The way I see things

[raife]

Cock-enlarging comments appreciated

 

Why thank you sir, I see you followed that link! Are you intentionally trying to make my cock hard oh mischievous one? }( :*

 

Yea, I confess. I had my mind on the night before last while composing that post & all the little Freudian metaphors just slipped on in.

 

Hands-free orgasm indeed!

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Cock-enlarging comments appreciated

 

Raife, people have emailed me over the past few years to tell me that they enjoy my posts, that they always look to see if I've posted, etc. Well, I can now say that to you. You say everything I'd like to say, but much more eloquently and incisively. Especially in these longer threads, I always cut right to the chase and read your posts first.

[raife]

RE: Cock-enlarging comments appreciated

 

Damn Rick,

 

That's such an honor coming from you! I've fallen in love with your humor (something I dearly need more of ;-)) You have such a skill for defusing a tense, serious situation with your incisive wit. If there's any hope for this board, it's thanks to your diplomacy, bud.

 

I hope I can suck up just a little of your style, a little self-deprecation to deflate my occasional bloviations. Damn, there I go with those balloon metaphors again... I need a cold towel.

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Cock-enlarging comments appreciated

 

>

>I hope I can suck up just a little of your style, a little

>self-deprecation to deflate my occasional bloviations. Damn,

>there I go with those balloon metaphors again... I need a cold

>towel.

 

Raife,

Never mind the balloon metaphors, it's the sucking up with Rick that has me headed to a cold shower.

 

>

[raife]

RE: Cock-enlarging comments appreciated

 

Yea, I'm not up on the interpersonal baggage, but I'd suck up to a guy like that any day. Balloons or no balloons ;-)

[woodlawn]

RE: Woodlawn Keeps Trying

 

> So just because a group

>of people smokes pot, they forfeit any right to comment on the

>a immorality of a serial baby killer, or theiving Enron execs?

>OK, way too much of a strawman,

 

You got that right.

 

>Just because I pay guys to suck my cock, I look

>ridiculous when I struggle against gay bashing and homohating

>in the larger society, or expect for escorts to not rip me

>off, or gossip and revile me behind my back? I certainly don't

>think so.

 

Being unable to acknowledge and unwilling to wrestle with moral dilemmas is a symptom of a weak mind.

 

Do you look to the legal system to protect you against gay bashing or to punish those who engage in it? Why? If you can pick and choose which laws you obey, why can't they do the same? Oh, I forgot -- your case is 'different.' Well, it always is when it's your ox that's being gored, right?

 

> It's happened over and over, and Europe is

>ahead of us in these regards.

 

They are? What just happened in Italy?

 

>We'll have to just agree to disagree (hopefully respectfully),

 

Calling anyone who disagrees with you "self-hating," as you do below, is hardly respectful.

 

>but I can see that your view causes immeasurable psychic harm

>to millions. Look at all the gay kids committing suicide

>because "society" deems them immoral and they've internalized

>an all-or-nothing absolutist view such as yours.

 

My 'view' has nothing to do with anyone committing suicide. It probably is a waste of time to try to explain it to someone like you, whose 'moral reasoning' always leads him -- just by coincidence, of course -- to the conclusion that whatever he feels like doing at any given moment is moral.

 

Like a lot of the people who post here, your reasoning ability seems devoted entirely to coming up with rationalizations for whatever course of action you think benefits you. That is the 'view' that is responsible for most of the misery in the world. The fact that it is one of your characteristics as well doesn't make you a monster, it just makes you . . . typical.

 

 

>people who are "outcasts" in

>society and act like doormats for said sociey to kick around

 

And in your moral universe is there nothing between acting like a doormat and setting yourself up as a judge of others? I thought not. Thanks for confirming it.

 

 

>Just because prostitution isn't socially accepted by the

>"Moral Majority"

 

You aren't being very honest here. The Moral Majority organization didn't exist until the late twentieth century. But unless I'm missing something attitudes toward prostitution haven't changed much in America in the past two hundred years. You're trying to make it sound as though laws against prostitution are something dreamed up by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. You know that isn't true.

 

>There are uplifting

>Transcendent Spiritual escort experiences, salubrious

>theraputic experiences and then there are predatory demeaning

>experiences. According to your little absolutist dictum, we

>should just settle for the latter, because we're "outcasts"

>anyway. I'm saying I don't fucking think so, Charlie.

 

If you think having sex with a hooker can lift you to a new spiritual plane or cure your psychological problems, you are way too far gone for a fact-based discussion on this issue. I can handle first aid, but performing brain surgery is a little more than I want to take on. Get well soon.

[woodlawn]

RE: Keep Trying

 

>>I wouldn't be likely to post that or any

>>other personal information where a creature like you could

>get

>>hold of it.

>

>But the personal information of others is fair game.

>

>The world according to Woodlawn. We get it.

 

Well, deej, I could tell you that in this area I have control, and if you don't like what I do with it, then fuck you. Does that sound familiar? It certainly should.

[raife]

RE: Woodlawn Keeps Trying

 

