Did you know that those who are in NO that can't find a job are "either lazy or use to living on the system?" Nightline
What will this do to Feingold's censure resolution?
The Bush administration could continue its policy of spying on targeted Americans without obtaining warrants, but only if it justifies the action to a small group of lawmakers, under legislation introduced yesterday by key Republican senators.
The four senators hope to settle the debate over National Security Agency eavesdropping on international communications involving Americans when one of the parties is suspected of terrorist ties. President Bush prompted a months-long uproar when he said that constitutional powers absolve him of the need to seek warrants in such cases, even though the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires warrants for domestic wiretaps.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/#a017449
My relative, John Whitney landed in Boston in 1635. He had to wait to party until 1737, when the Charitable Society Of Boston held the first St. Patrick's Day parade in America.
Slow to catch on, New York held their first St. Patrick's Day parade 25 years later, in 1762. On March 17th, 1780, General Washington gave the soldiers the day off, because many were Irish.
I wonder if the soldiers in Iraq are getting the day off today? Is it possible to turn over, under the weight of the Washington Monument?
You know, I use to believe that once a battle was won the fight was over. How wrong I was.
The Missouri House refused to resume state spending on birth control Wednesday, because it would have amounted to "an endorsement of promiscuous lifestyles." When Republicans gained control in 2003, they stopped funding money for family planning and certain women's health services here in Missouri.
The Democrats successfully inserted language into the proposed budget that would have allowed part of the $9.2 million intended for "core public health functions" to go to contraception provided through public health clinics, but the funding was deleted. We certainly don't want contraception and infertility treatments for women in Missouri. Because the Right to Life wacko group was opposed, the vote was defeated.
Phillips, a Republican from Kansas City said "If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that. WTF!
Anti-abortion lawmakers are denying money for contraception to low-income people who use public health clinics, which will result in more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions. Two steps forward and 50 steps backwards for women. I have a good idea, let's shoot any male who impregnants a women.
"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state."
So, following that logic, any single women seeking contraception is promiscuious? Does that mean if you are seeking contraception aids as a married women, your not? Furthermore, if you are "promiscuious" (whatever that means to these people) then wouldn't logic tell you that person needs protection all the more?
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ALL SINGLE WOMEN FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Keep your legs closed and do not engage in sex if you are single.
HAPPY ST. PAT'S DAY. My materal Grandmother was a Irish, so I guess that makes me "part Irish." I always said I have the stubborness of a German and the temper of an Irishmen.
Posted by Judith at March 17, 2006 03:12 AMI just saw a story about the largest FEMA disaster camp in the lower 9th ward called Renaissance Village. There are three thousand people living in FEMA provided trailers there. They have no phones, no medical care, no jobs and starting April 6th, no more food or heat will be provided by FEMA. FEMA says there are jobs at fast food places, and if they can't find a job they are "either lazy or use to living on the system?" Well, I guess Katrina didn't kill them all, so the system will finish the job. I wonder if all those displaced by Katrina will vote?
Posted by Judith at March 17, 2006 03:54 AMI'm on a roll this morning. Too much coffee.
We are not free anymore, and the sooner we understand that, the better. Fear is the first step in establishing a dictatorship. Veterans are afraid of speaking out because if they do, and are arrested, their benefits are taken away. Democrats are afraid of speaking out because they are called unpatriotic or worse, terrorists. Americans are afraid to speak out or protest because of the possibility that their name will end up on a list of possible terrorists and arrested. Those who are journalist or in the media are afraid that if they don't tow the line, they will find themselves unemployed. Yeah, I would say that the march towards a dictator in America is right on schedule.
Posted by Judith at March 17, 2006 04:23 AMJudith, I saw an article about Missouri no longer providing birth control to the poor. Pretty insane if you ask me. I had to wonder if you take birth control for other reasons than contraception if there's an exemption. Also, whether the state will continue to pay for Viagra for the poor.
Posted by ann at March 17, 2006 05:40 AMIt's comforting to know for the 15th year running, the Hibernians who run the parade have said "x-nay on the ay-agays" to participate in the celebration.
Missy Hillary is expected to grace the parade with her presence. After all, she IS up for reelection and supports DOMA.
Posted by Christopher at March 17, 2006 05:58 AMPhillips, a Republican from Kansas City said "If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that.
I would like all the republicans in the Missouri government who are single (never married or divorced) to take an oath swearing they don't have sex. Give me a break.
On another topic, where's Pat Robertson? We need him to tell us why God is punishing Texas with these fires?
