Rant Opinion Page
Name: David Roper
City: Panama City
Comments: You know, I think you hit a lot of the problem on the head. I'm 41 and was raised middleclass military family. I have traveled all over the US and two overseas countries. I was raised to respect authority figures. I grewup watching violance on tv and in the news and wound up going into Police work. I seem to have turned out ok.
I have three kids that have been raised around all types of weapons and have raised them with the same values I was raised with. They have all turned out to be good kids. But when they needed a spanking for what ever reason they got it. Not beaten, Not abused, but corrected. I think that if more parents went back to the old forms of raising kids we would be better off.
If you will do a correlation to when the problems with kids and crime started I think you will find it realy got bad when the governmental agencies starting locking people up for just trying to teach their kids right from wrong. A human being is just another animal and nedds to be tought and trained just as any other domesticated animal is trained. If your pet dog craps on the floor you don't tell him to set in a chair and take time out, No you tell him no and wak him with a paper and after several times he learns that his shitting in the floor gets him a wak so he stops making piles.
I'll shut up,
Date: Friday, July 17, 1998 at 11:32:22 (EDT)
Name: Luiz Antonio Augusto de Oliveira
City: Săo Paulo
HELLO FRIENDS !
GREAT SUBJECT !!
My question is: WHAY GUNS ?
If all the guns industries close their doors and the governament pays for the guns at home ( LIKE AUSTRALIA ), maybe this world ...
Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 at 03:44:05 (EDT)
Name: Robert F. Osterhout
City: Coral Springs
Comments: I do not beleive that the majority of these 'killer kids' are anything but angry,mean,and without an understanding of the conquinces of their actions. It is important that they be punished as an example to other kids.
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 at 23:25:35 (EDT)
Comments: Well lets start off by saying I've worked the last 8 years with the worse that santa ana, gangland usa, has had to offer
I work with the Juvenile Justice system here and have seen the nicest kids you would ever expect to meet with the worse rap sheets.
It seems here we have a major meltdown in the system. Where you get the gentlest of slaps on the wrists for your first offense
a system where they're to concerned about the juvenile justice commission to actually show any signs of punishment within the Juvenile Hall system
Some of the inmates actually like it better within then at home committing crimes within the system just to stay locked up. 3 square meals on the table
no sexual abuse and no worries about bullets flying the only thing lacking is their drugs ...
You have children without guidence seeking something/someplace to belong. a gang is an instant sense of acceptance, a source of respect and a wealth of drugs and
girls. money comes into play also where you can earn $5 an hour at del taco or a couple hundred on the street
i've talked to many that want out, that see the wrongs of their ways but feel that the corner they live on is the whole world and there's no escaping it's harsh realities
It's a sad situation to work in let me tell you lots of fustrations and very little sense of accomplishment but every so often you will actually touch a kids mind and see
the realization inside his head and know that it's all worth while. then there's the rest left to rot within the system not trying to get out or who have no hope whatsoever of
getting out. we recently sentenced a 14 year old away for life without parole as an adult never to taste freedom again
but if you heard what he did without remorse of any kind you would see that he deserved it. the governer is trying to pass a bill to execute 14 year olds and it too will pass I
But this is the harsh realities of the world we live in today where children are playing cops and robbers but with real guns
there is no solution but harsh criminalization of any sort of gang behavior
look at mtv where gangster thugs are immortalized
what example does that set for the youth of today?
well off to bed got to work 16 hours in the morning with the lost children
thanks for the area to rant and rave for a few
It's more of a summer camp to most then a prison.
Date: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 at 01:29:52 (EDT)
Name: jimmy napier
Comments: really enjoyed rant & rave .
perhaps kids get used to acting out things on computer
games then when things get tough just hit reset its
all so easy. just a thought.
Date: Friday, July 03, 1998 at 22:20:13 (EDT)
Date: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 at 15:18:28 (EDT)
Name: Tom Vella-Zarb
Comments: My gut feeling about guns is that they are too darned easily obtainable especially in the U.S.A. Having the right to bear arms to defend oneself and to defend one's country is one thing, but becoming trigger happy is another. As the cliche goes, it is not guns that kill people, it is people. As one learns and knows how to use a knife normally - to prepare food and to eat, so one should know how to use and handle a gun properly , e.g. hunting in the proper season at the proper places and bagging the legal quarry, and NOT to just aim at anybody and pull the trigger. The normal family of my growing up days has become the abnormal one. Too many of the younger set are now "latchkey kids" as I used to refer to them when I was teaching. They may have only one available parent, and they rarely get to see them at that. The parent has to make a living and at times does not get to be with his or her own kids for any considerable time. the kid becomes a tv addict. Several of the tv shows glorify violence, use of guns, drugs, sex, and the like, so what the heck is a kid to do. TV is the modern teacher, parent, rabbi, priest, guru, and mentor for the modern kid. I am not blaming tv in general, but some of the tv producers have straw for brains when it comes to producing a good wholesome show. They can only think of the dollars and push out garbaga as fast as they can yell, camera, action.
That's my two bits worth.