OK Woody, I see how deeply dogmatically embedded you are, so I'll try and be as gentle as I can. This response isn't really for you, for you are who you are in your closed doctrinal loop "the law is the law, end of story" absolutist thinking and certianly beyond anyones reach of persuasion. We all evolve at our own pace, buddy. [blockquote][blockquote]So just because a group of people smokes pot, they forfeit any right to comment on the a immorality of a serial baby killer, or theiving Enron execs? OK, way too much of a strawman[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]You got that right.[/blockquote] [blockquote][blockquote]Just because I pay guys to suck my cock, I look ridiculous when I struggle against gay bashing and homohating in the larger society, or expect for escorts to not rip me off, or gossip and revile me behind my back? I certainly don't think so.[/blockquote] [/blockquote] [blockquote]Being unable to acknowledge and unwilling to wrestle with moral dilemmas is a symptom of a weak mind.[/blockquote] [blockquote]Do you look to the legal system to protect you against gay bashing or to punish those who engage in it? Why? If you can pick and choose which laws you obey, why can't they do the same? Oh, I forgot -- your case is 'different.' Well, it always is when it's your ox that's being gored, right?[/blockquote] The difference between us is that I see the infinite gradations of right and wrong based on the context, and to you "the law is the law", but Woody, in our system of government, laws can be bought and sold, and do you really unswaveringly trust our upstanding Moral Congresspeople to pass laws that are always in the People's best interest? We are being slowly legislated to death by an overzealous government that it will take some kind of revolution to reform. I somehow doubt that even you can be that seriously deluded. So we relativists are forced to the utilitarian technique of sorting "useful" laws which are consonant with human rights and dignities and "moralistic" laws which are foisted upon us by the traditionalists and have no use in our culture at its current level of evolution. [blockquote][blockquote]It's happened over and over, and Europe is ahead of us in these regards.[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]They are? What just happened in Italy?[/blockquote] Italy, the home of the Roman Catholic Church, Italy? Prostitution is still legal in Italy, is it not?. OK there are some Catholic dissenters... We can't all evolve at the same pace... [blockquote][blockquote]We'll have to just agree to disagree (hopefully respectfully)[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]Calling anyone who disagrees with you "self-hating," as you do below, is hardly respectful.[/blockquote] I'm not using "self-hating" as a judgement, just that as a gay man using your law-is-the-law morality, since it was until recently illegal to even act on your gay impluses in many states, you can't love yourself very much for being a lawbreaker can you? You are gay aren't you? If not, you're the very worst kind of deceitful hypocritical interloper, and all bets are off. Nothing I've said would be applicable to such a person. [blockquote][blockquote]but I can see that your view causes immeasurable psychic harm to millions. Look at all the gay kids committing suicide because "society" deems them immoral and they've internalized an all-or-nothing absolutist view such as yours.[/blockquote] [/blockquote] [blockquote]My 'view' has nothing to do with anyone committing suicide. It probably is a waste of time to try to explain it to someone like you, whose 'moral reasoning' always leads him -- just by coincidence, of course -- to the conclusion that whatever he feels like doing at any given moment is moral.[/blockquote] Then you cannot see the bigger picture. I am not a "[a href=http://www.joe-perez.com/2005/05/6-major-stages-of-rising-up.html#hedonists]hedonist[/a]" I am a "[a href=http://www.joe-perez.com/2005/05/6-major-stages-of-rising-up.html#integralists]integralist[/a]", from the wild excesses of hedonism, yes, the next phase is "[a href=http://www.joe-perez.com/2005/05/6-major-stages-of-rising-up.html#traditionalists]traditionalist/absolutist[/a]" to get whe wild impluses under control, then we rise up and look around to see how the world really works. Complex place, this world... Chaos theory and relativity come in real handy when building a bigger worldview [blockquote]Like a lot of the people who post here, your reasoning ability seems devoted entirely to coming up with rationalizations for whatever course of action you think benefits you. That is the 'view' that is responsible for most of the misery in the world. The fact that it is one of your characteristics as well doesn't make you a monster, it just makes you . . . typical.[/blockquote] I'm speaking of the spectrum of consciousness here, not rationalizing anything in particular. Each developmental step has its stage specific allowances and taboos, I'll grant you yours, please be kind enough to grant me mine. [blockquote][blockquote]people who are "outcasts" in society and act like doormats for said sociey to kick around[/blockquote] [/blockquote] [blockquote]And in your moral universe is there nothing between acting like a doormat and setting yourself up as a judge of others? I thought not. Thanks for confirming it.[/blockquote] I'm not judging anybody, just trying to point out stage specific tendencies. [blockquote][blockquote]Just because prostitution isn't socially accepted by the "Moral Majority"[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]You aren't being very honest here. The Moral Majority organization didn't exist until the late twentieth century. But unless I'm missing something attitudes toward prostitution haven't changed much in America in the past two hundred years. You're trying to make it sound as though laws against prostitution are something dreamed up by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. You know that isn't true.[/blockquote] [/blockquote] Actually, prostitution has a long and noble history dating well back before the Roman and Greek empires... They don't call it "the world's oldest profession" for nothing. And yea, we still hold on to a great deal of our Calvinist/Puritan ascetic heritage in this country, that's why I always harp on evolution... We've got to put that poisonous limited thinking behind us. But since you're embedded in just that thinking style, I realize you can't see that, thus the point is wasted on you. [blockquote][blockquote]There are uplifting Transcendent Spiritual escort experiences, salubrious theraputic experiences and then there are predatory demeaning experiences. According to your little absolutist dictum, we should just settle for the latter, because we're "outcasts" anyway. I'm saying I don't fucking think so, Charlie.[/blockquote] [/blockquote] [blockquote]If you think having sex with a hooker can lift you to a new spiritual plane or cure your psychological problems, you are way too far gone for a fact-based discussion on this issue. I can handle first aid, but performing brain surgery is a little more than I want to take on. Get well soon.[/blockquote] Then you haven't been with some of the hookers I've been with! No, to be receptive to a spiritual experience with an escort, you have to be rid of the exact type of social-opprobium dogma that keeps you chained to the mantle of the second-class-citizen label you so proudly wear.

 

Seriously dude, you'll pardon me if I don't keep exchanging philosophical treatises with you, but I do have a bit of ADD, so this level of discourse is hard to maintain, especially when I feel like I'm discussing Shakespeare with a brick wall. So if I table this debate for a while, it's nothing against you, I'm just getting a bit horny , that's all and the weekend is rapidly fading away... More later perhaps?

[woodlawn]

RE: Woodlawn Keeps Trying

 

>There is a difference between breaking a rule imposed on you

>by stupid legislation and breaking a rule that you agreed to

>follow.

 

No, actually there is no real difference. In a democratic society such as ours, we have a political process by which questions like "Should prostitution be legal?" are resolved. We all have a right to participate in that process, on condition that we all accept the result of that process whether we agree with it or not. When some of the people who participate refuse to accept the result because they don't like it, however, the process breaks down.

 

For example, when Clinton came into office there was a lot of controversy about his campaign pledge to change the rule banning gays from the military. Eventually the "don't ask, don't tell" compromise was worked out and that became the law. The problem is that a lot of the people in the military who didn't like that result have refused to accept it, and so gays and lesbians in the military are still being harrassed and kicked out even though they have played by the new rules.

 

I don't suppose you would tell them that the people in the military who were unhappy with the new rule shouldn't be blamed for ignoring it because it isn't something they personally agreed to follow, just

"a stupid rule imposed on them by legislation." Would you?

 

 

>I agree that double standards and hypocrisy are common. But I

>don't think you have to abide by every last law on the books

>before you can express an opinion about what you think is

>moral.

 

I've never said anything about denying anyone the right to express an opinion on any moral issue. In fact, I have consistently stood up for the right of posters here to say what they please, whether I agree with it or not. I have never been one of those who is constantly calling for this or that poster to be kicked out or censored because I don't care for what he says or how he says it. Instead, it is the self-appointed judges I referred to in an earlier post who are the ones calling for that sort of thing.