Posted by CG at March 17, 2006 06:19 AMSo, following that logic, any single women seeking contraception is promiscuious? Does that mean if you are seeking contraception aids as a married women, your not?
What year is this and they wheel that old chestnut out? 1926?
Gah.
The only good thing coming out of that action is that I get to read Pandagon and Feminste reach new heights of savage rendering.
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 17, 2006 06:32 AMIt's comforting to know for the 15th year running, the Hibernians who run the parade have said "x-nay on the ay-agays" to participate in the celebration.
Makes you proud doesn't it.
Lord knows we need to keep those Irish fags in the closet.
But I'm not Irish so I'll keep out of it.
Posted by snark at March 17, 2006 07:12 AMSenator Feingold said "I think this actually is in the area of an impeachable offense.
I think it is right in the strike zone of what the founding fathers
thought about when they talked about high crimes and misdemeanors."
He goes higher up my scale of honor as each day goes by.
Has everyone sent him a thank you card? Told all your friends? Posted the campaign on all of the blogs that you frequent?
Next week I will contact the media in Green Bay and Milwaukee to make them aware of the "Thank Russ" campaign so that they can follow-up on how many thank you cards he has received. If there are enough, if enough people have sent them, it will make MSM.
This is the goal.
Umm, how bout those over the counter condoms for unmarried males....does Mr. Phillips *condo(m)ning* that type of male promiscuity? Mr. Phillips what does thou sayeth on that matter?
Why on earth are these republicons are so obsessed about the private sexual lives of people?
Posted by emal at March 17, 2006 07:40 AMWhy on earth are these republicons are so obsessed about the private sexual lives of people?
One word: control.
Posted by ann at March 17, 2006 08:07 AMtoday's thought: Three full years after invading the small country of Iraq without cause, the United States military on the ground is still fighting for its life, requiring armored caravans to travel anywhere, and with the heavily fortified Green Zone the only safe few blocks in the entire country. Our Commander in Chief for this War - George W. Bush.
Posted by T2 at March 17, 2006 08:35 AMWorse than no access to birth control (or as bad; I cannot tell) is the denial of the vaccination against HPV.
HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer. The virus can go undetected with no outward symptoms. Many people are infected and do not know. It is spread via skin to skin contact so a condom does not protect against infection.
The Bu$hCo administration is preventing approval for the vaccine. The premise is that the "fear of getting cancer depletes promiscuity." They need to keep this fear alive.
So they are preventing vaccination and therefore increasing risk of cervical cancer so that they can attempt to keep humans from having sex which is the most natural instinct that we have.
HPV also has a risk of causing penile cancer, but this is much less.
I wonder, if the risk to the male was greater than the risk to the female, would the approval and support for the vaccine be greater?
Posted by Anjha at March 17, 2006 08:39 AMI wonder, if the risk to the male was greater than the risk to the female, would the approval and support for the vaccine be greater?
Of course it would! Just look at the ads - erectile disfunction?
[Loud Fanfare] Viagra and/or Cialis!
And for the women to prevent unwanted pregnancies and not desire to seek an abortion?
[Deafening silence]
Women outnumber men in most societies. One would think that they would figure this out and take charge at some point.
Posted by pessimist at March 17, 2006 08:49 AMHPV also has a risk of causing penile cancer, but this is much less.
I wonder, if the risk to the male was greater than the risk to the female, would the approval and support for the vaccine be greater?
You bet your life!
Not only that. Bob Dole would be doing commercials for it.
Why on earth are these republicons are so obsessed about the private sexual lives of people?
I think they're obssessed with sex in general, but they're fighting with their overdeveloped sense of "morality" as well. So, because they deny themselves the fun of guilt-free sex, they can still think about it, talk about it, dream about it by pretending they're against it, loudly, with relish, and animals...
Women outnumber men in most societies. One would think that they would figure this out and take charge at some point.
Excuse me??? You mean it's women's fault that men want to control them, because they haven't used their supposedly superior numbers to take over the world? You might wanna rethink that statement, there, big guy!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2006 08:53 AMYou mean it's women's fault that men want to control them,...
That's not the sense I got from that pessimists comment.
I'm all for women running the world. But then I'm the submissive type so.
Posted by snark at March 17, 2006 08:58 AMAnjha, there was an article by Michael Spector called Political Science in the New Yorker a couple of weeks back (it's not online, unfortunately) but here's a fabulous quote:
Religious conservatives are unapologetic; not only do they believe that mass use of an HPV vaccine or the availabilty of emeergency contraception will encourage adolescents to engage in unacceptable sexual behavior; some have even stated that they would feel similar about an H.I.V. vaccine, if one became available.