Date: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 at 11:37:06 (EDT)
Comments: Remo and Laura,
It was simply refreshing not to hear someone blame the "gun" as the reason kids perform these terrible acts. And that more laws need to be passed on legal gun owners to prevent these atrocious acts. (Knee jerk legislation.) I for one believe there is "evil" in this world and that sometimes this evil simply comes from a "bad" genetic seed at birth. Behavioral sciences are probably the most inaccurate, misunderstood. and unscientific of the sciences, so trying to come up with a formula to forcast human behavior (in my opinion) is laughable. Great kids come from terrible homes and terrible kids come from great homes. Happens all the time. Perhaps there are genetic variables that are "catalized" by whatever reason and hence a behavior developes. Now I am not talking about mental disorders, but of norman behaviors that grow into a personal individual perversion. (ex. anger + agression + rage + gene + catalyst => assault.) Ever have a really bad day? Well couple that with some genetic amplifying factor, an over active immagination, and normal amount of human anger and agression and what do you get? Who knows? Depends on the individual doesn't it? As far as I am concerned you might as well try to forcast the flight of a butterfly as to try to predict human behavior. Psychology is the alchemy of the mind. There are many beliefs, there are descrete facts and constants, but as to how they interact or factor in with each other is nearly completely unknown. Yes we can make basic correlations in behavior, but to think we can come up with some unifying set of factors or behavior modifications that will change or eliminate a certain behavior of "ALL" kids and prevent further irrational acts (like shooting innocent classmates)- now that is crazy thinking. Actually, that comes under the category of "PollyAnna - Pie in the Sky - Utopian - Pea Brained Logic. There are some places where 1 + 1 simply does not make 2, and the human mind is very much one of those places, in more than one respect. Maybe someday we will have a scientific knowledge base great enough so that we may be able to understand behavior. And, if this happens, at that point, "perhaps", we will be wise enough to "guide" people and pass laws which may be truely effective. (A great example of how disillusioned we are about ourselves and our behaviour is how we treat people who have a drinking problem or addiction? We label them as alcholics and profess that they have a disease. Ha ha! How sick is that? That there is a "disease" that causes one to lift a glass containing alchol to ones mouth. Wow, that is one fantastic disease - NOT! Alcoholism is a physical and mental addiction, a developed "behavior" that one submits to, pure and simple. But lobbiests have made alcoholism is a political issue. The politicians, the doctors, the insurance companies, the lawyers, the treatment centers and the addicits all benefit by alcoholism being considered a disease rather then a bad or weak behavior of the individual. And so for many political reasons alcoholism is classified as a disease. It is unfortunate when politics dictate what is considered truth, rather then just basing policy on what is the truth. But what a terrible thought; holding "weak" people responsible for their actions. For shame.... for shame.... Oh the humanity! But all this is really another topic that I just used as an example of how we incorrectly preceive behavior and make "bad" law according to that perception. Oh, by the way, if you believe that alcoholism is a disease, congratulations, I will award you a diploma for "Dr. of Propoganda Ingestion".) Sorry, I some of my thoughts are not fully developed but this is a off the top of my head rant. Been fun venting. Thanks.
Date: Monday, June 29, 1998 at 05:20:53 (EDT)
Name: Perfect Strangers
Comments: Response to below response:
It's the parent's job to understand, not mine. It's too bad the oregon kid killed the only two people that COULD be on his side without being paid to do so. Not caring about understanding why these brats kill people does NOT promote the behavior of these SICK wastes of air and space. I'm tired of the responsibility being shifted to abstract and indirect sources. These brats snuff out promising lives, other peoples' CHILDREN, and our focus is on WHAT? Why did he do it? What in society caused him to do it? I'm saying that after the fact, I don't give a rat's A** why. What good is that kid to us in the future? Do you think he's going to come out in 15 years a good and wholesome person?
For the purpose of prevention, sure understanding would be nice. But the most we can do is speculate. A LOT of children have been raised in broken homes, key under the doormat, hang with the wrong crowd. They don't lose their cool and kill people. While instability and societal values contribute to the mix, it takes a special someone to murder a prayer group. I think that when the wrong personality is raised with a batch of the wrong stimuli, that's when a poisonous mix occurs.
Date: Saturday, June 27, 1998 at 11:38:24 (EDT)
Name: Steve Giles
Comments: Laura, while I agree with the bit you wrote in the last paragraph about society using mental illness to separate itself from the tragedy in question, not caring about "understanding what was wrong with those brats" is an attidtude that promotes the very behavior you wish to see quashed, and discouraging understanding cvan be equivalent to discouraging a solution. By understanding these kids we can see a better picture of where the nation's youth are headed and we can try to see what the problem UNDERNEATH the violent actions IS. I think Remo is close to the mark when he says the youths feel ignored. If you combine the ignored feeling w/ the self-centered ones, you have a child who rules his own universe and thinks no one else cares about it, which is a recipe for disaster. To solve the problem would require a change in the lifestyle of people around the country, and that isn't feasible. People can't work less and survive while 2% of the U.S population holds 99% of it's money. I'm getting off topic here, but I think I've clearly illustrated my point. Thanks for the entertaining essays!
Date: Thursday, June 25, 1998 at 10:40:49 (EDT)
Comments: But why? Because kids, no matter what their socio-economic level. don't get from their parents the love, support and caring they need. Why? Because their parents dont have it within themselves to give it to them! The "Children of the 60's" made a choice to be selfish and self centered. Drugs are fun, "free love", fighting for "just" causes", etc. was satisfying then. But look at them today. Most are divorced (and for any reason), on Prozac, lonely, still looking for a cause, and still selfish seeking financial gain or status or "THE" relationship. They are empty people. And what have they taught their kids, or rather what have their kids learned from them? Think of yourself first, drugs are fun, sex is fun, divorce is normal, "causes" are more important than you. Screwing up their lives is their choice/right. But when they had kids they became responsable TO them not just for them. Children need emotional and spiritual nuturing and they're not getting it from the ones who are supposed to give it to them. But a generation chose to be, and still are, self absorbed and now the entire society suffers because of them. Only when they stop pointing at politicains, religion, etc and admitt that THEY are responsable for most of society's problems can there be any change. That's why there are headlines today: "Kid kills people".
Date: Thursday, June 18, 1998 at 15:21:30 (EDT)
Name: Steve McCleary
City: cedar rapids
Comments: I am in total agreement with Remo, even though I was a latchkey; however my grandmother was always there. these little nimrods have a problem with reality vs movies. the trouble is they're putting them in criminal college (jail), and *will* turn them loose when they're 21. now, that scares me, and it should scare all of society.
Date: Thursday, June 18, 1998 at 11:59:17 (EDT)
Comments: I fully agree with Laura...I think it's a problem throughout our society that no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.
PS...love your webcam!!
Date: Thursday, June 18, 1998 at 11:36:54 (EDT)
Name: Gwen Butler
Email: <Amooozing@msn.com >
Comments: I think you have both hit the situation pretty much on the head, with a couple of exceptions. One thing that isn't being done today, is parents being allowed to discipline their children. Thank goodness mine are grown, because I really do believe that a spanking (not a beating) never hurt any kid. It didn't hurt me, and it didn't hurt my kids. In fact, in recent years they have both said that they are greatful for the way they were raised with both plenty of love and plenty of discipline. We hear so much about child abuse and I will be the first to admit that it does exist, but spanking a child with a hand or a small wooden spoon (so you have a little reach) is definitely not abuse. The right to discipline children has been taken away from both the parent and the schools. I got my rear paddled at school once (didn't deserve it THAT TIME) but it didn't kill me. Most parents work because they HAVE to. They don't, for the most part, both work because they want to. Not everyone has a parent that is highly paid. Most of us work for family wages, and without both parents working, it would be very difficult just to meet the necessities of life, let alone any of the extras. As for all the single parents, my feeling is that people just don't work at marriage anymore. You are never going to agree 100% of the time with your mate; you are never going to agree 100% of the time with anyone. It seems like divorce must be an awfully easy out these days....I really don't know....we've been married for 36 years, and don't plan to change that! As you can see by my home town, I'm just across a bridge from Springfield where the terrible shootings happened. I do not know anyone personally involved (except for one guy who helped to direct traffic and tell parents where to pick up their kids.....plus a family member handling 911 calls) but the incident has deeply affected everyone in this area, because of all the schools here, this one would probably have been the last one that anyone would think it would happen at.
