Wishing I had Time to Write!

I must apologize as my plan was to write tonight. However, I just got home from my second day of meetings that last ALL day long. To say I am exhausted would be an understatement. It was one of those meetings where we fly in everyone on the team from around the world including representatives from the client. Lots of preparation and loaded days. So I will not write this evening but will instead allow the conversation to continue around G Man’s article, with one caveat….

CHILL OUT! I understand the passion around our discussions. I understand that some see what he has presented as “crazy.” I understand that others see the protests to his article as “Crazy.” But let us not forget our civil tongues. I appreciate the passion and I appreciate that there really isn’t any malice in what is said in these debates. But I do so prefer that we don’t get into name calling and degrading. If you don’t like what is presented, debate away. But I think we can do it without the phrases moron, idiot, etc. As I said, I can see the lack of malice in the discussions, but I would still prefer that we didn’t resort to name calling. Civilized and intelligent discussion is what has always differentiated SUFA from the rest of the sites out there. Let’s not ruin a good thing. Make your points, debate them out, and either better understand each other or agree that you never will and move on. Thanks to all for the spirited debates though! I will weigh in on some throughout the day on Thursday. And coming Friday morning will be an article from BF himself!



  1. 😉

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    Thanks for posting this USW! Now I can follow via e-mail, which will make my responses faster. What a day!

    • You did good G-Man!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Thanks Kathy!

        As a note, Ohio passed far worse anti-union legislation in their Senate today. It goes to the Ohio house and expected to pass. The war started in Wisconsin, and may be ending in Ohio. As a second note, I don’t like government at all, they are as corrupt as the unions these days. Shame we can’t fix both!

  3. 🙂

  4. Naten53 says:

    why is the government lying to us about mountain lions in the appalachians?


    Federal researchers declare eastern cougar extinct

    ALLENTOWN, Pa. – The “ghost cat” is just that.

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Wednesday declared the eastern cougar to be extinct, confirming a widely held belief among wildlife biologists that native populations of the big cat were wiped out by man a century ago.

    After a lengthy review, federal officials concluded there are no breeding populations of cougars — also known as pumas, panthers, mountain lions and catamounts — in the eastern United States. Researchers believe the eastern cougar subspecies has probably been extinct since the 1930s.

    Wednesday’s declaration paves the way for the eastern cougar to be removed from the endangered species list, where it was placed in 1973. The agency’s decision to declare the eastern cougar extinct does not affect the status of the Florida panther, another endangered wildcat.

    Some hunters and outdoors enthusiasts have long insisted there’s a small breeding population of eastern cougars, saying the secretive cats have simply eluded detection — hence the “ghost cat” moniker. The wildlife service said Wednesday it confirmed 108 sightings between 1900 and 2010, but that these animals either escaped or were released from captivity, or migrated from western states to the Midwest.

    “The Fish and Wildlife Service fully believes that some people have seen cougars, and that was an important part of the review that we did,” said Mark McCollough, an endangered species biologist who led the agency’s eastern cougar study. “We went on to evaluate where these animals would be coming from.”

    A breeding population of eastern cougars would almost certainly have left evidence of its existence, he said. Cats would have been hit by cars or caught in traps, left tracks in the snow or turned up on any of the hundreds of thousands of trail cameras that dot Eastern forests.

    But researchers have come up empty.

    The private Eastern Cougar Foundation, for example, spent a decade looking for evidence. Finding none, it changed its name to the Cougar Rewilding Foundation last year and shifted its focus from confirming sightings to advocating for the restoration of the big cat to its pre-colonial habitat.

    “We would have loved nothing more than for there to be a remnant wild population of cougars on the East Coast,” said Christopher Spatz, the foundation’s president. “We’re not seeing (evidence) because they’re not here.”

    Others maintain that wild cougars still prowl east of the Mississippi.

    Ray Sedorchuk, 45, an avid hunter and outdoorsman, said he got an excellent look at a cougar last June in rural Bradford County, in northern Pennsylvania. He was in his truck when a reddish-brown animal with a long tail crossed the road. He said he jammed on the brakes, and the cougar stopped in its tracks.

    “I could see the body, the tail and the head, the entire animal, perfectly. It’s not a bobcat, it’s not a housecat, it’s a cougar,” he said. “It’s a sleek animal. It ran low to the ground and stealth-like. It moved with elegance.”

    Sedorchuk, a freelance writer who spends copious amounts of time in the woods, said he’d always been skeptical of the eastern cougar’s existence, even as two of his friends insisted to him that they had seen them in the wild.

    And now?

    “I believe that they’re here, without even thinking twice about it,” he said. “I believe there aren’t that many, but there are enough where they can get together and breed.”

    Once widely dispersed throughout the eastern United States, the mountain lion was all but wiped out by the turn of the last century. Cougars were killed in vast numbers, and states even held bounties. A nearly catastrophic decline in white-tailed deer — the main prey of mountain lions — also contributed to the species’ extirpation.

    McCollough said the last wild cougar was believed to have been killed in Maine in 1938.

    The wildlife service treated the eastern cougar as a distinct subspecies, even though some biologists now believe it is genetically the same as its western brethren, which is increasing in number and extending its range. Some experts believe that mountain lions will eventually make their way back East.

    The loss of a top-level predator like the cougar has had ecological consequences, including an explosion in the deer population and a corresponding decline in the health of Eastern forests.

    “Our ecosystems are collapsing up and down the East Coast, and they’re collapsing because we have too many white-tailed deer,” said Spatz. “Our forests are not being permitted to regenerate.”

    Cougars and wolves, he said, would thin the deer herd through direct predation while also acting as “natural shepherds,” forcing deer to become more vigilant and “stop browsing like cattle.”