That's right, religious conservatives would oppose vaccines to save people's lives from cancer and AIDS if they could in way shape or form possibly encourage people to have sex.
Posted by ann at March 17, 2006 09:15 AMIt's merely an observation, coyote.
Posted by pessimist at March 17, 2006 09:18 AMThe whole thing as absolutely assanine.
My question was rhetorical; of course if it helped men more than women it would have been marketed a long time ago.
My main point is that humans are animals. Our most base instincts are eat, procreate and survival.
Now, puberty starts earlier. Teens are going to have sex! No matter how much of the fear factor is involved it will not decrease innate base instinct.
Let's do everything that we can to encourage and educate our kids on safe behavior and empowerment.
Telling a girl that she has control of her body and it is her right to say no or to do what is within her comfort level; to empower her is going to have far more effect than fear.
They are doing the opposite.
By disempowering women, taking control away from them when it comes to their bodies, they are increasing risky sexual behavior.
Dumb asses.
Posted by Anjha at March 17, 2006 09:20 AMsnark, I'm sure you're right, and I was half joking. You don't know how many times in the past week I've seen similar comments like that - "if only the women would cross their legs, they wouldn't have to worry about birth control; if only women wouldn't dress provacatively, they wouldn't get raped; if only they wouldn't use their looks to get ahead, they wouldn't be seen as sex objects; if only they would just leave the guy beating them, they'd be okay" etc. from supposed lefties.
pessimist, as it is, numbers mean nothing - look at the radical xtian right. They're a vast minority in this country, and yet, they set the agenda of just about everything because they whine non-stop about being persecuted and they use some cultural norms to trash other cultural norms that they don't like. You could have 50 women in a line, and all it would take is one Pat Roberson with an automatic weapon to take charge, or one stupid white guy as president to keep them in line with 50 other stupid white guys backing him up. As it is, right now, women are in a constant fight over control over their own bodies. How the hell are they supposed to "take over?"
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2006 09:35 AM...if only the women...
It's funny, but god forbid someone suggest that a man not have sex and that's simply anathema.
For a good time, take a look at the comments on Anderson Cooper's 360 blog:
I frankly think this is an entirely bullshit issue, frankly. The keep whining about it being "unfair" to men to have to pay child support for children they didn't want. It will never be "fair" until men can get pregnant. This is simply not an issue of equality.
He was "tricked" into getting her pregnant? He could have abstained, he could have worn a condom, he could have a vasectomy. The only way a man can be "tricked" into fathering a child is if he is very naive and very stupid.
Posted by ann at March 17, 2006 09:44 AMIf birthcontrol medicines are banned for women, how about banning Viagra, Cialis, etc which are suppose to induce a male to function sexually and thus resulting in more sexual activities, resulting in pregnacies?
It is time for women to ask this question to these Republican lawmakers who are making these decisions on their behalf.
Posted by suresh at March 17, 2006 10:01 AMMost women's doctors agree that contraceptives are an important tool of good medical care. "I have a hard time with people who market themselves as women's health care physicians but who won't prescribe such a basic part of women's health care," says Anne Drapkin Lyerly, MD, a reproductive rights ethicist and an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University Medical Center. "We're seeing a growing trend among pharmacists and medical practitioners who consider it acceptable to impose their morality on women's bodies. I don't think moral aspects should be a concern. Imagine a pharmacist asking a customer whether his Viagra prescription is to enhance sexual performance in his marriage or in an extramarital affair. Never!"
He was "tricked" into getting her pregnant? He could have abstained, he could have worn a condom, he could have a vasectomy. The only way a man can be "tricked" into fathering a child is if he is very naive and very stupid.
(all following puns intended)
Add gullibile too while you're at it. He out his trust in her and she abused it. Surprise!
Point is - most of the yahoos who are bitching and whining about Men's Rights are doing so because they're angry & dumb. I've not met a Men's Rights advocate whom I thought was capibile of pounding sand.
We, as a society, do a really freaking lousy job of teaching our children that biology is the way it is, some people will use it to take advantage of you, and that if you have sex, some people - including your partner - may use it against you. This goes for both sexes, especially with Missouri's justifications for revoking state support for contraception of minors and welfare recipients. Society is inherently rigged to punish both men and women for sex. The women are by far the most disadvantaged though.