It think with the exception of the couple of things I mentioned, you both have hit the problem right on the head. One further thought, kids today don't really seem to grasp the difference between pretend and reality! When the Ninja Turtles were hot, kids were trying to pry up manhole covers for crying out loud. What are the modern parents teaching their kids?
Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 at 21:29:32 (EDT)
Name: R. Sheffield
Comments: The things going on now are NOTHING compared to
what it's going to be like in 10 years.
As long as the population continues to grow,
things are just going to go as thay have been.
There will be no hope that anything will get better
or for that matter, even stay the same.
Almost anything you can think of that people as a whole
look at as " What the hell is going on " could be "fixed"
if the amount of people per square inch on the earth
was cut in half.
There are just so many people, how could whats going on
in the world, not be.
Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 at 19:44:59 (EDT)
Name: Prairie Dog
Comments: I am watching you!
Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 at 19:37:15 (EDT)
Comments: You express yourself very well. I on the other hand am not so grammer gifted. What you said is pretty much what i have been saying for years. My main explaination for these brats (very nice term...) is the erosion of the general morals of the U.S. population. Kids today are given too much; they lack the basic understanding of EARNING what they have. Thus leading to the assumption that they can and should have anything they want. Since these same parents also fail to explain other moral norms, these kids go psyco when they don't get what they want. They then strike out with as much violince as they can achieve which, with todays technology, can be very devistating and easily available. They are at best just ignorant and at worst just don't give a crap. In short, if you cannot do it right, do not have kids. Well, that's my wad for today. I gatta sleep now.
Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 at 19:17:54 (EDT)
Comments: The only things wrong with spring fever is that I still have to work (not enough vacation time to take the entire season off) and it tends to get to hot and humid here to enjoy the last month of it.
The best thing about spring, women just look better for some reason pudge or no pudge.
Date: Saturday, June 06, 1998 at 00:04:50 (EDT)
Name: Harry Jackson
Comments: Hey... You guys get spring fever in May?????
Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 19:40:39 (EDT)
Comments: This is to Laura , who gives me a good reason to check the CAM everyday.
I am on site at a Gov. contract.
I say this one more time,
Laura you are Fantastic, I would love hearing from you.
Date: Monday, June 01, 1998 at 13:21:23 (EDT)
Comments: very god .........................
Date: Monday, May 25, 1998 at 10:06:44 (EDT)
Comments: Hey!!! Where's the MAY Rant???? huh???
Date: Sunday, May 17, 1998 at 19:23:28 (EDT)
Name: Harry Chapin
Comments: I'd have a longer comment.. but... It's SPRING!!!!
Date: Sunday, May 17, 1998 at 18:27:15 (EDT)
Name: John Clifford
Comments: My opinion on abortion has changed over the years. When I was younger, I was definitely pro-choice. I didn't really think about the status of the unborn fetus... only about how having a child at an early age would screw my life up. I think that everyone who is pro-choice feels that way for this reason... they believe that abortion is a viable alternative to having to handle the responsibility of a child. Is it, or is that just a selfish way of looking at abortion?
I am now pro-life, and I support abortion ONLY for when it is medically required to save the life of the mother. I have come to this conclusion after a lot of pondering, and I believe that everyone would agree that how one stands on the abortion question depends on when one feels that human life begins. Nearly everyone would agree that actively acting to end a one-minute-old baby's life would be murder (I have talked to SOME people who think that it wouldn't be!), so this begs the question: if the baby is aborted one minute BEFORE it is born is that murder? If so, then is there ever a time during term where abortion is murder, yet one minute before that time it isn't? I don't think so. (If one minute before ISN'T murder, then why not? What is so magical about passing through the birth canal... and are children who are delivered by cesaerean accordingly not considered to be human?)
Some people say that the line between abortion and murder is at the moment of fetal viability. Of course, advances in medicine push this moment further and further back towards conception. It is not unrealistic to expect to see us develop the technology to grow a human from unfertilized egg to zygote to fetus to viable baby COMPLETELY outside the human body within the next century. Then, when will we be able to draw the line between legitimate termination and murder? Could the lab take a 6-month old fetus growing in their apparatus and perform a vivisection while it was alive to harvest the organs? Could they set up an organ farm, deliberately stunting the brains to inhibit development and keeping the organisms in a coma for years until the organs were ready for harvest?
Along the viability lines, people also argue that since the fetus is dependent upon the host mother for substenance, then she has the right to say, "No" and refuse to provide further substenance. I would agree that a woman has a right to refuse to offer a 'docking' to a fertilized egg via birth control -- and that is a passive act. However, once the egg is 'docked' then 'undocking' it via abortion -- an active act -- would result in its death. We should look at this in the same vein that we would look at a parent's refusal to care for a newborn child who subsequently dies... or a hospital that unplugs a person with brain activity or that turns off an artificial lung for a person who is permanently paralyzed. Actually, the fetus WILL develop into a normal and fully functional human being, unlike the two hospital cases, and so we KNOW that 'undocking' will result in the death of what would otherwise eventually become a normal and healthy human being.
Please note that I distinguish between MURDER, the UNJUSTIFIED taking of a human life, and KILLING, the taking of a life that may or may not be justified. Sometimes killing is justified (morally right). Murder is NEVER justified. To me, the question is properly reduced to an ethical level: abortion is legal when the killing is not murder. It is well-accepted that one may legitimately refuse to save another when the process of that saving will result in one's death (if you are holding someone who has fallen off a bridge, and you either let go or fall to your death, then letting go is not murder). It is not well-accepted that one may place one's convenience or temporary health above that of another's life (if you are holding someone who has fallen off of a bridge, and you are late for a dinner date, letting go in order to prevent tardiness would be considered murder). Abortion is legitimate ONLY when continued pregnancy would be reasonably likely to cause death or serious and permanent bodily harm to the mother.