    Spatz’s group would like the federal government to reintroduce cougars and wolves to the eastern United States, though he acknowledged any such plan would come up against fierce resistance.

    The wildlife service said Wednesday it has no authority under the Endangered Species Act to reintroduce the mountain lion to the East.

    • While bow hunting in the woods on Tussey Mt outside State College, PA, I and a friend were snarled at by a large feline sounding animal. Both my buddy and I instantly said that was no pussy cat. A few minutes later we came across cat tracks larger than any bobcat would leave. This was in the early ’70s. Another friend sighted one crossing the road at night.
      I have also been within 100 ft of one close to my house here in the CA foothills. My kids have sighted them and been snarled at night as well. In CA they are protected by a constitutional amemndent but are increasingly becoming a problem for livestock.

    • USWeapon says:

      Very funny that you posted this T Ray.

      I saw this last night and wondered the same thing. As you may know, I went to Penn State. We heard on numerous occasions the distinct sounds of Mountain Lions when we were out and about, usually partying in the mountains. I remember that before I went up there I was told that eastern mountain lions were no longer there. I remember leaving there I was absolutely positive that reports of their demise was greatly exagerrated.


      • We are of the same opinion then. The Nitanny Lion lives.

        • USWeapon says:

          You bet your ass!

        • Naten53 says:

          I don’t know about the Nitanny Lion, I have never seen a cat with 5 paw pads, but a mountain lion maybe. But not a European swallow. That’s my point. But then the African swallow’s not migratory…

      • Naten53 says:

        I know plenty of people with no reason to lie telling me not only have they seen one, but feared for their lives. One person that I know said one was going across the back of their yard (they live in a mountain valley) with their two young children playing outside. I am sure they never moved so fast in their life getting the kids inside.

        Anyone with cats can tell you, that if your cat did not want to be found, you won’t find it. (although an indoor cat can only hide in so many places.)

  5. I know this is not true because Obama and Napolitano say so…

    In Texas, nearly 8,200 farms and ranches back up to the Mexican border.

    The men and women who live and work on those properties say they’re under attack from the same drug cartels blamed for thousands of murders in Mexico.

    “It’s a war, make no mistake about it,” Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples said. “And it’s happening on American soil.”

    Texas farmers and ranchers produce more cotton and more cattle than any other state, so Staples is concerned this war could eventually impact our food supply, and calls it a threat to our national security.

    “Farmers and ranchers are being run off their own property by armed terrorists showing up and telling them they have to leave their land,” Staples said.

    To raise awareness, Commissioner Staples launched the website ProtectYourTexasBorder.com. It’s a place where frustrated and scared farmers can share their stories.

    One Texas farmer, who asked not to be identified, said it’s common for him to see undocumented immigrants walking through his property.

    “I see something, I just drive away,” he said. “It is a problem, I’ve learned to live with it and pretty much, I’ve become numb to it.”

    Another farmer, Joe Aguilar, said enough is enough. After walking up on armed gunmen sneaking undocumented immigrants into the United States through his land, Aguilar decided to sell his farm.“It’s really sad to say, you either have to beat ‘em or join ‘em and I decided not to do either,” Aguilar said.

    Aguilar’s family farmed 6,000 acres of land along the Texas-Mexico border for nearly 100 years.

    “Our farmers and ranchers can’t afford their own security detail,” Staples said. “We’re going to become more dependent on food from foreign sources.

    Americans don’t like being dependent on foreign oil, they won’t stand for being dependent on foreign food.”

  6. Further of what is not true because Obama and Napolitano say so……

    The Texas Department of Public Safety has issued a travel warning to college students on spring break, urging them not to travel to Mexico, MyFoxAustin.com reports.

    Authorities are pointing to several recent incidents of drug-related violence in the country, including the murders of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent and two El Paso boys last month.

    DPS Assistant Chief Tom Vinger said many American students feel invincible while vacationing in popular spring break destinations, like Cancun or Acapulco.

    “This age group does not think about this,” Vinger said. “They think they’re bulletproof, but just cause you’re an American tourist doesn’t mean you’re immune from violence.”

    Despite the warning, some students say they won’t let the violence deter them from going.

    “The scary part is what’s cool about it,” Jen Fomby, a University of Texas senior, said in an interview with MyFoxAustin.com.

    The DPS also is warning spring break students to stay away from the U.S. side of Falcon Lake, where American David Hartley was shot and killed by suspected drug cartel members in October. His body has not been recovered.

    “The problem with Mexico is there are parts that are probably safer than others and people do come and go safely, but trying to navigate those areas is very dangerous, especially for people who aren’t aware,” Vinger said.

    The DPS says 65 Americans were killed in Mexico last year. About 30,000 Mexicans have been killed since 2006 due to drug-related violence that includes kidnappings, sexual assaults, robberies and carjackings, according to the station.

    • Good morning, Colonel! You’re favorite “red right through” 🙂

      Very good book about the violence on the Mexican side is “The Dead Women of Juarez” by Sam Hawken.

      As for the violence on the American side caused by drug cartels, if there’s a way to sneak the innocent Mexican victims out of harms way, I’m all for napalming the bad guys into oblivion. The problem would be the innocent victims of such an attack. Would you guys be willing to relocate them in the U.S. if they were willing to go (even if temporarily until the gang problem was cleaned up)? Not sure what you can do about this without crossing the border and doing some heavy damage (to the bad guy, no problem, but they’re infested amonst innocents for a reason).