 

Nice to hear from you, by the way. You should post more often.

[woodlawn]

RE: Woodlawn Keeps Trying

 

>you are who you are in your closed

>doctrinal loop "the law is the law, end of story"

 

That is a false and, I think, a deliberate mischaracterization of what I said. It saddens me to see that, unable to deal with what I actually said, you now resort to the old scam of making up some shit, attributing it to me, and then criticizing me for "saying" it. Very dishonest of you.

 

 

> The difference between us is

>that I see the infinite gradations of right and wrong based on

>the context, and to you "the law is the law", but Woody, in

>our system of government, laws can be bought and sold,

 

You appear to be saying exactly what I said you are saying: that you get to pick and choose which laws you obey based on your personal evaluation of right and wrong. So my question remains: if you get to do that, can't other people do it too? For example, people who think they are doing right by bashing gay men on the head with a club? Or is it only people who happen to agree with your definition of right and wrong who get to act on that definition?

 

So we relativists are forced to the

>utilitarian technique of sorting "useful" laws which are

>consonant with human rights and dignities and "moralistic"

>laws which are foisted upon us by the traditionalists and have

>no use in our culture at its current level of evolution.

 

Right. You "relativists" pick and choose which laws you are going to obey by this "sorting" process. And what about other people who have a different "sorting" process which leads them to decide, for example, that any law contrary to something written in the Bible should not be obeyed. Do they have the same right to "sort" through the laws that you have, or are you and people who share your opinions the only ones who have that right?

 

I'm not using "self-hating"

>as a judgement,

 

I see you have adopted Lucky's habit. When you want to insult someone but don't want to take responsibility for it, just insist that it is something other than an insult.

 

 

> I'm speaking

>of the spectrum of consciousness here, not rationalizing

>anything in particular. Each developmental step has its stage

>specific allowances and taboos, I'll grant you yours, please

>be kind enough to grant me mine.

 

I'm afraid your philosophy is a bit complicated for me. It's a lot easier for me simply to describe what I actually observe. And what I observe is that your philosophy always seems to allow you to justify whatever it is you feel like doing. Why didn't Martin Luther think of that?

 

I'm not judging

>anybody,

 

But the people I referred to in my first post in this subthread are judging. That is what they do. That is why they come here.

 

And yea, we still hold on to a great

>deal of our Calvinist/Puritan ascetic heratage in this

>country, that's why I always harp on evolution... We've got to

>put that poisonous limited thinking behind us. But since

>you're embedded in just that thinking style, I realize you

>can't see that, thus the point is wasted on you.

 

What is wasted on me is your attempt to characterize attitudes toward prostitution in this country as something other than what they are, to make it seem as though there is a widespread change in attitudes in the air. But there isn't.

 

No, to be

>receptive to a spiritual experience with an escort, you have

>to be rid of the exact type of social-opprobium dogma that

>keeps you chained to the mantle of the second-class-citizen

>label you so proudly wear.

 

I see. What was it I was saying earlier about your penchant for coming up with rationalizations for whatever you want to do?

 

>Seriously dude, you'll pardon me if I don't keep exchanging

>philosophical treatises with you, but I do have a bit of ADD,

>so this level of discourse is hard to maintain,

 

I understand there is medication for that sort of thing now.

 

More later perhaps?

 

If you like.

[raife]

RE: Woodlawn Keeps Trying

 