The harder (for some) question is: should the government be involved in the abortion issue? I think it should. Legitimate government exists to protect individual rights from unjustified infringement by others. If one believes that the fetus is endowed with all of the inalienable rights that those of us who are breathing air on our own efforts are, then protection of the fetus' rights is a proper responsibility of the government.
We get on a slippery slope when we start to make value judgements as to the temporary quality of a mother's life being more important than the life itself of the unborn child. Could we also not claim with equal validity that the temporary quality of a mother's (or family's) life is more important than the life of a bed-ridden but otherwise normal elderly person... or a retarded child? And, if it is ethically okay for a doctor to end a fetus' life (with the mother's permission), is it ethically okay for a doctor to help the mother end her own life? How about having the doctor end the bed-ridden person's life at the behest of the person paying the bills?
Abortion cheapens the value of life. How can we be surprised when a high school couple delivers their baby in a motel room and then stuffs it in a trash can, when if they just had a sterile probe and the proper training then they could have legally performed a late term partial-birth abortion?
I don't want to punish those who have had abortions, nor do I want to make them pariahs. I came to my viewpoint more than a decade ago, when I thought I might be faced with the possibility of having to deal with an abortion. I decided then that the ONLY reason I could find for one was because I was not yet married... and I knew that the temporary hardship and embarrassment was a cowardly reason for ending a child's life. I decided against it, and I thank God I did not have to face that decision.
Date: Thursday, April 30, 1998 at 03:33:58 (MDT)
Comments: Spring & Brewskis!!
Spring is definitely stupid-making, and wonderful. Being from the far north our spring rituals are different from the sunny south.
We clean the winter roadkill off the pickup's bumper, clean the grunge out of the lawn mower's carb and start it, pack away the winterstyle garmentry, unpack the slightly less heavy summerwear (woollen bathing suits w/long legs, blowthrough ball caps, short sleeve turtlenecks, and the non-flannel sheets.
On the pet side of things we can finally air out and wash the stuffed cat, round up the goats that overwintered in the basement, and return the field mice babies to the back yard so the cats can munch on 'em.
And for the power freaks, the vroom-vroom guys, the snow tires come off and the Mickey Thompsons go back on. Lube up the unused window cranks, and clean the empty rye bottles out of the truck box. Time to start making room for the beer cans.
So now we in the frosty north are set for summer, too. The roads will soon stop frost heaving, and we can get to gravel running with good friends and better brewskis.
Enjoy your summer, and never let it be said that all the rednecks say y'all.
Ah ... spring fever! We are twice blessed, spring & beer.
Date: Saturday, April 25, 1998 at 08:05:27 (MDT)
Name: Tim Robinson
City: Owen Sound
Comments: I think that your rant is so well put together!!
Date: Friday, April 24, 1998 at 11:27:04 (MDT)
Name: Jim B
Comments: Laura and Remo, what can I say? Both of you are very good writers and i enjoy reading your opinions. And yes, spring fever is very hard to address until the AC starts feeling really good.
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 at 13:09:41 (MDT)
City: Ft. Lauderdale
Comments: Laura & Remo:
Ahhhh, Spring time again!! As the warm air circulates outside of MY stale, stuffy, over-air-conditioned office I can surely relate to Laura's views.. If only I had the guts to pack my shorts in my briefcase and don a little oil on MY lunch hour.. As for Remo - I'll see ya in the smoking pit!! Congrats.. another fine Rant!!
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at 19:58:08 (MDT)
City: Myrtle Beach
Comments: I just have a small comment about these radical "pro-lifers" if you will. Before I make this small comment i just want to say (for all the people that dont' think before they mail) that this does not apply to all pro-lifers, just the radical ones. It's one thing to have your own opinion on a subject, but to enforce that opinion with violent acts is another thing. Now here is my comment. These so called "pro-lifers" are the ones that bomb the abortion clinics. Ummm, you just defeated the whole purpose. How can they possibly call themselves pro-lifers when they kill abortion clinic workers? They are killing too. What a bunch of hypocritical people. If you are wondering on my view of Abortion, it is Pro-Choice, in certain cases. I tend to turn to pro-life when the same people have abortions over and over again. It's not a form of child birth. It's a last resort. If someone already this stuff, sorry for being redundant, i didn't have time to read all the submissions.
Thanks for the cool page!
Date: Thursday, April 09, 1998 at 20:58:53 (MDT)
Comments: All I have to say is Pro LIFE!!!!!! no one has the right to kill
Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 at 21:03:19 (MDT)
Name: Brian W. Cole
City: W. Hartland
Comments: Abortion is one issue I do not see myself reversing views on.
I am pro-life. I consider life to begin at conception. With
that view, contraceptives which prevent implantation of fert
-ilized eggs would have to be ruled out. That's problematic
for me. My pro-life beliefs extend to all humans, not just
the unborn. With those views, discussion of euthanasia and
the death penalty become non-issues; no euthanasia, no death
sentences. There is more leeway for change in my views
against euthanasia or the death penalty than against
abortion. I can accept abortion in "life or death"
While I believe many decisions could best made locally, my
experience indicates small groups can botch things up just
as mightily sd the federal government. Local groups often put
self-interest before accountability to the community needs,
the law, or future planning.
We are certainly a society which doesn't want to be incon-
venienced. Image becomes more critical to success than
substance. That's our culture. However much homage to ideals
of democracy we think we pay, we don't seem to be able to
uphold them. We do indeed have agendas, which aren't spoken
The horrors of illegal abortion have prompted us to
abandon consideration for the unborn. What value are these
thoughts we feed children about "ruining" their lives by
becoming pregnant. It is true that life will change. We
should be more accountable for our actions. That does not
mean a person ought to be an outcast for becoming pregnant.
I do not understand how, even at the personal level, we fail
to equate having sex with the likelyhood of pregnancy,
contraceptives or not.
Remo, you waffle on this one. Abortion is an extraordinary
situation, not easily hashed out. Glad you did your rant.
I was most puzzled by my small town minister's bumper stick-
er, which read "Pro-choice, prayerfully." The consistency I
expect from my religion is not there on this issue. I view
religion rather cynically. It seems to be in place for
solace for our hardships or our inhumanity to others, not
for true moral growth.
Laura, I so agree with your feelings on abortion. I don't
agree with your solution and don't understand your insertion
of viewpoints on prayer in school in your rant.