      • Good Morning…..my lefty out in Pluto friend….There is not much way to keep the innocent out of the way. We never figured it out in Vietnam, Bosnia, Kuwait, Afghanistan…..there will always be human shields and those shields will be innocent…..we try to avoid them but it is now always possible.

        As far as going into Mexico…they messed with us Texians once….they do not want to do it again.

        • Hmmm, Pluto says please be careful … it isn’t a declared war … yet … so try and void the decent folk. Not everybody is a bad guy.

          But once you have the bad guys, feel free to put them through meat grinders … on pluto we’re fine with that stuff.

          • Hey Charlie…we actually try to protect the innocents and sometimes too much…..meaning that we often put ourselves in more danger than the innocent in order to protect the innocent. But my standing orders to my troops….do not put yourself in danger beyond a reasonable exposure but you still have to stop what is going on….even at the risk of the innocent. It is a sad commentary but one we have to deal with on a daily basis. The cartels have no emotion and do not think twice about killing the innicent no matter the age.

  7. Northwestern University defends after-class live sex demonstration

    BY KARA SPAK Staff Reporter/kspak@suntimes.com Mar 3, 2011 04:56AM

    * Share
    * E-Mail
    * Print

    Story Image

    “The students seemed really intrigued,” says Faith Kroll, with her fiance, Jim Marcus, who used a sex-toy to bring her to orgasm during an optional lecture on fetishes after an NU human sexuality class. | Scott Stewart~Sun-TImes
    Article Extras
    Story Image View Gallery

    More than 100 Northwestern University students watched as a naked 25-year-old woman was penetrated by a sex toy wielded by her fiancee during an after-class session of the school’s popular “Human Sexuality” class.

    The woman said she showed up at the Feb. 21 lecture in the Ryan Family Auditorium in Evanston expecting just to answer questions, but was game to demonstrate. The course’s professor on Wednesday acknowledged some initial hesitation, but said student feedback was “uniformly positive.”

    And Northwestern defended the class and its professor.

    “Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines,” said Alan K. Cubbage, vice president for University Relations. “The University supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge.”

    The optional, non-credit demo followed psychology Prof. John Michael Bailey’s sexuality class. Nearly 600 students are in Bailey’s class this quarter, and most didn’t stick around for the after-class show, which featured four members of Chicago’s fetish community describing “BDSM,” or bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism.

    “I didn’t expect to see a live sex show,” said Justin Smith, 21, a senior economics and political science major who was in the after-class session. “We were told we were going to have some people talk to us about the fetish world and kink.”

    Smith said it took him awhile to process what happened, but he doesn’t object to the way the material was presented.

    “It was for me academic like everything else,” he said.

    He told his grandparents about the class.

    “My grandma was like, wow, Northwestern is a little bit different then when I went there,” he said.

    In a statement, Bailey said he hesitated briefly before allowing the public sex act.

    “My hesitation concerned the likelihood that many people would find this inappropriate,” he wrote. “My decision to say ‘yes’ reflected my inability to come up with a legitimate reason why students should not be able to watch such a demonstration.”

    After the demonstration, several students tried a different sex toy that gave a “titillating” but not painful shock, testing it out on their arms, said Ken Melvoin-Berg, who narrated the after-class lecture. Melvoin-Berg said the school paid him between $300 to $500 for his appearance.

    Faith Kroll, the woman who stripped, was laying down on a towel when she was penetrated. When she arrived, she thought she just would be answering students’ questions and showing off sex toys they brought, including whips, paddles and a clown wig.

    An “absurd, clinical” video and subsequent discussion about various aspects of female orgasm led Faith and her partner Jim Marcus, 45, to prove to the class that female orgasm is real.

    Faith said she was not coerced in any way and students were repeatedly warned it was going to get graphic.

    “One of the students asked what my specific fetish was and mine is being in front of people, having the attention and being used,” she said. “The students seemed really intrigued.”

    In his statement, Bailey said student feedback was “uniformly positive.”

    Marcus, a musician who said he has worked as a sex educator, said he thinks it is “smart and important” for students to be learn about sexuality.

    “It’s really scary for young people who want to get involved in the BDSM community who don’t understand issues regarding consent and safety,” he said.

    Melvoin-Berg said he met Prof. Bailey through a swinging couple who previously spoke to the class. Melvoin-Berg runs the “Weird Chicago Red Light District Sex Tour,” which has participants playing games like “spot the ho” as they travel the city looking for prostitutes. He also teaches “Networking for Kinky People,” a 3-hour version of the one hour lecture he gave at Northwestern.

    Melvoin-Berg said the sex toy used was BDSM, but was “not like a pain thing…we wanted to make it poignant.”

    “I did mention this was going to be the best money their parents had spent on their education,” he said.

    Bill Yarber, a researcher at Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction and author of the textbook Human Sexuality: Diversity in Contemporary America, said he’s never heard of a naked woman being brought to orgasm in front of a class of students.

    “The way you present it there is very unconventional,” he said. “There’s certain boundaries of things, I think, that are acceptable and that would certainly be pushing that.”

    This isn’t Bailey’s first brush with controversy. His 2003 book, “The Man Who Would Be Queen,” sparked hostile debate in the transgender community by claiming that there were more reasons for men to become women then simply that biology trapped them in the wrong body. Several transgender women who spoke with Bailey claimed they did not consent to being used for research and accused him of practicing psychology without a license.

    Bailey said in his statement Wednesday that during the Feb. 21 after-class lecture, “I was not in a mood to surrender to sex negativity and fear.”

    “Do I have any regrets?” he wrote on Wednesday. “It is mostly too early to say. I certainly have no regrets concerning Northwestern students, who have demonstrated that they are open-minded grown ups rather than fragile children.”