And this is coming from someone who's got one kid who was adopted out to a family in Michigan, and another in shared custody with his mother. I fume at the money she spends sometimes, and I definately have screamed at the lack of cooperation I've been given to be a parent, but in the end, it's my own damn fault for fucking someone whom my rational brain told me was dangerous.
The problem is that dangerous is awfully good turn on - especially when you're horny already and young and stupid.
There ain't no freaking justice in most of these cases, including mine, but I'm at a loss to see how to the fix the system. It's better than it has been in providing at least an absolute minimum of support for the children born in divided-parent families.
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 17, 2006 10:15 AMWhen did sex become sinful anyway?? Christianity rose out of Judaism, and in Judaism, sex is holy and beautiful. When did the Christians f*ck that up? I'm sick of these pharmacists who judge your medication. Sick of legislators who are letting them get away with it. This country is getting truly creepy.
Posted by CG at March 17, 2006 11:26 AMOperation Duping Media ! h/t to Americablog, Atrios...where I first read about the story.
Posted by emal at March 17, 2006 11:29 AMFrom the article posted by ann about pharmacists not dispensing birth control pills because they think it's causing fertilized eggs to not be able to implant, which in their minds is an abortion:
Surprisingly, there's no science to back the theory that birth control pills really do discourage implantation.
Surprisingly? Surprising that the Christian right is using made up facts to support their argument? Maybe the pill does discourage implantation, who knows, who cares. But they argue that because it does--a completely unsupported claim--they won't give out BC pills. Hey, get another job you idiot. Maybe I should become a pharmacist and decide that I don't think it's right to drug your kid up on Ritalin, so I won't give it to you. Or I won't give you prenatal vitamins because I don't think you're a fit parent, so you shouldn't be having kids. Or I think steroids shouldn't be given out because of course people only use them to bulk up, which isn't a good reason. Geez.
Posted by CG at March 17, 2006 11:31 AMCG, sex became sinful when early humans realized that sex is what causes babies, and that babies can be traced to one man. If that man had property, he didn't want some other man's child to inherit it, or his title, so he had to have some way to make sure that kid in the woman was his. What better way to do that than keep the woman's sexuality locked up? It was easier if there was a social stigma attached to it, and the best stigma is always divine judgement. Keeps people in line every time.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2006 12:10 PMInteresting, thanks. But for Christians (some at least) even sex between married couples isn't really supposed to be enjoyed. This is NOT true in Judaism. In Judaism, the man is required to please his wife :).
Posted by CG at March 17, 2006 12:19 PMObviously, there's way more to it than that, but it's one of the reasons women are just buckets full o' sin. Another had to do with the rise of the guilds in Europe; the "barbers" were in direct competition with the midwives and herbalists, occupations women dominated by default. They didn't want women in the guilds, so they started the witch hunts to get rid of the town's wise woman (usually single and alone - so there was no one to speak up for her). As usual, it all revolves around money. One of the ways of knowing a woman was a witch was her ability to have multiple orgasms. This was considered a sign of the devil (as opposed to a man's inadequacy, natch). What better way to get rid of the competition than to have her hanging from a gibbet at the town gate?
My ex is a born again, and he's said on many occasions that xtians are supposed to suffer in this life. That goes along with the persecution complex most of these godbots have - if they're suffering (persecuted) then they must be closer to god. The more obnoxious they become, the more they're marginalized, the more suffering occurs, the more godly they are. Pretty sick fucks, if you ask me.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2006 12:41 PMAnd how do you feel that Buddist thought first acknowledges that life is suffering, Coyote?
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 17, 2006 01:11 PMI'm more Hobbsian in my philosophy - life is nasty, brutish, and short. Enjoy it while you can!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2006 01:44 PMMy ex is a born again, and he's said...
Always thought you were a guy. Are you female, or a gay man? Just curious. I have a habit of assuming most on here are men unless they have female names. Bad habit, I know. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a woman for anyone who didn't know.
Posted by CG at March 17, 2006 02:43 PMI'm a chick who talks like a guy - hence the confusion. I haven't tried to fool people; once you get to a certain age, you no longer feel compelled to be nice, sweet and try to make people like you. But it's fun to see how attitudes change once it's known. One troll immediately started in with violent sexual innuendo, really creepy. Why does being fooled by someone's gender elicit that kind of a response, I wonder? I had a male crossdressing friend tell me he was gang raped when his "friends" found out. People are freaking sick!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2006 03:06 PMI'm a chick who talks like a guy
Lol coyote. Thanks. Anyone else care to share their gender?