Pretty fine to see this page. Don't think I'll ever be more
than a casual visitor. Hope I revisit enough to learn more
about your site.
Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 at 07:17:31 (MDT)
City: Ft. Lauderdale
Comments: Laura and Remo;
Excellent RANT! Makes me remember a time in my life that my wife and I had to make a decision also.. Today I'm glad we made the choice we did and we have a beautiful, smart, a nd extremely talented young boy because of it. We made it up to the door of a clinic and decided that we loved each other too much and loved life too much to take it away from our unborn child. He became our second child and the reasons we had contemplated aborting our pregnancy were very trivial and I'm embarrased to even think of them now. I feel much the way Laura does and yet I also feel that it is a individuals right to make decisions for themselves. I'm sure if we would have decided the alternative we would be equally at-ease with our decision as we are now.
All I'm trying to say is that if the overall scope of an individuals life has no room for a baby, they should have the right to do what they feel is necessary. Albeit adoption is a much better route than abortion there should still be the legality in place to make it a "choice". Of course there are limits to every rule. Minors should not be allowed to make this decision any more than they are not allowed to make other decisions that may have legal or moral ramifications until they are 18 years old. In this case I believe that the minors parent or guardian should play a major role in the decision process. Notice I said a major role, not 100% of the decision. I say this because in some cases there may be underlying concern of the childs well-being, such as molestation or rape.
Overall, great topic!! Congrats on your work!! Looking forward to the next one...
'til then... later!!!
Date: Saturday, April 04, 1998 at 18:34:38 (MST)
Comments: The sad fact is that abortion -has- become just another
method of birth control. The statistics say that of the
about 1.4 million abortions performed _each year_, about 20%
are for cases like life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.
The vast majority of abortions are for other convienence-type
reasons. (I'd like to come up with a source for that stat;
I'll work on it. But I've seen it sourced more than once.)
While I certainly don't condone the killings & bombings, Remo
I can at least understand -why- they are doing it. If you
walked into an alley way, and you carried a gun, and you saw
someone with a gun to the head of a child about to pull the
trigger, what would you do? If you answer "kill the gun-holder"
then you've peeked into the mind of the violent anti-abortionist.
Again, I don't agree that this is the way to go, but the
parallel is disturbing.
Just my thoughts.
Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 at 20:55:58 (MST)
Comments: I am 56 years old, some thirthy years ago my wife then my girl friend conceived, we could not afford to have the baby so...
I do not say that we don't think about it once and a while and wonder but it was our decision and seemed to us the only possible one at the time.
I cannot say what would have happened if we had had the child, we did not, but i can say that we are now married for three decades and I would start all opver again with her.
Keeping a potential child or not is a decision made when possible by both sxual partners, however the fianl say should be left to the woman and the male should help her whatever the decision is.
Her wombs belongs to her. Not to the country not to the religious leader.
In Quebec where I live some twenty years ago a doctor was taken to court as abortionnist, three times and three not gulty verdict by a jury, the law could not be applied therefore it was changed and stayed that way. In fact the only type of abortionnist that can be takes to court are the qwacks.
My feelings are that this type of decesion is already very hard to take for a woman, nobody should try to influence her one way or another this is her decision. Her mate if she has one can help her but it is her decision.
I agree that abortion should be on demand for rape and other stated causes, but i would also had if the mother has aids or if her drug habit will impair the child's life.
One of the arguments that I read a lot in the USA news are about the rights of a child to live. Yes he has that right once born or when the pregnancy if far enough so that he could survive once out of the womb.
But as far has I know an unwanted child starts with at least one strike against him, this srtike can go as far as neglect or worse lack of love, so my question is he has a right to live and your constitution gives him the right to pursue happiness, if he is not wated and not loed what abut this right,.
Please disregard or excuse the spelling since English is not my usual language.
Date: Friday, March 27, 1998 at 17:27:28 (MST)
Name: Martin konitza
Comments: Fuck Rave
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 at 06:10:54 (MST)
Date: Sunday, March 22, 1998 at 10:35:57 (MST)
Name: Bob Rodgers
Comments: Excellent job with a tough subject.
Date: Saturday, March 21, 1998 at 16:04:09 (MST)
Comments: I have just a few comments that I would like to make that
will clearly categorize me as pro-life. If women would
simply give the newly concieved child a name (boy or girl)
and then simply apply the name of the child when considering
the abortion, I think that it will help you understand what
you are truely doing? We will name the child Dave for this
Well I must abort Dave because I'm too young to have a child
Well I must abort Dave because he is a product of rape?
Well I must abort Dave because I haven't finished high
school and my life is more important than his.
OK here comes the exception?? If I don't kill Dave, I will
My point is that we all try to refer to our unborn children
as a organism that is sucking life from our bodies and life.
My thoughts are somewhat random..but I think once you
put that fetus on a more personal level you will re-think
your actions. Also, for the record, I was adopted..the
result of date rape and I thank God each day that he gave
my natural birth mother the grace to carry me to term and
then give me up for adoption. She put her life on hold for
9 months so that I could live a long and prosperous life!!
Thanks MOM!!! Wherever you are!!!
Date: Thursday, March 19, 1998 at 09:38:29 (MST)
Name: Harry Roderick
Comments: Nice job. I love this feature. Keep up the good work, guys.
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 at 16:52:40 (MST)
Name: Roger Yates
Comments: I am nearly too moved to type. This, combined with the creeping death I am afflicted with--missed work today and may not go in tomorrow--makes it even more difficult for me to form an intelligent and thoughtful response.
I can only say that my wife and I were faced with the decision to "extinguish" the life of our unborn child over 3 years ago or allow him or her to be born into this chaotic and often disappointng world.
Though we had taken all precautions--short of abstinence or a vasectomy (which I have since undergone)--my wife became pregnant after only a year-and-three-months of wedded bliss. The moment we found out we consulted every resource at our disposal: literature, websites, even counseling...anything that might comfort and guide us to our best decision. We truly wanted to make the best choice we could for everyone, and in the end, because of our fear of the unknown, our distaste for the world in general and our devotion to one another, we chose to remain childless.
Arriving at that decision was the single most difficult thing I have ever done. But despite the lingering guilt and the effect it has had on my happiness these last few years, I would NOT--even if I were somehow miraculously able to--change my decision, for I am convinced that I was never meant for fatherhood. The reasons are too many to mention, suffice to say that my upbringing played a tremendous part in my apprehension at being a parent.