    • 😯 See Mathius and BF.. This is what V has been harping about too. Don’t you guys see a problem with this?

      …it used to be boxers or briefs..now it’s spot the ho! 🙂

      • I see no problem. I think it would probably have been a very interesting lecture and I would have liked to have had a similar opportunity when I was in college.

      • anita

        I don’t think any of us question the evidence of moral decay.

        The question is whether you can use Govt to control it.

        I say for the vast majority of cases, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

        This is a good example. Those parents who are paying for the tuition of the students at this fine institution should PULL their funding. The University’s rationalization of a public sex act is appalling. But the question is WILL they act.

        But alas, it appears they don’t care either. So if nobody cares who is directly affected, why are we going to empower Govt to act against it?

        • “I don’t think any of us question the evidence of moral decay.” If that statement was true there wouldn’t be a problem. But not only do some people question it-they actually think this type of thing isn’t immoral. It is being encouraged.

        • Why is this moral decay? What is wrong with consenting adults educating consenting adults about alternative sexuality?

          • Because next thing you’re going to see is a lecture on a guy and a goat..or a guy and your 10 yr old daughter! And you wonder why we worry about you progressives! 👿

            • DPM wants to know what you have against goats.

              • You be quiet colonel 🙂

                Hey Matt..Can I borrow your ten year old daughter? I need a practice kid so I can show how 6 guys can get it on with a child?

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Now Anita is sounding like Rick Santorum

            • A) I do not have a daughter.

              B) A 10 year old cannot give consent, therefore you are talking about statutory rape, which is something completely different from sex between consenting adults.

              C) I’m not sure what rights goats have with regards to sex with humans, but I do know that there are species that will willingly have intercourse with members of other species (horses, tigers, monkeys, and dolphins have all be observed to have extra-species sex). I suppose if the goat is “willing,” there’s nothing wrong with it, though it certainly isn’t something I would be interested in seeing.

              Can you tell me something? Other than the fact that you’re (quite understandably) grossed out by the thought of it, what exactly is “immoral” about a human and a goat getting it on, assuming that the goat isn’t forced into it?

              • Mathius

                Your hypothetical is irrational.

                YOU have no way of knowing whether the goat consented.

              • If someone wants to play around with a goat then let them do it behind closed doors not in a public university.

                Could your 18 yr old daughter come out to play then?

              • JAC: true. But not really the point. The point is that you’re using examples where consent does not exist to demonstrate that it is immoral in an example where consent does exist. Apples and oranges.

                Anita: I don’t have an 18 year old daughter. I would have needed to conceive her when I was 8 or 9. But when/if I have a daughter, she will do as I say as long as she is receiving my financial support. That said, her sexuality is her business not mine, so if she wants to have a gay, interracial, trans-gender orgy on the Washington Mall on top of a American flag which they are simultaneously burning while being filmed and smoking pot and using, er, unconventional sexual positions and aides in front of a class of college students – well, that’s her business. Not mine.

                I want her to be safe and healthy, which probably means not lying on a burning flag, and using condoms. Beyond that, it’s really not my place to judge.

          • Damn, Matt…what are we going to do when they outlaw moral decay…….sigh. Ya know, I thought I saw just about everything in college in the 60’s……Never in a class room….in front of the class……..with the instructor present…..in the daytime.

          • I would really like someone who believes that our present social norms can stop this type of thing to answer Matts question and convince him that giving a live demonstration by a woman who Needs an audience to get off is wrong. To use this demo to convey to the audience that this is an acceptable alternative. And just for the hell of it-the justification is that these adults needed to be shown that orgasms are real. Does anyone think they questioned this fact? Or was it just an attempt to change our social norms or was it a wake up call on how far our values have fallen.

            • V.H.

              Our present norms will stop this type of thing in many places. And it will allow it in others.

              Just because the loons of the left think its cool doesn’t mean it has to or will spread everywhere.

              But they shouldn’t be surprised when after each election there are large sections of the country still red on the map.

            • I’m curious. What is morally wrong about a woman who gets off on having an audience? And what is wrong about adults watching as an educational lesson about alternative sexuality?

              You keep saying it’s wrong. But why?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                They don’t have an answer Matt – they pontificate about liberty and freedom only it fits a narrow-minded definition of morality they want to push onto other people (yet decry when they perceive the Left doing the same).

                Exhibit A – Westboro Baptist SCOTUS decision = good (because 1st amendment protected)

                Exhibit B – Consenting adults watching consenting adults masturbate = bad (because……..uh……..because……..uh…….its just icky and bad and gross and is why we are declining as a civilization)

              • JAC has the answer below. Why do you refuse to accept it?

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              I guess unfortunately for narrow-minded conservatives – human sexuality (and qualified at least by what is legal) includes more than just missionary-style with the lights turned off with the only objective of procreation. Anything else is seen as moral decay and one step removed from molesting children or fucking farm animals.

              Simply pathetic.

              You don’t like the class then don’t sign up for it.

          • Mathius

            Aside from the fact it is childish and the University’s excuse is irrational?

            OK. It devalues the nature of the human sexual relationship.

            Lowering to the standard of a “peep show” or like watching “animals at the zoo”. Ironically, it validates the Puritan concept that sex is just a mechanical act.

            Consenting adults can go do what they want in the privacy of their own homes. This was a “public” place. It is a University for crying out loud.

            It is part of a much larger moral decay that seems to be headed backwards in our evolution, not forward.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @JAC – take your pushy morals and go sign up for a different class. I suppose notions of “freedom” and “liberty” only apply when they fit your narrow definition of what is moral?