Posted by CG at March 17, 2006 03:15 PMInteresting, thanks. But for Christians (some at least) even sex between married couples isn't really supposed to be enjoyed. This is NOT true in Judaism. In Judaism, the man is required to please his wife :).
Posted by CG at March 17, 2006 12:19 PM
OK, I had already volunteered to be Feingold's First Lady; that cinches it.
Did everyone here demand that this ass apologize to my new fantasy Feingold?
Posted by Anjha at March 17, 2006 04:14 PMObviously I am going through my email; there is more to sign.
Please sign here to save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge again.
Posted by Anjha at March 17, 2006 04:18 PM
OK, I had already volunteered to be Feingold's First Lady; that cinches it.
Anjha, hands off my man!
Posted by ann at March 17, 2006 04:35 PM"Umm, how bout those over the counter condoms for unmarried males....does Mr. Phillips *condo(m)ning* that type of male promiscuity? Mr. Phillips what does thou sayeth on that matter?"
Emal, excellent point and an even better question.
"Why on earth are these republicons are so obsessed about the private sexual lives of people?"
Because they are getting any.
Posted by Judith at March 17, 2006 04:48 PM
Anjha, hands off my man!
Posted by ann at March 17, 2006 04:35 PM
Guess it depends on who looks best to get him elected, eh? (And, we do have the little problem with me being married and all...)
Do you think a single guy could get elected? I'm sure Rove and Co would start a rumor that he's gay. Unless of course he's running against Condi.
Posted by CG at March 17, 2006 05:11 PMCG, the pill prevents ovulation, that's all it does. A women can't get pregnant if she doesn't ovulate. Those who say otherwise are full of crap.
Posted by Judith at March 17, 2006 05:14 PM"I'm a chick who talks like a guy,"
Iamcoyote and I are sisters. LOL
Yeah Iamcoyote, you reach a certain age and you don't give a fuck what people think. I was raised to be sweet and never use foul language. Look at me now.
The Rude Pundit's more my speed, but if Russ played his cards right, I could be persuaded to initiate a discussion on how he's going to ensure that I have complete autonomy over my body if he becomes president, so that no one can ever say what I can and can't do within the confines of my own space.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2006 05:39 PMJudith, I was just saying that some people believe in this "post-fertilization" affect of the pill, even though there is no evidence for it. I don't care one way or another. I was pointing out that Christians, as usual, are claiming something that has no scientific basis. What a surprise. I can't complain too much though--I believe in homeopathy.
Judith and iamcoyote--how old are you guys? Just wondering if I've reached the age where I'm not supposed to care what other people think!
Posted by CG at March 17, 2006 06:11 PMAnd another thought on this subject--there are anti-abortion people who use IVF. At some point, most of them destroy the extra embryos they didn't use. This is no different than preventing implantation. I'm wondering if the people who do that are against BC pills and the morning after pill, or if people who are truly against those medicines don't do IVF. And will these phamacists stop handing out the medicine that makes you ovulate more in preparation for IVF because you're bound to destroy some embryos in somewhere along the line?
Posted by Cg at March 17, 2006 06:13 PMWho was the last single guy to get elected?
Seems there needs to be some Jackie O on every candidates arm. (I always thought that Jackie O was not that pretty. Some pics made her look so, but I really did not care for her look. Yet, she was high-bred or some such shit that made her desirable.)
So - I think that it is a reasonable question, can a single guy get elected?
I think it is dumb; but the American electorate seems to be pretty dumb.
Why can a candidate not get elected based on merit? Convictions? Strength? Integrity?
Feingold is the only Dem who I have seen who has really come forth with true conviction. Hutzbha!
He's got it.
Gore's last big speech showed it too. In 2000 he was too soft (obviously some advisor gave bad advice.) I like Gore's environmental work...but does he really have it in him to tell the truth and speak from his gut if he is running?
Edwards has that nice soft southern thing goin' for him. People seem to like that. I don't. However, I like Edwards fight against poverty. I think that he sincerely has a good heart.
Feingold, again, is the only person who I have seen speaking truth about the Constitution. Feingold respects the rule of law and what makes America - America. Feingold speaks the truth and he is not afraid. He fights like hell for the rule of law.
I think that Feingcold has the courage to tell the "political advisors" to go fuck themselves while he runs a campaign based on truth.
I am ready for truth with none of the pretty packaging that advisors call for.
Is the rest of the electorate? And a man with no wife, which seems like such a ridiculous prospect because so many have no respect for women as a whole (only as a hole) to begin with.