OK, call me an obsessed philosophy junkie, or a argumentative pitbull but...commencing round 8[blockquote][blockquote]you are who you are in your closed doctrinal loop "the law is the law, end of story"[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]That is a false and, I think, a deliberate mischaracterization of what I said. It saddens me to see that, unable to deal with what I actually said, you now resort to the old scam of making up some shit, attributing it to me, and then criticizing me for "saying" it. Very dishonest of you.[/blockquote] yet in another branch of the thread: [blockquote]In a democratic society such as ours, we have a political process by which questions like "Should prostitution be legal?" are resolved. We all have a right to participate in that process, on condition that we all accept the result of that process whether we agree with it or not. When some of the people who participate refuse to accept the result because they don't like it, however, the process breaks down. [p]For example, when Clinton came into office there was a lot of controversy about his campaign pledge to change the rule banning gays from the military. Eventually the "don't ask, don't tell" compromise was worked out and that became the law. The problem is that a lot of the people in the military who didn't like that result have refused to accept it, and so gays and lesbians in the military are still being harrassed and kicked out even though they have played by the new rules.[/p] [p]I don't suppose you would tell them that the people in the military who were unhappy with the new rule shouldn't be blamed for ignoring it because it isn't something they personally agreed to follow, just "a stupid rule imposed on them by legislation." Would you?[/p][/blockquote] You are seriously trying to convince me you don't have a have a legalistic morality when you come back with responses like this? And in your gay harassment scenario, there is a vast chasm between the predatory behavior of the military and traditionalist morals legislation. Your view that we all have the "right" to "participate" in the process thus we should all just "accept the result of that process" is nice as far as it goes, and worked well in days past, but is now sadly idealistic and out of touch with the cultural chaos in which we find ourselves. We need a better orienting generality than the-law-is-the-law and we must just accept it as is. The current US administration is not your friend. [blockquote][blockquote]The difference between us is that I see the infinite gradations of right and wrong based on the context, and to you "the law is the law", but Woody, in our system of government, laws can be bought and sold,[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]You appear to be saying exactly what I said you are saying: that you get to pick and choose which laws you obey based on your personal evaluation of right and wrong. So my question remains: if you get to do that, can't other people do it too? For example, people who think they are doing right by bashing gay men on the head with a club? Or is it only people who happen to agree with your definition of right and wrong who get to act on that definition?[/blockquote] There does need to be some protection against social predation and terrorism, abortion clinic bombings and all, but other than that, I would say you're right on, pragmatically speaking. And we all have to just deal with the legal consequences should the "law" come after our asses. If a vast number people break a law, it behooves the government to take a look at the possibility that maybe that law shouldn't be there in the first place. That's why I hold to libertarian principles: the least amount of governent that fulfills its constitutional mandate and remains the most neutral, to maximize freedom for all parties: hedonists traditionalists, rationalists, integralists, what have you. [blockquote][blockquote]So we relativists are forced to the utilitarian technique of sorting "useful" laws which are consonant with human rights and dignities and "moralistic" laws which are foisted upon us by the traditionalists and have no use in our culture at its current level of evolution.[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]Right. You "relativists" pick and choose which laws you are going to obey by this "sorting" process. And what about other people who have a different "sorting" process which leads them to decide, for example, that any law contrary to something written in the Bible should not be obeyed. Do they have the same right to "sort" through the laws that you have, or are you and people who share your opinions the only ones who have that right?[/blockquote] Everyone has that same right, just that the law as it is so Byzantine as to be barely comprehensable, may snap up and bite any one of us at any random time. Think of it as the luck of the draw. [blockquote][blockquote]I'm not using "self-hating" as a judgement, just that as a gay man using your law-is-the-law morality, since it was until recently illegal to even act on your gay impluses in many states, you can't love yourself very much for being a lawbreaker can you? You are gay aren't you? If not, you're the very worst kind of deceitful hypocritical interloper, and all bets are off. Nothing I've said would be applicable to such a person.[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]I see you have adopted Lucky's habit. When you want to insult someone but don't want to take responsibility for it, just insist that it is something other than an insult.[/blockquote] Sorry you see it that way, just pointing out that a gay man with your (seeming) legalistic view can't seem to be anything other than ashamed at his own (former) illegal status, thus a little self loathing would seem to be inevitable. [blockquote][blockquote]I'm speaking of the spectrum of consciousness here, not rationalizing anything in particular. Each developmental step has its stage specific allowances and taboos, I'll grant you yours, please be kind enough to grant me mine.[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]I'm afraid your philosophy is a bit complicated for me. It's a lot easier for me simply to describe what I actually observe. And what I observe is that your philosophy always seems to allow you to justify whatever it is you feel like doing. Why didn't Martin Luther think of that?[/blockquote] That's the way Evolution works... It gets more complicated, flexible, and adaptable as it goes along. [blockquote][blockquote]And yea, we still hold on to a great deal of our Calvinist/Puritan ascetic heratage in this country, that's why I always harp on evolution... We've got to put that poisonous limited thinking behind us. But since you're embedded in just that thinking style, I realize you can't see that, thus the point is wasted on you.[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]What is wasted on me is your attempt to characterize attitudes toward prostitution in this country as something other than what they are, to make it seem as though there is a widespread change in attitudes in the air. But there isn't.[/blockquote] It may seem that way to you... but it's really always been tolerated in a wink, wink, nudge, nudge look the other way, all along. Especially in places like "The Old West" where marriage wasn't the most viable option. And with our "Oprah-ization" relativist phase, women (and men) are coming out of the closet and telling their prostitution tales in record numbers. Especially in the Internet Age, we all live in a bit of a bubble, surrounded by our own predilections and interests. I personally think there's going to be a most delightful backlash, when the Joe Sixpacks of the country get tired of the Dominionist Theocrats' formation of an American Taliban prohibitionist state. [blockquote][blockquote]No, to be receptive to a spiritual experience with an escort, you have to be rid of the exact type of social-opprobium dogma that keeps you chained to the mantle of the second-class-citizen label you so proudly wear.[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]I see. What was it I was saying earlier about your penchant for coming up with rationalizations for whatever you want to do?[/blockquote] What was it I was saying about the dogmatic blinders that keep you down? Look around, Woodie, there's a bigger picture to be seen if you but open your eyes, and your mind wide enough. [p]Eventually we're going to just have to wind this down and agree to disagree... Growth in levels of consciousness is damn hard work, and like I said earlier, we all proceed at our own pace. So what we still have is our shared experience and the ability to learn from each other's mistakes. I would posit that there is a larger [a href=http://www.joe-perez.com/2005/06/what-do-i-mean-by-integral.html]framework[/a] that beautifully dovetails both partial views (relativism and absolutism/traditionalism) and has the grace to label each as "truth" in its own domain. It's rather [a href=http://www.joe-perez.com/2005/05/is-integral-too-intellectual.html]complicated[/a], though and you really kind of have to just grow into it. [/p] [blockquote][blockquote]Seriously dude, you'll pardon me if I don't keep exchanging philosophical treatises with you, but I do have a bit of ADD, so this level of discourse is hard to maintain[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]I understand there is medication for that sort of thing now.[/blockquote] Yea and I've taken it... I prefer au naturel TUVM... I get more thinking done over a much wider range of topics that way. [blockquote][blockquote]More later perhaps?[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]If you like. [/blockquote] Sure, beats ad hominem bickering by a damn sight. [p]Take care...[/p]

[woodlawn]

RE: Woodlawn Keeps Trying

 

>OK, call me an obsessed philosophy junkie, or a argumentative

>pitbull but

 

You may not be aware of this, but there are lots of places where people think that discussing subjects like philosophy and morality is a very productive use of a person's time. These places are called things like "universities" and "think tanks." Ever hear of them?

 

>You

>are seriously trying to convince me you don't have a have a

>legalistic morality when you come back with responses like

>this?

 

I don't know what the term "legalistic morality" means. If it means that I think every law is morally correct, the answer is no, I don't think that. But that is not where the discussion ends. The next question is, if we think a law is not moral, what do we do about it? And what implications does our decision have for the behavior of other people who may have different ideas about what is moral?

 

>And in your gay harassment scenario, there is a vast

>chasm between the predatory behavior of the military and

>traditionalist morals legislation.

 

Both are situations in which people are refusing to obey a law resulting from the same political process because they don't like the result of the process. I think it rather nicely illustrates the dilemma in which some gay people find themselves. They want to ignore certain laws that they think are wrong, but they also want other people to obey laws -- like the "Don't ask" rule -- that those people think are wrong. It's quite a problem.

 

>We need a better orienting generality than the-law-is-the-law

>and we must just accept it as is.

 

No one said one can't try to change a law. The problem arises when, in addition to trying to change a law through the same process that created it, you also advocate ignoring laws you think are wrong.

 

> If a vast number people break a law, it

>behooves the government to take a look at the possibility that

>maybe that law shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

So we should scrap the "Don't ask" policy and go back to a total ban on gays in the military because a large number of people in the military don't want to be around gays? Okay.

 

>Everyone has that same right, just

>that the law as it is so Byzantine as to be barely

>comprehensable, may snap up and bite any one of us at any

>random time. Think of it as the luck of the draw.

 

So if I run into some guys who think morality requires them to ignore laws against hate crimes and bash any gay man they encounter with a two-by-four, I should just consider that "the luck of the draw"? Interesting perspective.