I respect the opinions of others, whether pro-choice or pro-life. All that I hope is that others are as willing to accept that every situation is unique, and no one has the right to determine what's best for you besides yourself. (Please, no attempts to twist my words so that what I have just stated can be used to address the "unborn child's rights" for I am too weary to fight with anyone.)
To those of you who feel prepared for parenthood or who already have children, I commend you. To those who feel that, however selfish, the only person you wish to devote all of your love, time and understanding to is your wife, husband or lifemate, I know how you feel. And to those of you who do not feel the need to be parents even though your parents want grandchildren or your pastor says you should or you're told your name must live on or you need someone else to love you or any OTHER ridiculous reason...I salute you.
Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 at 20:35:40 (EST)
Name: Jonathan Jackson
Comments: I suppose in my humble opinion, the answers for this issue really lie in the humanity of it all. This tissue is a human life needing a chance to live. The parents are humans with faults that have led them to begining this life. Do we really have a right to kill someone else for our mistakes. If this is really a choice where will this choice stop? Or is abortion only the begining?
Date: Sunday, March 15, 1998 at 22:52:38 (EST)
City: santa fe
Comments: earlier: So which way is it? Is it a baby, or is it an organism? Is it murder? Is it death? Or is it
"procedure"? And who should decide that anyway?
I'm in the weird new age community (which means I'm flakey, watch out), but why not get more info? Find a couple of good clairvoyants & ask them what they see. There is a triangular arrangement between the mother, the fetus & the soul waiting for birth. A clairvoyant can tell you about that. Having gone down that some ways myself, I can tell you it doesn't get any easier, but the questions/responses do change in interesting ways.
Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 at 21:33:33 (EST)
In your lastest reply. I failed to see how you can eqivocate a fetus ("tissue") with a "baby". If you were to do a "blind" test and present someone, unprompted, with a picture of a developing fetus, how many would say "oh, that's a baby." I doubt more than 20 or 30%, if that many. Perhaps I'm too categorical, but calling something that which it is not never has the force of making it what you hope it to be, but usually does serve to cloud the issue. [on another note, keep the good rants coming.]
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 at 19:23:52 (EST)
I dislike both the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice". They are really meaningless in this debate. Let's see if I can clarify: What do we commonly mean by "pro-life"? We commonly mean someone who is opposed to abortion, if not in whole, at least in part, usually on religious or moral grounds. Implicit in this assumption is that if you disagree, then you must somehow be "anti-life" (since the diametrically opposed option to a pro is a con, or an antithesis). I think you don't have to think hard to realize that people who are in favor of letting an individual decide the fate of their bodies (here I will maintain that a fetus is part of the woman's body until it becomes self-sustaining)are somehow opposed to life. In fact many who support this choice are rather life-affirming individuals. By the same token, he or she who is opposed to this on moral grounds (or other grounds) is not necessarily someone opposed to the faculty of choice. To couch either position in loaded jargon (pro-life or pro-choice) is a disservice to the dialectic and discussion. Call this spade a spade: pro abortion or anti abortion and be done. The other terms are far too politically charged and are really not very enlightened or enlightening.
As for myself: I support the right of the individual to make ultimate choices about their bodies and their futures. The choice to have a child (and having a child *should* be a choice, not a mistake or an accident) is an ultimate human destiny. If that human isn't prepared for that destiny, then a law should not prevail upon them to assume an unwanted destiny. Roe v. Wade was, in my view, a correct decision as originally judged. (I am struck by the fact that the aniversary of the SC's decision happens to be my *birth*day.)
Abortion is a medical procedure, like having your tonsils out or a liver transplant. The ability to meet quality-of-life issues in the living being outweights the issues of the yet to be living, the parasitic fetus. (The utimate test of "life" should be: will it survive on its own devices? A fetus removed from the womb soon dies. How can this be "life"? The answer, of course, is: it is not. It is a parasite which may soon develope into a life, into the individuality we prescribe to life.)
Extremists on either end of this polorizing question need to be regarded with care and suspicion. This question, like so many which cause I knees to jerk, is often driven more by emotion than by reason. Once emotion rules, choas deconstructs us; once reason rules, the cold harshness subsumes our humanity. Some balance, some Aristotelian Mean is needed here. The trick is to know where to come down on the continum. For me, on this question it is on the side of leaving the decision up to the individual. The medical possible is always better than the coat hanger. Always.
Date: Monday, March 09, 1998 at 21:29:10 (EST)
Comments: There is NO logical reason or acceptable excuse for abortion. Whether you believe in the santity of newborn or newly conceived life, arguments pale when examining reality. Abortion is legal but legal should never be confused with "right". Those who oppose abortion often are blindsided by attacks and respond with kneejerk reactions, but the key to this argument lies within the pro-choice argument. A women does and should have control of her body, but the fetus is no more subject to murder than if a woman has a child whom is 10 years old. If a child becomes a nuasnace to a mother, is it right to allow her to abandon her child or kill it for that matter? I assure you that if you followed the pro-choice mantra, by definition, you would support putting people on death row to death by means of sucking the brain out of their skull. If this is cruel and unusual punishment for inmates, how is it humane for a 7 month old fetus? You can't have it both ways, and the fact remains that abortion is MURDER!
Date: Monday, March 09, 1998 at 15:02:39 (EST)
Name: Keith Dunn
City: North Vancouver
Comments: Here I was dropping by to see a video cam .. Gutsy way you two dealt with the topic .. and fair. There is a 'right' way as long it is just retoric. Once there is a pregnancy I everything changes and the decisions become real.
Date: Monday, March 09, 1998 at 10:46:52 (EST)
Name: J. Bart Henthom
Email: < >
RANT: Why do opposites attract
Okay, up front, I'm an engineer. I tend to couch my statements in
engineering terms and draw analogies using engineering concepts. You have
In my first year of electronics school I had a teacher who was working with
a big company trying to turn walls painted with alternating black and white
stripes into batteries. Never went anywhere ... far as I know. But the
concept seemed sound.
You see, voltage, the amount of work electricity can do, is a measure of the
difference in potential between the two poles of a source. In more plain
language, the farther apart the two poles, the more work they can produce,
thus the higher the energy potential between the two.
The same principle applies to people. Two people of opposite extremes can
yield an extremely high energy pairing. You see it everywhere you look in
the universe. Light and dark, up and down, etc. I strongly believe this is
why there are two genders in almost all species on this planet.