              • I don’t think JAC is trying to push his morals on you Ray. He has never said he thought this should be illegal. There are lots of things that I find disgusting and immoral that I still think should be allowed. This is one example of many.

            • OK. It devalues the nature of the human sexual relationship. I would argue that we’ve elevated a biological function to an untenable level. We’ve created a society where something we all want and do is treated as taboo and secretive. Either way, who are you or anyone else to determine how elevated an act by a consenting adult which harms no one and is performed in front of other consenting adults should be?

              This was a “public” place. It is a University for crying out loud. So? It was viewed only by people who wished to be there.

              It is part of a much larger moral decay that seems to be headed backwards in our evolution, not forward. I’m unclear how you are defining forward and backward in our evolution. Why is it that you get to unilaterally define private-sex as more evolved than public-sex? What about the privacy / publicity of the act itself is more or less evolved?

            • USWeapon says:

              Sorry JAC. I have to disagree. First it was not in public. In public is where an unsuspecting person could stumble upon such. In this case it was in a closed classroom, and all those present were forewarned as to what was about to happen and given the opportunity to opt out.

              I am shocked that you would support any position other than freedom of people to do what they like so long as it doesn’t impose on another.

              Who was imposed upon by this act? Who was harmed? Who was forced to do something against their will?

              • Mathius says:

                I’m always amazed at the groupings here at SUFA.

                It seems so strange that JAC, Kathy, and Anita would be on one side and BF, you, Ray, and I would be on the other.

              • Mathius,

                I am consistent.

                That which does not impose is a right.

                I believe it is you who jumps between different Lilly pads depending on the topic or time of day.

              • Mathius says:

                It’s really more about the phase of the moon than the time of day.

        • “The woman said she showed up at the Feb. 21 lecture in the Ryan Family Auditorium…”

          I wonder if this is the kind of activity the Ryan Family envisioned when they gave big bucks to the university.

          • If they don’t like the way the room is used, they’re free to place terms and conditions on its use prior to the donation, or to withhold future support.

            PS: I used to take econ classes in the “Enron Classroom.”

        • I’m sure there are plenty of tax-payer dollars going to Northwestern, so maybe we do have a right to be outraged that this is what we are paying for.

    • Wow, that just proves how worthwhile a college education is these days. I’m sure those students that had the opportunity to view that demonstration are much more likely to make the next big discovery.

      • I’m sure parents felt the same way when women were burning their bras in the 60’s/70’s.

        I’m sure their parents felt the same way women were allowed into colleges.

        I’m sure their parents felt the same way when schools were desegregated.

        • I guess my reply didn’t post. I’ll try again.

          I don’t care what consenting adults do. I’m just saying it doesn’t sound very educational to me. I wouldn’t pay to learn about human sexuality. It sounds like a big waste of time.

          I never understood the bra burning thing. Bras are very liberating because it is painful or uncomfortable to do many things without one.

          I’m not sure what this has to do with equal rights.

          • I’m having alot of trouble posting today too.

          • Mathius says:

            I wouldn’t pay to learn about human sexuality. I wouldn’t pay to learn about chemistry, but that doesn’t make chemistry lectures (even unorthodox ones) immoral.

            • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

              Depends upon what chemical reactions you are teaching your students to perform!

              • Mathius says:

                Anarchist’s Cookbook?

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:


                But how about how to make an anesthetic gas out of a bottle of rum and a basket of lemons. Or how about how to create smooth muscle relaxants out of two simple chemicals and some battery acid.
                And just for giggles how about how to turn a tank of acetylene into hooch!

                That’s the kind of chemistry classes that keep my kiddies rolling in the aisles!

    • Well now this seems fairly straight forward.

      While these class for this session doesn’t fit with my personal morals standards, that simply means I would have chosen to exercise my rights – and my legs – and left. The same choices were available to each adult in the room.

      Of course, to come right down to it if two consenting adults (like Mathius and Ray for example) wanted to have a pistol duel to the death I’d say have fun. I don’t think that is moral either, but who am I to say it shouldn’t be allowed? Just be danged sure all bystanders are safe or you may have to be arrested for endangering those bystanders. As far as the duelists getting shot or killed – big whoop and good riddance if you’re stupid enough to be one of the duelists.

      But then, as Mathius regulars says, People. Are. Stupid.

      • Ummm, that should read “regularly” and not “regulars.”

        ::sigh:: Keyboards. Are. Stupid. 🙂

      • Mathius says:

        People. Are. Dumb.

        Please get it right, if you’re going to quote me.

        And what is immoral about two consenting adults having a duel to the death provided they are not endangering others and/or their property?

        • Dumb. Right, sorry for the misquote.

          I personally don’t find it a moral course of action to solve one’s disputes that don’t involve defending oneself from a violent assault. Just my personal moral standard.

          What, in your view, makes it moral?

          Further, note I do not call for any regulation of the persons to make the choice and actually have the duel beyond insuring no bystanders would be endangered.

          • Mathius says:

            I wouldn’t say it’s moral. But neither is is immoral.

            If I wanted to engage in a boxing match, you would not say that it’s immoral for my opponent to hit me. By engaging freely in this course of action, I have waived my right not to be attacked.

            There is nothing immoral about risking my own life. By engaging in this activity, I have conferred my right to risk my life to my opponent. Same thing, just a difference in severity.

            • And that is fine that you see it your way, as I see mine when it comes to any morality (or lack or morality) to either situation. That is the great foundation to individual freedom.

              It doesn’t make either one of us right or wrong in our views/beliefs – since our individual view/belief harms no one.

    • @VH and Anita:…..Take off the blinders. Let me explain. Matt, Ray, etc., are indeed correct. You have a consenting arrangement, that was pre-announced, anyone offended coud leave, and the University backed it, albeit grudgingly.