 

 

> Sorry

>you see it that way, just pointing out that a gay man with

>your (seeming) legalistic view can't seem to be anything other

>than ashamed at his own (former) illegal status, thus a little

>self loathing would seem to be inevitable.

 

I suppose that could be true for someone who confuses law with morality. Fortunately, I have never had that problem.

 

> It

>may seem that way to you... but it's really always been

>tolerated in a wink, wink, nudge, nudge look the other way,

>all along.

 

Isn't it true that police departments all over the country are still conducting sting operations and sweeps to catch prostitutes and johns? And don't some of them now publish the names of the people they arrest in order to publicly humiliate them? Does that sound like tolerance to you? It doesn't sound very tolerant to me.

 

>And with our

>"Oprah-ization" relativist phase, women (and men) are coming

>out of the closet and telling their prostitution tales in

>record numbers.

 

Really? What national or local television programs can you refer us to where we can see these hordes of people who are coming out as prostitutes?

 

>Especially in the Internet Age, we all live in

>a bit of a bubble, surrounded by our own predilections and

>interests. I personally think there's going to be a most

>delightful backlash, when the Joe Sixpacks of the country get

>tired of the Dominionist Theocrats' formation of an American

>Taliban prohibitionist state.

 

There is? And when is that supposed to happen?

 

> What was it I was saying about the

>dogmatic blinders that keep you down? Look around, Woodie,

>there's a bigger picture to be seen if you but open your eyes,

>and your mind wide enough.

 

I think I've heard that story before. There's this magical fabric that can be used to make the most beautiful clothes. The magical thing about it is that only people who are truly enlightened can see it. To everyone else, it's invisible. If you wear clothes made out of it, the enlightened will gasp in admiration at how great you look. But everyone else will just see a guy walking around in his underwear. What's the name of that story again?

 

>Eventually we're going to just

>have to wind this down and agree to disagree

 

Actually, we don't disagree. We seem to agree on what I think is the most important point: If you want the right to ignore any laws you think are wrong, you can't really complain if others do the same. So if others beat the shit out of you or make it impossible for you to work at your job because they think the laws that are supposed to protect you are wrong, you just have to tell yourself, "That's the luck of the draw." Okay.

[Epigonos]

RE: Woodlawn Keeps Trying

 

Woodlawn a of couple sincere question regarding the following quote:

 

"No one said one can't try to change a law. The problem arises when, in addition to trying to change a law through the same process that created it, you also advocate ignoring laws you think are wrong."

 

During the 60's at the height of the desegregration movement, in many southern states, African Americans broke state laws that forced them to ride only in the back of buses. At the same time they were breaking those laws they were marching and picketing which in many cases was also againg the law. Do you believe that they should NOT have done so but continued to sit in the back and not march and picket until the laws were changed? Futhermore, do you believe that those laws would have been changed without the above type of civil disobedience?

[woodlawn]

RE: Woodlawn Keeps Trying

 

> At the

>same time they were breaking those laws they were marching and

>picketing which in many cases was also againg the law. Do you

>believe that they should NOT have done so but continued to sit

>in the back and not march and picket until the laws were

>changed?

 

I think the civil rights movement is an excellent example of the dilemma I am describing. It is a movement in which the participants were urging disobedience of laws they believed were wrong, but at the same time were trying to enact laws they thought were right.

 

As we know, the movement succeeded in enacting a great deal of legislation at the federal level, and there is no question that legislation benefited many people. But the movement also set an example of disobedience that has now come back to haunt them and their ideological heirs.

 

Let's take one issue of the movement, school desegregation. The movement won changes in federal law that forced an end to de jure racial segregation of schools everywhere in America. The problem is, however, that the people who lost the political battle on that issue refused to accept the results. Instead of acceding to racially integrated schools, many of them either took their children out of the public school system or moved their families into suburban communities where they didn't need to worry about having their kids go to public schools with members of other races because there were no other races living there. So all of the years of work and struggle to desegregate this country's public schools have resulted in . . . public schools that are still largely segregated by race.

 

That's the problem with urging people to disobey laws you think are unjust while you try to change the laws. What happens if you win, and the laws are changed? Then your position and that of your political adversaries are reversed. Instead of urging people to disobey laws you think are unjust, you find yourself arguing that they should obey laws even if they think the laws unjust. As I said, it's quite a dilemma.

 

Futhermore, do you believe that those laws would

>have been changed without the above type of civil

>disobedience?

 

I don't know. I can only tell you that there is a danger involved in taking the position that it is acceptable for those who don't like the results of the political process to refuse to abide by the results. The danger is that a democratic political system can't function if that attitude becomes widespread, and everyone who is on the losing side of a political argument refuses to accept the results. Do you hear anyone these days arguing that we have to make more of an effort to desegregate the schools? The desegregationists won all the battles, but they lost the war. What does that tell you about their tactics?

[BobbyB]

"Many accusers are predisposed not to believe the truth even

when it is in front of them...disagree all you want about the

validity of those rules, but it is not our sandbox, we don't

make the rules. If you want to play, you play by the rules....

Blessings come how they come....those who are

blessed don't get to decide how the blessing comes. It

is just a blessing, take it or leave it."

 

 

Well said, Jack. (Or is it Mr. Hammer?) (Commrad 91406?)

 

-BobbyB

[Epigonos]

Woodlawn your points are interesting and well taken. However, I don’t think most African Americans would agree with you. They obtained almost immediate and permanent entrance into all major public colleges and universities throughout the south. You are certainly correct that there was some white flight in the public k-12 schools but the numbers of students leaving for an extended period wasn’t that great. Many white southerners who opposed integration most strongly were simply to poor to move or pay for private schools.

What I wonder is; isn’t there a very long tradition in this country of selective civil disobedience. Many of the earliest colonists came to the northeast not because it was legal to practice their various religions there but rather because the distance from Britain was so great that they were able to break the law and get away with it. At the beginning of the Revolutionary War Bostonians dumped a ship load of tea into the harbor protesting what they considered taxation without representation – certainly breaking the law and not in line with the British point of view. During the years immediately proceeding the Civil War northern abolitionists clearly and knowingly harbored run away slaves which was definitely against the law and infuriated southerners. During the first part of the 20th century labor leaders broke numerous laws regarding union organizing and striking. Leaders of the Women’s suffrage movement broke laws by marching and protesting all over the country.

Are the above also not examples of the selective breaking of the laws which probably brought about positive changes which might have come eventually but certainly more slowly and possibly never? And if they are examples of selective civil disobediende don't they collectively make up something of a tradition?