But, and here's the ringer, you have to find a way of binding these two
extremes. With painted walls, it's pretty easy. But people are a bit
trickier. Thus begat two important mechanisms in any relationship: Love and
Commitment. Love is the initial glue that forces the two poles into close
proximity. Commitment mends the gaps and breaks when the Love weakens or
cracks. It also gives the people a reason to renew the Love.
Gee, what do you know. A self-annealing, self-correcting mechanism. Kewl!
Date: Monday, March 09, 1998 at 10:10:38 (EST)
Name: Michael Stone
City: Castle Rock
Comments: I cannot truly rant on the subject of abortion, but, as always, I will be brutally honest.
ABORTION IS MEAN!
ABORTION IS MURDER!
There, I said it! Some may look at those phrases as rants. I just consider them to be brutally honest facts. How can we look at the life of an innocent child as "tissue"? Look at the roll beside your toilet, at that box of snot-paper beside your bed...THAT is tissue! An unborn baby is not just an "embryo", or a "fetus". An unborn baby is a human being!
Our society goes out of it's way to save whales, owls, even bugs! Why, then, do we think nothing of disposing of human life so freely? What happened to the "right to life" in our unalienable rights?
"BE A HERO...SAVE A WHALE!" Save a baby...go to jail.
No, I do not agree with the tactics of the fools who will kill in protest of abortion. That makes absolutely no sense to me. How can you prove that you're trying to save lives by taking others? What an oxymoron! I am not certain that even picketing abortion clinics and doctor's offices that perform abortions is very effective. It is a right, though, and those protesters should be allowed that right, as long as they are non-violent and non-threatening. This subject skirts the edge of the "abortion" discussion, so I will just stop here.
I cannot condemn anyone who has had an abortion, or performed abortions. How can I? Who am I to judge?
"If anyone among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone."
That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? Forgiveness rules!
Date: Monday, March 09, 1998 at 06:53:24 (EST)
City: Merritt IS
Comments: hey good stuff, I do have some thing to say about all of it. Some good some bad.
In a night of pasion, by the days light.
never will i walk from your site,
I will be on you side when you are down,
and i will never let you frown.
I feel free in your arms, never letting go,
but only at night will it show.
Date: Saturday, March 07, 1998 at 20:57:15 (EST)
Comments: Hi folks,
My first time here. The rant is great. Even though I'm not a
hunter, fisherman, sports fan or wearer of baseball caps, I
stand duly nailed by Laura's laser-like perception of men in
relation to women.
The accuracy of your vision is chilling,
but I sense that all that wisdom is tempered with fairness as
there's an equally sharp perception of your own gender that
you (at least in this rant - haven't read the others) are
hiding in your pocket, no?
Remo's come-backs are very good, but
seem slightly redundant or re-hashing, probably because they
ARE come-backs and not original rants, and probably because
I am a male who feels like a deer caught in Laura's headlights.
Great stuff, guys. I'll check back often.
Date: Friday, March 06, 1998 at 12:50:27 (EST)
Comments: where to begin..from the dialog so far it would appear that
none of you are over 30, and/or have actually lost someone you
truely loved to to serious circumstances - or perhaps that just
hasnt come out in your written expressions. Speaking as one who
has been married twice, once abandoned via the Church's escape clause
of 'annullment'..and once thanks to the insanity of the divorce laws
which allow any woman to "excuse" herself from a marriage on the mere
grounds of "irreconcilable differences" (yeah, right!)..all I can tell
you is that 99% of the viewpoint/lifestyle/values/etc differences between
men and women are purely a matter of socialization and programming that we
all have received from our environment.
Most of this programming is obsolete
and worthless. The reason (as it appears to me) seems to be that the timing lag
between the childhood phase of instillment, when we receive a vast majority of the
information, and the life-phase when we actually try to make a go of this mess using
these incomplete teachings, is sooo long that the role-models, non-core values, and the
series of expected response-patterns we've learned have become disfunctional; in terms of
their applied-use in a real relationship. In other words, fed a diet of 50's culture, most
"boys" learned: Be a Provider, He works outside the home, she's the homemaker.
How useful issuch an outlook today?! This problem's influence is underestimated by everyone, including the
people in the mental healthcare fields. Incomplete or Obsolete mental programming is the biggest
and least understood component in the classic war-between-the-sexs paradigm. So much so, that most
people are totally unaware of it!
There are even people in the psychology business who have taken
*great steps* to avoid the topic! Largely for fear of killing off their huge income streams! Instead
they crank out 'self-help' books and cute-video (at $29.95a pop!) tapes porporting to tell couples
that they are from different planets! HOGWASH! As cute as the Venus/Mars Theory is, the problem in this
sort of applied mechanism is there are NO RULES! As a consequence, the women who seem to find this stuff
so appealing, have decided to take that as a literal license to not-only be in complete charge, normally
via the passive-agressive behavior patterns, but also to to avoid any personal responsibility! This is
so Politically Correct now! Of course! She cant be BOTHERED with checking the oil in her car! That's HIS
JOB! SCREW THAT! Women: Get real!
If you're going to engauge in some activity, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for
the outcome as well as the associated costs! Don't blame men for your own ignorance! Get in the mode of
KNOWING the total scope of your lifestyle! Don't cop out! BE YOUR OWN EXPERT! Men: Stop feeling as if you
are OWED "something". The age of male dominance is over, we are now religated to being EITHER a.) Merely
a disposable source of income/sperm donors OR: b.) Full Partners..but only if we INSIST on it! Don't whine,
about the "loss" of the past! YOU HAVENT LOST ANYTHING BUT A DEAD-END FUTURE!
Both Men and Women: Cooperative living means either sharing the workload directly, by working TOGETHER. Or
it means sharing the workload by a DIVISION of efforts. Beware of the trap of fixed-thinking! He really won't
ever get better at doing the laundry unless YOU teach him!
Blame: Scrape it all aside, dump all your previous conclusions - that was then, THIS IS NOW! Together we can
decide on the means to share the responsibilities financially, and by being very
personally responsible in everything we do, there isn't any room for blame. Mistakes
are a consequence of growing.
Revenge: The worst! At this point, there isn't any reason to continue!
Romance: That wonderful stuff that none of us gets enough of! Encourage
this activity by example. Light a fire in the evening, even a few candles
at the meal can signal your partner, saying: "Here is OUR SPACE."
Roles: A totally obsolete notion. Activities that were once pinned to the
terms 'men' and 'women' are now a free for all, avoid falling into the trap
of using other labels for this term.