      So what do we really have? The same thing that the motion picture or tv industry does with ratings, correct? They rate a movie and you can choose to watch it or not watch it. It appears in this case that it was “billed” correctly and the warning was the same as an X rating. The students were told it would be graphic and it would not be rehearsed. It would seem to me that the University would have a restriction against this but they did not. (They probably will in the future).

      You know how I think….Very conservative fiscally and moderate on social issues. I find this whole thing of getting off on stage in front of consenting adult age students to be within the rights to do so. It matters not where it is or what it implies. I see it no different than going to a pornography show or movie where the same thing is done in a theater. The fact that it was a college classroom is no different as long as it did not offend anyone else and that anyone considered a minor was not there. Again, no different than a movie.

      I see and agree with your point that there are things we do not like. Personally, watching a couple get off on stage while interesting, I would learn nothing. If they got some vicarious enjoyment out of it…who cares? It is their business. There are moral issues out there that I do not agree with either but I also disregard the “privacy of your own bedroom” issue as well. I am sure that most of us, if not all of us, have groped in back seats, front seats, on beaches, lakefronts…etc. These are not “in the privacy of bedrooms”. In this case, while I find it controversial…..they had he right and I would protect that right. YOu cannot legislate morality to fit your own description of what you find distastful….neither can I. This act was in the least controversial…but violated no ethical standard that I can see.

      Personally, I would have not stayed for the class. I would have learned nothing that I did not already know….but at least I would have had a choice. I do not want to return to the witch burning days or the puritan days when a womans ankle was considered pornographic or a kiss on the lips in public was disgraceful.

      As far as using the analogy of underage daughters…I had one once. (She is now 36 with two children) She was raised in what her mother and I thought was correct, but I did not legislate her morality when she became of age….in this case 18. She knew what was right and/or wrong and knew all about human sexuality well before the age of 18 because we hid nothing from her. But that was our choice. HOwever, if she called from her university and said she witnessed this…I would have said….cool class. Not for me…but cool class.

      AS stated…not my cup of tea and there are things that need to be private….but I have to fall on the side of the University because for me to do otherwise would make me a hypocrite and I try to not be that.

      PS. I really do not want to watch a goat either.

    • USWeapon says:


      I will bite, but I am unsure of what your real questions is here.

      First, is this a sign of moral decay? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I tend to lean towards not. As far back as Egypt and Rome there were public orgies on a scale greater than what we see today. Sex with minors was not only accepted in many of those societies, but encrouaged to an extent.

      Second, I agree with those who say that your apparent position is in direct contrast with opinions on something like the Westboro church. These were consenting adults. Anyone who would be offended was forewarned and it was not included as a graded or required assignment. In that way it was no different than a R-rated movie. Perhaps we will go with soft-core single X-rated. But the point is that this is certainly more tame than a typical late night movie on Cinemax. You would defend the right of 21 year old college students to have sex with that woman, but flinch at the idea of that same student watching stimulation. It does’t compute.

      The first question that you have to answer if you want to make a claim here…. who was harmed by what happened? The two consenting adults who committed the act? The students who voluntarily watched it and apparently didn’t immediately break into a massive orgy or head out to gang rape the first coed they stumbled upon? The professor who saw an opportunity to present sexual relations as something that doesn’t have to be shunned or hidden? I would say NO ONE was hurt by this. NO ONE was imposed upon in any way that I can see.

      Remember the golden statement… We value liberty and freedom, and expect that it will be protected. It is precisely that which is appealing to the smallest number that is most in need of protection. The Westboro freaks are far more offensive to me and far more detrimental to society, but the ruling yesterday was correct. This is no different, not even a little bit.

      I urge you to pay special attention to BF’s article tomorrow. Consistency is sorely lacking in a lot of positions on SUFA, unfortunately. We cannot embrace freedom only where we approve of the free act. You believe in freedom…. or you don’t.


      • Fine and dandy..this time it was in private by consenting adults..my problem is with the progression of things.

        We are not animals. We are the top of the pecking order for a reason. We were created (by God or by a big bang or whatever you want) with an emotion (or whatever) called modesty. For example animals do not blush.. WHY? Why is that? We were not given that for no reason.

        You may be right. Maybe there is no such thing as freedom. It’s all an idea..

        But I’m with JAC. THIS is why many states went red in the last election and more will also be red in 2012!

        • Anita,

          For example animals do not blush

          Whoa there, girl!

          Blushing is a response to a embarrassment. Animals react to embarrassment as well, but in different ways.

          My little dog rolls over and exposes his belly, for example. This is the way a dog “blushes” when he has done a “boo-boo”.

          Freedom is either sacrosanct or it is pliable.

          If you agree to its pliable, be aware that you – and I mean you personally will end up with no freedom.

          • Right but animals also don’t care if they do it in public either. And we can’t stop them anyway.

            I’m beginning to think its pliable…because what you think is acceptable is not the same as what I think is acceptable. And we’re never going to change that..so it has to be pliable. I posted below that maybe freedom is just an idea.

            So theeenn….if it’s just an idea…there has to be laws to….tooowhat….help me out here BF..I can’t even figure myself out!!!!!!! 🙂 LMAO HEELLLP!

      • “I didn’t expect to see a live sex show,” said Justin Smith, 21, a senior economics and political science major who was in the after-class session. “We were told we were going to have some people talk to us about the fetish world and kink.”

        “An “absurd, clinical” video and subsequent discussion about various aspects of female orgasm led Faith and her partner Jim Marcus, 45, to prove to the class that female orgasm is real.”