[raife]

RE: Woodlawn Keeps Trying

 

OK, I’m thinking one more round then we end this thing gracefully, how about you? [blockquote][blockquote]OK, call me an obsessed philosophy junkie, or a argumentative pitbull but[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]You may not be aware of this, but there are lots of places where people think that discussing subjects like philosophy and morality is a very productive use of a person's time. These places are called things like "universities" and "think tanks." Ever hear of them?[/blockquote] Actually I’ve spent quite a bit of time there, and yes I do think exercising our mental muscles trying to reify the finer points of philosophical belief systems to be an extremely important use of our time. I’m a Myers-Briggs INFP so I head towards the philosophy section of the bookstore by temperament. Philosophically speaking I’m a Neoplatonic Idealist of the Plotinus school, and spiritually, I’m a monistic evolutionary panentheist. Which to you more rational types could be translated as a fuzzy-headed mystical ex-hippie with hare-brained ideas of spirituality. I hang out with my fuzzy-headed pals at [a href=http://www.integralnaked.org/forum/Default.asp]Integral Naked[/a] and do daily readings of [a href=http://www.kenwilber.com]this remarkable fellow[/a] who I believe is one of the most authentic and pragmatically useful philosophers on the planet today. [blockquote][blockquote]You are seriously trying to convince me you don't have a have a legalistic morality when you come back with responses like this? [/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]I don't know what the term "legalistic morality" means. If it means that I think every law is morally correct, the answer is no, I don't think that. But that is not where the discussion ends. The next question is, if we think a law is not moral, what do we do about it? And what implications does our decision have for the behavior of other people who may have different ideas about what is moral? [/blockquote] Very good answer... I revise my estimation of ye’ Woodie, and give you credit for being more of a rationalist than a traditionalist/absolutist in your calm and introspective mode. You had me running scared with all of that crazy-haired whöre-bashing going on a while back. [blockquote][blockquote]And in your gay harassment scenario, there is a vast chasm between the predatory behavior of the military and traditionalist morals legislation.[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]Both are situations in which people are refusing to obey a law resulting from the same political process because they don't like the result of the process. I think it rather nicely illustrates the dilemma in which some gay people find themselves. They want to ignore certain laws that they think are wrong, but they also want other people to obey laws -- like the "Don't ask" rule -- that those people think are wrong. It's quite a problem. [/blockquote] Well see it’s a lot more nuanced than that. We’re dealing with a government that is out of control and has been hijacked by a small faction of the party in power who is busy trying to destroy what few legislative checks and balances we have left. So yes it is a very large problem. But you’re setting up a strawman with your gay-bashing scenario. Not needed anyway, as you'll see below. [blockquote][blockquote]We need a better orienting generality than the-law-is-the-law and we must just accept it as is. [/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]No one said one can't try to change a law. The problem arises when, in addition to trying to change a law through the same process that created it, you also advocate ignoring laws you think are wrong. [/blockquote] Ok, you are reverting to your legalistic “law abiding citizen" refrain again. Indeed I advocate ignoring laws I think are wrong. But I’m also coupling that with the “Live and Let Live" principle as I believe is required by my Integralist stance. That way I can live a libertarian life of maximum freedom while allowing everyone else to live theirs. Here’s the kicker though. I realize I am breaking the law and am fully prepared to live with the consequences, should I get caught doing so. I believe that taking this stance I am ensuring myself a richer and more rewarding life, than I would have within the constrained worldview you are espousing. It’s a pragmatic cost / benefit risk vs rewards calculation. Not ideal by any means, but I’m prepared to live with this compromise until our society gets back to the Constitutional model that has enabled this country to do so well for so long. [blockquote][blockquote]If a vast number people break a law, it behooves the government to take a look at the possibility that may that law shouldn't be there in the first place. [/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]So we should scrap the "Don't ask" policy and go back to a total ban on gays in the military because a large number of people in the military don't want to be around gays? Okay. [/blockquote] See, here’s that strawman again. No, I believe in using the legal system to whatever extent we can in its current broken state to ensure maximum human rights, human dignity and freedom, but am prepared to jump off the train at my own risk should it take a haywire Taliban-esque turn for the worse. [blockquote][blockquote]Everyone has that same right, just that the law as it is so Byzantine as to be barely comprehensible, may snap up and bite any one of us at any random time. Think of it as the luck of the draw. [/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]So if I run into some guys who think morality requires them to ignore laws against hate crimes and bash any gay man they encounter with a two-by-four, I should just consider that "the luck of the draw"? Interesting perspective. [/blockquote] That is indeed the “luck of the draw" and here we have the severity of the law towards egregious crimes such as gay-bashing in our favor. These gay-bashers are going to get bitten by the law a whole hell of a lot harder than I and my escort-hiring self. [blockquote][blockquote]Sorry you see it that way, just pointing out that a gay man with your (seeming) legalistic view can't seem to be anything other than ashamed at his own (former) illegal status, thus a little self loathing would seem to be inevitable.[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]I suppose that could be true for someone who confuses law with morality. Fortunately, I have never had that problem. [/blockquote] So I see that somewhat more clearly now. [blockquote][blockquote]It may seem that way to you... but it's really always been tolerated in a wink, wink, nudge, nudge look the other way, all along.[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]Isn't it true that police departments all over the country are still conducting sting operations and sweeps to catch prostitutes and johns? And don't some of them now publish the names of the people they arrest in order to publicly humiliate them? Does that sound like tolerance to you? It doesn't sound very tolerant to me. [/blockquote] There are jurisdictions that are taking this step at the behest of NIMBYs complaining of all the street trade through the neighborhood. No it isn’t very tolerant, but the street types should try a little harder to stay away from the homes of the people who hold these views. Santa Monica Boulevard in LA for example, which has a bunch of closed businesses during the evening, and was one big Trannie parade the other night. [blockquote][blockquote]And with our "Oprah-ization" relativist phase, women (and men) are coming out of the closet and telling their prostitution tales in record numbers.[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]Really? What national or local television programs can you refer us to where we can see these hordes of people who are coming out as prostitutes? [/blockquote] Oprah herself has had several in these last several months, Larry Elder (mostly libertarian talk show host) has had a few and I don’t watch Jerry Springer or any of the rest of that ilk so I certainly can’t give you a itemized list. So call it “informed rumor" if you must. [blockquote][blockquote]Eventually we're going to just have to wind this down and agree to disagree, [/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]Actually, we don't disagree. We seem to agree on what I think is the most important point: If you want the right to ignore any laws you think are wrong, you can't really complain if others do the same. So if others beat the shit out of you or make it impossible for you to work at your job because they think the laws that are supposed to protect you are wrong, you just have to tell yourself, "That's the luck of the draw." Okay. [/blockquote] Like I said, I ignore the laws which I choose to ignore at my own risk, as do the haters, luckily I’m on the shallow side of the severity curve and they the deep-end. The severity of the law works to my advantage in this respect, as the police usually (but not always) go for the more egregious crimes, the better to “defend and protect". The moneyed elite in this society follow this same strategy but they have plenty of safety mechanisms to avoid falling into the possible legal traps that might ensnare you or I while following this strategy. [p]I’d love for some enlightened leadership to step in and rebalance the system towards “Justice for All", but as it is, I have no respect for the law as such, because I certainly have no respect for the current crop of power fetishists that have managed to claw their way into our current Houses of Government[/p] Anyway, I've enjoyed this current exchange, it's taught me much more than I expected about you, & maybe we'll just have to do another dance should some juicy social justice tidbit ensnare our mutual interest. [p]Take care, Woody.[/p]