Posted by Anjha at March 17, 2006 06:14 PMI've known plenty of people in my life where birth control should have been court ordered. However, I do not advocate control over a woman's body in that direction any more than I do in the other direction: forced incubation.
Listen, it has nothing to do with the fetus. Absofuckinglutely nothing.
If these anti-abortion people had any concern for babies or children then they would advocate family planning, pre-natal care for the poor, social services, health care for all children, subsidized housing, school lunches, education, before and afterschool programs, daycare, headstart, the list goes on and on.
They only want to control women. Period. (Hopefully lack of one so that the men can increase their seed all over the fucking planet and women can be stuck raising the brood with few options for their lives. Eeww, this really is how they think.)
Posted by Anjha at March 17, 2006 06:30 PMCG, I'll be 46 in July, but you can stop conforming to the gender role defined by society any time you want. No one ever makes the ideal, anyhow, no matter how much plastic surgery they get. It's all I can do to keep this body moving, without having to worry about the paint job 24/7.
Anjha, they want to maintain the status quo solidified over centuries of reinforced cultural norms. One of those norms is the idea that women are willing to give up autonomy for male "protection" from, what do you know, other men. If women are able to take care of themselves, men are essentially "out of a job" and rendered useless in their own minds. Why they can't see it as a relief is the simple fact that for taking the responsibility, it is assumed they are given control, and that is what makes it all worthwhile. As more women are able to take care of themselves better financially, they only "protection" men supposedly have left to offer is physically. Which is why a lot of fundies describe their efforts against abortion in terms of "protection." That's still a powerful concept to both men and women when it comes to pregnancy; to persuade people, you have to have keywords that resonate emotionally as well as intellectually. The fundies have really become sophisticated in this technique, which is why we have to keep fighting every generation for basic rights.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2006 06:59 PMCG, I am 64, so I remember very well the days of abortion being illegal. Anjha and Iamcoyote are right. It is all about control.
How old are you CG? Regardless of age, one should always dance to their own music. I learned a long time ago that I can't please everyone, and some people are just not going to like me (as cute as I think I am ;). Therefore, I am not a pleaser. That's my philosophy.
Posted by Judith at March 17, 2006 08:39 PMIt's 12:10 am so I'm now 43 years and 10 minutes old. And I'm tired. G'night all!
Posted by Sharon at March 17, 2006 09:13 PMHappy Birthday, Sharon, and best wishes!!
I'm 40. I've never been too worried about what people think, but I'm not a fan of outright confrontation either, so both online and in real life, I try to treat people with respect, whether I actually have respect for them or not. Not saying you guys don't. I haven't paid enough attention one way or another to notice. Most of my friends inform me that I'm blunt. I say what I think. I've never thought of myself as blunt, but I've been told that by so many different people, I guess it must be true. I think what it really is, is that I'm not easily offended, so I assume others aren't either, and then I might say something that isn't put as nicely as it could be.
Posted by CG at March 18, 2006 07:23 AMSHARON, HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU.
Posted by Judith at March 18, 2006 07:41 AMCG, blunt is okay.
Posted by Judith at March 18, 2006 07:48 AMHappy Birthday, Sharon! CG, blunt is nothing; I've been told that I can be caustic at times! Can you imagine? Me, caustic? Where'd she get that idea? Heh.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 18, 2006 08:17 AMWell, my older sisters used to tell me I'm so SENSITIVE (since they were brutal, and even that comment was an insult) that I'm careful what I say to others, and now that we're all older, they've learned to be nicer. I don't think I've changed but maybe I have.
Thanks for the b-day greetings.
Posted by Sharon at March 18, 2006 09:21 AMIamcoyote, "caustic"? Tell me it an't so. LOL
I've been told that diplomacy is not my strongest attribute. No wonder we all like one another.
Posted by Judith at March 18, 2006 10:28 AMInteresting. I've also been told I'm diplomatic. Blunt, yet diplomatic. Go figure. Happy Birthday Sharon! Nothing wrong with being careful as long as you're not saying stuff you don't mean. A friend of mine and I have a joke. If you can't say something nice, say something obvious. It comes from a comment I made to her 20 yrs ago when she got her haircut. Wow--it's short!
Posted by CG at March 18, 2006 12:41 PMOh Yeah, I do that obvious speak and people think what they want. "Oh, new boots huh?" when someone wore these really UGly snakeskin things. I almost laughed when she said "thank you." I just smiled.
Posted by at March 18, 2006 01:17 PM