Sex: If you make it to this subject at all, the answer must be 'maybe..' !
be as flexible in your approach as possible. Fulfilling the Other's desire is
the key - this needs to be a mutual goal..exploration is healthy and should be
a negotiable item..communication is essential.
The media: Ignore all of it. Dont use it as a gauge of comparison to measure
your life. It's a destructive influence in terms of stereotypes and messages
about who we are. Men: try some of the "chic flix"...you might be surprised
at how good you'll feel by allowing some healthy tears at a movie! Women: The
television CANT POSSIBILY replace you! Get over the fear! If he insists that
he's gonna suck suds and watch The Big Game..either enjoy it, or find a creative
alternative for yourself (and perhaps him too!)..suggestion: Ask him if he'd
rather watch the game or go for a motorcycle ride...Most men can't resist this!
I always prefer a nice ride on Ubberbowl Sunday to listening to the damned TV, and
this won me a LOT of slack over the years! ;)
Be creative...be exellent to Oneanother! BE RESPONSIBLE and BE FLEXIBLE! LIFE IS GOOD!
ps-I'm 46, my Lady is 51..we are both professionals and have
been divorced...Hope springs eternal!
Date: Friday, March 06, 1998 at 06:13:53 (EST)
Comments: Boy…. You guys know how to rant.
Your all over the place, so with your permission…
I will offer my thoughts.
This is easy, it is instinct. I don’t care if you are
a creationist or a Darwinist, it is the instinct of the
male to hunt, stalk ,and against all PCers… compete!!!.
And if I may say so, it has served the entire species
male and female) rather well, we have survived for the
time being ( because we can hunt and stalk better than
the other animals). It is in our best interest not to
suppress this instinct, one because it is an instinct
and two, I believe that we may need to call upon it in
the future. Yes even in this modern era where killing
of animals for sport and team competition is seen as
recreation, you never know when you may need it.
Now I don’t live Montana, and I don’t have guns,
ammo and food buried around the country side, so don’t
start accusing me of being a neo-nazi survivalist.
Our world is still a very dangerous place….
Remember the "Cold War" with all of those nukes pointed
at each other….. well guess what…. They still are.
Instead of blowing up the world 3 times over, we only have
enough power to blow it up once ( now that’s progress!).
OK, so you don’t think humanity can survive a calamity like
that, I think you are wrong…… by evolution or by creation
we (male and female) will adapt to survive because we have
the desire. Let’s not turn our backs on what got us here.
Even if our future as humans does not have a "Mad Max" in
it, we will most always encounter people or "things" that
will confront us to band together to fight! Either on a
battlefield, a conference room, or the quarterly profit
reports, the drive to do better is an desire/instinct that
we need to preserve because it helps our army/employer/team
to survive. These traits are also hidden in all of our
recreation. Yes even seemingly stupid games like golf and
bass fishing have, as their underlying theme:
man vs. something…
Either that stupid fish or the laws of physics that govern
the flight and rolling of the ball. The desired end result
is for the man(or woman) to show their supremacy and mastery
over the environment. So, if someone is so lazy they
have to watch golf and fishing on TV, that is one issue,
but the underlying theme is recognizing the accomplishment
of a task (sinking the ball or catching the fish).
"Accomplishment of a task" Those four words best describe
the male. Guys are task oriented, it is our instinct to
be, so don’t try to change it. If you do you are messing
with God/Mother nature (creationist/darwinist).
That’s all that needs to be said.
I don’t know where you live, but there are enough
"Bubba-beer-bellies" where I live to know it is not
a male/female thing. A woman (or man) who feels they
have to deprive themselves to look good, probably has
been duped by the advertising establishment of the
Both of you have listed good examples of poor manners,
that should not be construed a male/female traits.
Ok, maybe recognize that guys tend to be task-oriented,
but that is all. It is too easy to blame all men as a
gender, than to say: " your parents didn’t raise you
right, and I’m not going to tolerate it". Be careful
here….. don’t get sucked in …. who is to say that his
manners are poor or are hers????????
Just treat people with respect and dignity in all
relationships (sexual or platonic), and use your manners.
We were taught them in Kindergarten.
I have tried to make comments about the general topic
with respect to the comments made without picking at
specific thoughts of each person. However, Remo I think
you’ve missed it on the last paragraph. Generalization of
genders is not radicalism, it is just ignorance.
Furthermore, you say that:
I truly feel that people who believe too adamantly in any
one aspect of an issue are the cause for most of the
world's ills. As instances... The abortion issue, the
death penalty, the one "true" God, partisan
politics... etc. etc. ad nauseum. People who believe
too strongly regarding ANY one side of an important issue
I can’t disagree more. People without conviction are
ruining this world. You hear it all of the time:
"I can see it both ways", "open-minded", "moderate",
" I look at both sides before I decide an issue".
Somehow people in this society are offended if I KNOW
something is wrong or right.
WHY! I will tell you why….people want to have it both
ways, have their cake and eat it too.
Now watch it here people…. Remember your manners, you can
disagree and be civil about it if you mind your manners.
Most people can’t enter into intelligent discourse about
a controversial subject without it falling in to name
calling……. "lack depth", "radicalism", "intolerant".
So the alternative is to agree when it is convenient to
do so, and if you don’t your a radical. Yeah, people
will get excited and maybe get angry at each other if they
disagree, but don’t call me a name just because you don’t
have anything intelligent to say.
People don’t have core beliefs anymore.
You have to have core believes, in which to make decisions
in you life. Too many times people think that they are
using their core believes to make their "open minded"
decisions, but they are not. There are too many examples
out there of people being on both sides of core issue.
Date: Friday, February 20, 1998 at 13:35:36 (EST)
Name: Jonte sundbäck
Comments: Burn muther fucker burn.
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 1998 at 05:03:42 (EST)
Name: Perfect Strangers--Laura
Comments: For problem solving purposes it really does no good to foster extremist opinions or to behave in radical feminist/chauvenist ways. Yet for the sake of having fun, everyone on the planet can take themselves just a smidgen less seriously and laugh a little about the situation. It's funny that we're different. The misinterpretations are like an episode of Three's Company or Brady Bunch. Real extremists and radicals: Lighten up!
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 1998 at 11:29:50 (EST)
Comments: Actually... I think Laura has a point!!! (Grin)
Date: Monday, February 16, 1998 at 23:46:36 (EST)
Warped Web Page Wizard