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Cock-enlarging comments appreciated

 

>I hope I can suck up just a little of your style, a little

>self-deprecation to deflate my occasional bloviations.

 

Let's make a deal. You suck up my style and I'll suck on one of your bloviations. :9

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Cock-enlarging comments appreciated

 

>it's the sucking up with

>Rick that has me headed to a cold shower.

 

Hey, is there room in that shower for two? I do like it wet on occasion. }(

[woodlawn]

RE: Woodlawn Keeps Trying

 

>Which to you more rational types could be translated as a

>fuzzy-headed mystical ex-hippie with hare-brained ideas of

>spirituality.

 

Well, that just goes to prove that first impressions can sometimes be quite accurate.

 

> Well see

>it’s a lot more nuanced than that. We’re dealing with a

>government that is out of control and has been hijacked by a

>small faction of the party in power who is busy trying to

>destroy what few legislative checks and balances we have left.

 

Not true at all. That is just sour grapes from an opposition party that has marginalized itself by moving farther and farther away from the values most Americans hold. Over the past thirty years the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as liberals has been shrinking while the percentage who identify themselves as conservatives has been growing. You make it sound as though we've had a coup d'etat in which some group of extremists have taken over the government by force. But what has actually happened is that conservatives have been more successful at persuading Americans that their ideas are right. That's the way our political system is supposed to work, remember? Whoever persuades more people that their ideas are right, wins.

 

> I

> realize I am breaking the law and am fully prepared to

>live with the consequences, should I get caught doing so. I

>believe that taking this stance I am ensuring myself a richer

>and more rewarding life,

 

That attitude is pretty rare among the people who post here. Most of them want to break the law too, but far from accepting the consequences if they get caught, they are constantly talking about ways of avoiding the consequences or complaining about the fact that police departments are "wasting" their resources enforcing the law.

 

 

>If a

>vast number people break a law, it behooves the government to

>take a look at the possibility that may that law shouldn't be

>there in the first place.

 

>So we should scrap

>the "Don't ask" policy

 

> See,

>here’s that strawman again. No, I believe in using the legal

>system to whatever extent we can in its current broken state

>to ensure maximum human rights, human dignity and freedom, but

>am prepared to jump off the train at my own risk should

>it take a haywire Taliban-esque turn for the worse.

 

You're not being consistent here. The "Don't ask" policy is certainly an example of a situation in which a vast number of people break a law because they think it is wrong. So according to you, the government should revisit and perhaps scrap the policy.

 

> That is indeed the “luck of

>the draw" and here we have the severity of the law towards

>egregious crimes such as gay-bashing in our favor. These

>gay-bashers are going to get bitten by the law a whole hell of

>a lot harder than I and my escort-hiring self.

 

You're assuming that the people who are required to enforce the law are willing to do so. Suppose they're not? Suppose there are people in law enforcement who think being gay is wrong and who try not to enforce the law to the extent they can get away with it?

 

>So call it “informed rumor" if you must.

 

Frankly, I don't see any evidence of some sort of groundswell of public opinion in favor of prostitution. I don't see state legislatures moving to legalize or even decriminalize it. I don't see the media covering something that, if it existed, would certainly be news. So I don't think it exists.

 

 

> Like I said, I ignore the laws which I

>choose to ignore at my own risk, as do the haters, luckily I’m

>on the shallow side of the severity curve and they the

>deep-end. The severity of the law works to my advantage in

>this respect, as the police usually (but not always) go for

>the more egregious crimes, the better to “defend and protect".

 

Please see above.

[N.N.]

RE: Woodlawn Keeps Trying

 

>>it’s a lot more nuanced than that. We’re dealing with a

>>government that is out of control and has been hijacked by a

>>small faction of the party in power who is busy trying to

>>destroy what few legislative checks and balances we have

>left.

>

>Not true at all. That is just sour grapes from an opposition

>party that has marginalized itself by moving farther and

>farther away from the values most Americans hold. Over the

>past thirty years the percentage of Americans who identify

>themselves as liberals has been shrinking while the percentage

>who identify themselves as conservatives has been growing.

>You make it sound as though we've had a coup d'etat in which

>some group of extremists have taken over the government by

>force. But what has actually happened is that conservatives

>have been more successful at persuading Americans that their

>ideas are right. That's the way our political system is

>supposed to work, remember? Whoever persuades more people

>that their ideas are right, wins.

 

You make it sound so pure and wholesome. I remind you that

Republicans, not wanting to rely solely on their ability

to persuade the public, saw fit to gerrymander the piss

out of congressional districts in Texas not too long ago.

Neither party has had a monopoly on gerrymandering

historically, but this time the GOP used it as a very

blunt instrument in Texas. Such use of power to tilt

the playing field is antithetical to the spirit of

checks and balances in government.

 

Recall also that the Republicans have recently benefitted from

the way the structure of our government does not represent the

public proportionately. I'm referring not only to the 2000

election where the candidate with fewer popular votes got into

office, but also to the Senate. Democratic senators represent

more citizens at the moment--but the GOP has more Senators.

[jackhammer91406]

Where is this thread?

 

I don't want to rain on what has become a great discussion between members, BUT,

in rereading the vision statement which I have to agree to everytime I want to come here, it specifically states;

 

 

1. Attacks against other people are not allowed. Personal attacks stifle discussion and create an atmosphere that discourages many people from joining us. We want all people to feel welcome here and welcome to state their opinions. Those who come here for advice or assistance should be treated with respect. You are free to criticize the opinions of other people at will. But please do not attack, insult or disparage others themselves; all are worthy of respect, even those with whom we disagree.