        Faith said she was not coerced in any way and students were repeatedly warned it was going to get graphic.”

        They were not told there would be a live sex act before they came to the “show”. Only after they were already there and even then what exactly were they told besides it was going to get graphic?
        They could have told me graphic and I still would have never thought they meant they were going to put on a live show.

        Any other points I’m not ready to respond to-I want to know what everyone else thinks.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          V.H., I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.

        • V.H.

          I guess the Justin’s feet failed to engage once he heard live sex was on the play card.

          Therefore it is the performer’s fault.

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            Justin may have been froze by deep emotional shock. Only repairable by a Big Lawsuit.

          • The point is that some of the arguments are based on the students being informed. They were not before they went and the article is not clear on whether or not they were really informed before the “show began” Personally, it makes no difference either way-in my opinion. Our institutes of higher learning should not be using a false claim of education, as an excuse for this type of depravity, even if they can.

        • Naten53 says:

          In universities across America, you have art classes where people pose naked. Where is this outcry? Is it because it isn’t sex per se? At least it surly is sexual.

          When I went to college I had to take one writing course. It was called “Rhetoric and Human Rights.” The professor chose to focus the class on, hate and sex crimes. Sure I had a chance to back out, it wasn’t like you can’t withdrawal from a class and go to another. It was really eye opening though despite the graphicness of it all.

          This class was called “Human Sexuality” and the article says the professor is a psychology professor, so I would guess that it is within the psychology department, and when you signed up for this class you would have known that this class had to deal with things that would be considered taboo in Politically Correct conversations. Like it or not psychology study of sex is important to help treat those that have been victims of sex crimes, and to understand healthy sexual relationships.

          Was this a necessary thing that happened? Probably not, but the question of it being immoral should be answered only by asking if anyone that watched or participated was not consenting. Therein lays the answer I would have suspected more on SUFA would have concluded.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:


        Please note, Egypt and Rome are not around any more. Wonder if the debasement of the culture might have had something to do with it?

        As one ages, what one thought as a young man with far less experience is called repeatedly into question. Do they have the right? Absopositively! Should they, nowayinhell!

        When all bets are off, that is exactly the society you wind up with. There is an awful lot to be said for scorn and ostracism.

  8. March 03, 2011
    America’s Fiscal Civil War
    By Chad Stafko
    The year 2011 marks the 150th anniversary of the Civil War in America. Perhaps it is fitting then that this same year is host to the onset of a great polarization in our nation, the likes of which may get to a point not been seen since the Vietnam War. This fiscal Civil War is between two distinct groups, and although the war is being fought with shouts and legislation, rather than the muskets of old, the end result of the war will have a huge impact upon our country.

    Each group is distinct. On one side are public employees — those who work for a particular local municipality, state, or some type of institution thereof. Many of these employees are unionized. Those sympathizing with this group include public union officials, private union officials, and Democrats.

    On the other side, are private industry employees who are not unionized (about 93% of all private industry employees). Their sympathizers are Republicans. Battles between the groups are breaking out in a growing number of state capitals, Madison, Wisconsin being the most prominent, and are certain to migrate to Washington D.C. soon.

    Make no mistake on the animosity between the two groups. Simply look at the tone seen in Wisconsin. Joe Taxpayer, who isn’t a union worker, sees Mary Union Worker as someone awash with healthcare benefits, a virtually guaranteed job, and a secure, inflation-adjusted pension plan. Meanwhile, Joe Taxpayer faces near 10% unemployment, corporate layoffs and heavy expense reduction at his place of work, rising healthcare costs, and a retirement plan that is far from guaranteed. To add further insult, Joe Taxpayer is paying for the salary, benefits, and retirement plan of Mary Union Worker and many public union workers, and even worse, he’s paying Mary’s union dues.

    It just doesn’t measure up.

    The battle lines are essentially threefold in this war: collective bargaining, pension plans/healthcare, and right-to-work. A number of states, including Arizona, Alabama, and West Virginia, already ban collective bargaining for public employees, so what is being talked about in Wisconsin is by no means new, but it is of the utmost importance.

    The loss of collective bargaining in yet another state could result in a domino effect in other states facing the same budget crunch. This would be a disaster for public unions and their bosses and the justification for their executive positions. That is why the battle of Madison is so electric and why the union bosses, Democrats, and the President of the United States, consider this to be such a critical fight. Don’t be fooled. Money and power for the unions are the spoils of this war, not necessarily any gains for the union members.


  9. Canine Weapon says:
    • 8 wrong 7 right.. Is that good or bad ?

    • Missed 7.

      I think whats interesting is the liberal media only hears him say “go to hell” to those who call him crazy. OK, that is not the tone we want or expect if there is to be dialog. But what about the message? He shows where after three weeks, the NY Times has shown him to be correct. Any retractions from those calling him crazy? Any woops, he was right on this one thing?

      How about paying attention to some other words he said?
      “I want you to question everything”
      “you are being manipulated”(by the media)


      goto hell is just before 12min

  10. Mathius,

    You have a good point.

    “One of the students asked what my specific fetish was and mine is being in front of people, having the attention and being used,” she said. “The students seemed really intrigued.”

    Anita, there was plenty of warning and dialogue prior to the act for those that did not want to observe. If the people stuck around, it is because they wanted to.

    To then later complain is simply idiotic of them.

    Further, a University is supposed to be a place of learning without the oppression of others politically selecting what can be learned or not.

    • This was an optional lecture, few people actually stayed. No one forced anyone to stay after the presentation started. Everybody that was there are adults, who can make their own personal decision about what classes to attend. Last time I checked, Northwestern was a private college, so no public money went to pay for this. Who am I to force my morals on somebody, when no harm has come to me from this, and when I don’t want somebody else to tell me what to do for the greater good.

