural function of wings.
I am suggesting that the natural function of marriage, wherever and whenever it was conceived, was for the purpose of serving as the place to start and raise a family.
Of course, IF God does exist, and things were designed, then it really makes sense.
On a side note: Interesting how life has every indication it was designed, especially when you get into the enormous amount of information stored at the cellular level. Forgive me if in my "ignorance" I am left to wonder how complex informational structures could have been assembled by random chance since there was not life to allow natural selection to choose it in the first place. But I digress.
Iowa Jim
Powell, you said (after a list of circumstances that included learning disabilities),
"The prevalence of these circumstances don't just follow around unfortunate individuals who were already gay; the choice to be gay is more often born of these unfortunate circumstances."
Sounds like you see it as a predisposing factor to me.
Well, then for clarity's sake I shuld have edited out the word "these." There are many other unfortunate circumstances that lead people to bad decisions, I'm sure.
Man, I knew using an analogy would get me into trouble!
Yep -- and unfortunately, your explanation doesn't really get you out of the conundrum. The phrase "natural purpose" doesn't really help, because it basically begs the question "purpose as said by whom?"
On a side note: Interesting how life has every indication it was designed, especially when you get into the enormous amount of information stored at the cellular level. Forgive me if in my "ignorance" I am left to wonder how complex informational structures could have been assembled by random chance since there was not life to allow natural selection to choose it in the first place. But I digress.
Indeed -- and it's a line of inquiry I suggest you not pursue, unless it's truly a line of inquiry and not an attempt to argue for creationism.
Fred (and others) have deferred to your greater knowledge of the historical Bible, given that you've done extensive graduate-level research into it.
Well, my wife is a Ph.D. evolutionary biologist.
That doesn't make her automatically right, of course, but it certainly gives me (through her) the same right to be taken seriously as you had in the Bible discussion.
Now, if this is a serious inquiry, let me know and I'll be happy to provide some explanations (and links, if I can find good ones). If not, I'd leave the sidebars out.
TWL
Aw, crud. I thought I'd changed that back.
Sorry, all -- the message just above from "William Shatner" is actually me.
TWL
On a side note: Interesting how life has every indication it was designed, especially when you get into the enormous amount of information stored at the cellular level. Forgive me if in my "ignorance" I am left to wonder how complex informational structures could have been assembled by random chance since there was not life to allow natural selection to choose it in the first place. But I digress.
Yes, you do. I think you're speaking out of your specialty here, as those who are more knowledgable would disagree with every point you've made here. A word to the wise?
in reply to: Posted by Powell Pugh at March 8, 2005 04:58 PM
You explained why gays are not currently allowed to marry, but you didn't answer my question. Let me try again:
If you & I, as straight people, have the priviledge to marry, then why is it that if gays want the SAME priviledge, it's a 'special priviledge'?
By calling it a 'special priviledge', there is the implication that they want to do something that we can't.
no
yes
good
evil
gay
hetero
democrat
republican
conservative
liberal
elvis people
beatle people
marvel people
dc people
x men suck
x men rule
quit arguing. no one is changing anybodies opinion. why do you guys do this to yourselves? arguing the same points over & over & over since i've been visiting this blog for the last 2 years. i notice the exact same people have the exact same opinions.
peter is a liberal democrat who hates GWB & quite possibly the entire republican party. He's against censorship of any kind. he is pro gay marriage, pro abortion, pro social wellfare for all. he's not a bad person, those are just his beliefs. he's also an incredible and talented writer who i will always read & support.
tim lynch, roger tang, craig ries, fred chambelain, robert jung, michael brunner, mitch evans follow the same train of thought as peter, and that's ok.
on the flipside from what i've seen over the past 2 years, we have me, jerome maida, jim in iowa, robbnn & a few others i forget to mention are quite conservative, and that's ok also.
...and then there is bladestar (sigh)
but in the last few years none of the people on the 1st list nor the people on the 2nd list have changed opinions. so what is the point of arguing.
Joe V.
according to wizard, Brian Bendis is set to take over the UN. in an interview he was quoted "this is just my next step in universal conquest. read my books." The vatican also stated that Bendis will succeed John Paull II as the next pope. Bendis commented "Happy Hanukkah, mother fuckers!"
Joe Quesada responded "what have i done? i created a monster."
"Forgive me if in my "ignorance" I am left to wonder how complex informational structures could have been assembled by random chance since there was not life to allow natural selection to choose it in the first place. But I digress."
Like Tim says, it's a whole nother ball of wax, but consider--is it some kind of miracle that all those water molecules keep assembling by random chance into the shape of snowflakes? I is if you think that snowflakes are formed by billions of water molecules randomly sticking together.
Obviously, the process is not random. So might it be with life. yeah, the odds of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and other atoms randomly joining up into DNA is pretty slim but you muct consider the possibility that the chemical components of life might form naturally.
Now, if this is a serious inquiry, let me know and I'll be happy to provide some explanations (and links, if I can find good ones). If not, I'd leave the sidebars out.
Actually, it is something I am very interested in. If you are willing to trade a few emails o