 

(I added the bold)

 

 

Discussions of a political or religious nature are far from the Message Center’s original goal. However, we respect those who wish to create and join these discussions. We do ask, though, that you post threads that deal with political and/or religious issues in the Politics and Religion forum.

 

 

Respect for each other is the one thing we ask from all.

 

 

 

Now, I will be the first to admit that I have enjoyed seeing this discussion develop. Mindful of past diatribes from many members, (and mindful that I poked fun at Woodlawn, not what I considered an insult) I have enjoyed reading the thread which has had surprisingly few slams on posters. But it has come at some cost. There have been a few responses on this thread that have attacked members personally (Duke and TY being the victims) and I wonder whether any action has been taken as a result (pursuant to the posted rules and guidelines)?

 

Secondly, this thread has clearly come very close (if not crossed) the line into politics and maybe should be moved?

 

I am not trying to be bitchy, but the original poster was reflecting on enforcement of posting priviledges and when I see that some rules are and some rules are not being enforced (at least visibly) I wonder.

 

Anyway, carry on guys, I am enjoying reading.

[raife]

RE: Woodlawn Keeps Trying

 

Note that before, I did a pretty thorough point-counterpoint. OK, since my time is limited, now my turn to pick and choose. [blockquote][blockquote]Which to you more rational types could be translated as a fuzzy-headed mystical ex-hippie with hare-brained ideas of spirituality.[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]well, that just goes to prove that first impressions can sometimes be quite accurate.[/blockquote] Not accurate... true to form. [blockquote][blockquote]Well see it’s a lot more nuanced than that. We’re dealing with a government that is out of control and has been hijacked by a small faction of the party in power who is busy trying to destroy what few legislative checks and balances we have left.[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]Not true at all. That is just sour grapes from an opposition party that has marginalized itself by moving farther and farther away from the values most Americans hold. Over the past thirty years the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as liberals has been shrinking while the percentage who identify themselves as conservatives has been growing. You make it sound as though we've had a coup d'etat in which some group of extremists have taken over the government by force. But what has actually happened is that conservatives have been more successful at persuading Americans that their ideas are right. That's the way our political system is supposed to work, remember? Whoever persuades more people that their ideas are right, wins.[/blockquote] But see, "truth is relative"... that is the relativist mantra. None more so than this I believe. OK, yes I see that you hold to the Fox News spin on this, in the shadow of "war" fraidy-cat USians run to the party with the big guns, but in reality approval ratings for both parties and all offices of the government are at historical lows. Both parties have been moving towards their respective extremes, and the great American Middle is dissatisfied with the results. Unfortunately the answer to this is revolution, hopefully a bloodless one, to relocate the government to its proper place in society. As Thomas Jefferson so presciently stated, I paraphrase, free citizens aren't doing their job if there isn't a revolution every 30 years or so. But we citizens are too fat, happy and distracted by all the baubles right now. I'm waiting to see this unfold, it's gonna be fascinating.

[blockquote][blockquote]I realize I am breaking the law and am fully prepared to live with the consequences, should I get caught doing so. I believe that taking this stance I am ensuring myself a richer and more rewarding life,[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]That attitude is pretty rare among the people who post here. Most of them want to break the law too, but far from accepting the consequences if they get caught, they are constantly talking about ways of avoiding the consequences or complaining about the fact that police departments are "wasting" their resources enforcing the law.[/blockquote] I agree that it's rare. Of course I'd like to change the law in my favor, and of course I want to minimize my risk of getting caught. And I do belive the police are wasting their valuable time with the trivial stuff when they could be so much more effective by going after all the unsolved serial murderers rather than spanking "moral scofflaws". But the basic position still holds. [blockquote][blockquote]That is indeed the “luck of the draw" and here we have the severity of the law towards egregious crimes such as gay-bashing in our favor. These gay-bashers are going to get bitten by the law a whole hell of a lot harder than I and my escort-hiring self.[/blockquote][/blockquote] [blockquote]You're assuming that the people who are required to enforce the law are willing to do so. Suppose they're not? Suppose there are people in law enforcement who think being gay is wrong and who try not to enforce the law to the extent they can get away with it?[/blockquote] I think you hit the nail on the head as far as one of the more serious problems with law enforcement. The answer is to dump the bums and rehire, but first we need a voice in the process. We're working on that. [p]Damn, my time is up. (hmmm, seems I remember an escort saying that once... )[/p] [p]Enjoy your day! [/p]:-)

[woodlawn]

RE: Woodlawn Keeps Trying

 

> That's the way our political system is

>>supposed to work, remember? Whoever persuades more people

>>that their ideas are right, wins.

 

> Such use of power to tilt

>the playing field is antithetical to the spirit of

>checks and balances in government.

 

As you pointed out, this is something that has been done in various states by both parties over the years. So far as I know there is only one state in which redistricting is done by a non-partisan group rather than a partisan legislative body.

 

> Democratic senators

>represent

>more citizens at the moment--but the GOP has more Senators.

 

The Senate was designed to represent states rather than population long before the Republican party was created, so I don't think we can blame the Republicans for that. The Republicans also control the House, where representation is determined by population.

[woodlawn]

RE: Woodlawn Keeps Trying

 

> OK, yes I see that you hold to the Fox News spin on

>this, in the shadow of "war" fraidy-cat USians run to the

>party with the big guns, but in reality approval ratings for

>both parties and all offices of the government are at

>historical lows.

 

I spoke of ideology rather than party, and what I said holds true for the period before 9/11 as well. The fact is that conservatives have been more successful than liberals in shaping the national political debate for many years now -- that cannot be denied. They have succeeded in pulling the Republican party and the country as a whole to the right. You may not like the results, but you cannot deny that this is how our political system is supposed to work. Everyone has the opportunity to participate in the national debate, and those who convince the greater number of people are the winners. That is all that is happening, not some sinister conspiracy.

 

> I

>think you hit the nail on the head as far as one of the more

>serious problems with law enforcement. The answer is to dump

>the bums and rehire,

 

Rehire from where? Are we supposed to import policemen from Europe? We get our policemen from the same society that we all live in. That's why our police forces reflect the same ideas and prejudices that exist in society as a whole. That's not the problem. The problem is in telling people that it's acceptable to ignore laws you think are morally wrong. Suppose the cops start doing that as well? What then?