    • Great, now I’m going to get another nose bleed..

      Flag, I don’t think the students are/were complaining… just backseat quarterbacks like Anita and JAC.

      Since they can’t seem to though, maybe you can clarify why, exactly, it is that sex is public is viewed as morally wrong. You (I believe), DPM, Ray and I are all of the opinion that if it doesn’t hurt anyone and it’s done by and in front of consenting adults, there’s nothing morally wrong with it – perhaps it is distasteful, rude, or socially inappropriate at worst, but there is nothing immoral about it per say. Can you clarify their position since I can’t seem to find any sort of moral roots to it?

      • I’m not seeing a difference between distasteful, rude, or socially innpappropraite and moral.

        Go with my thinking here a second….
        Would you have sex with your wife in front of your 18 yr old daughter or son?

        • With or without lights? Chill, Anita, just kidding.

          • Shoooooot! With the lights.. He’s an anything goes kinds guy..

            That does not excuse your joke though! 👿

        • Naten53 says:

          why are you making the question “what would you do?” instead of “how does this effect my personal freedom?”

          They did nothing to force their lives or morals on unwilling people at a PRIVATE setting at a PRIVATE university.

          • In this case you are right Naten. It’s in private by consenting adults. But progressive thinking leads to anything goes as we see by the public displays of for instance bj’s happening on the public streets..videos have been posted right here on SUFA.. I’m NOT ok with that!

            • Naten53 says:

              then you probably won’t be ok with this.

              Now that this is news, the next semester that this class is offered, it will probably have record amounts of people registaring for it, and the ‘optional

        • Anita,

          Would you have sex with your wife in front of your 18 yr old daughter or son?

          I would not

          …and that is the total limit on the question.

          What someone else may or may not do is not my problem

          • Ok cool. Your answer helps me to say this…

            Why wouldn’t you? Because you do not believe it to be acceptable. There has to be a connection between that statement and that it (sex) shouldn’t be seen in public.

      • Mathius,

        My philosophy -well tested under duress- is sound.

        I do what I do with no harm to others.

        You do what you do with no harm to others.

        No problem.

        • Mathius says:

          That’s fine.. but I’m just trying to figure out what they think the moral roots of their position are. I just can’t find anything that makes sense. Can you?

          • Mathius,

            No, I can’t – but that is nothing new.

            People have opinions and have a hard time surrounding those opinions with a wall of rights.

            They feel “something is wrong” – and that may be true.

            But they interpreted “wrong” with “un-rightful” – where it may be nothing more then “wrong” = “distasteful to me”.

            The nuance of such a position is often difficult to navigate.

            • So all your declarations that our social norms could be used to stop our country from becoming a garbage pit-through ridicule was simply a way to strengthen your cause. You are of the opinion that nothing is actually immoral on a social basis-just distasteful.-just a difference of opinion.

            • I feel like I should respond to comments made so here goes.
              Society accepting ones right to do as they choose doesn’t mean that society should accept that what is being done is acceptable. Our society is doing just that. So at a time when our society is already failing everyone seems to think is a perfect time to take away all limits on immoral behavior. Behavior that just about everyone who is commenting on the morality of the situation today identifies as immoral-Even the not per say answers which equals we stand on the right to do what we want to so we’re gonna claim we’re standing on freedom-when we are actually trying to change societies social norms by adopting the claim that there is not much of anything that is actually immoral because we don’t like anyone telling us what to do.
              We as a society are mixing up the right to freedom with acceptance of depravity-something which isn’t and has never been good for any civilization. Per all our conversations –society’s social norms were going to be the way that we fought against immorality-well I think today’s answers have gone along way to proving that those social norms are not stopping any thing. The misplaced idea that if one stands for freedom they must not stand against things that are wrong-they must not even stand and say it is wrong because it is a right and we mustn’t speak against freedom, is taking us towards the destruction of our society. And this, it does no harm argument-somehow if the harm isn’t readily apparent-it means it isn’t harmful. Anyway bottom line if we are going to get rid of laws about decency than we as individuals must determine the social norms we want to live under. We have to stand against that which we deem inappropriate through our voices and whatever other tools we have-like boycotting, ridicule etc. But what I actually see happening is people feeling like they cannot even talk against a practice because somehow showing disapproval is equivalent to passing laws. Now I know from numerous conversations that this isn’t how people say they feel –but it seems to be what is happening.

            • IlliterateVagrant says:

              I have the dead horse, Anita, Mathius and V.H. have the stick.

              You are cyclically arguing a fundamental difference (which is why this discussion is so unnecessarily long). Anita and V.H. aren’t addressing the idea of personal freedom. Mathius doesn’t understand that morals and ethics have no logical points to argue (thus debate to reach consensus is pointless.) Interjecting any word such as “morals, ethics, or society” into this discussion means you are missing the point.

              Look at me hittin’ that horse with one more stick.

              • And here I am to hit that poor horse again 🙂 Morals and ethics are irrelevant-that’s a pretty broad statement. And society-one may continue to argue that society is just a word because we are all individuals. But we still share a great deal of space-and in our currant governmental structure we are a society-whether one likes the concept or not.

          • The “roots” of my morals (for I can only speak for myself) come from the teachings by parents that the venue for sexual activity isn’t the “classroom” and is a private affair between two individuals.

            That does not mean to say that I then would condemn anyone for not living to my standards. My standards are what I have learn, accepted and become comfortable with.

            Does that help any?

  11. A funny joke about a CEO, a union guy, and a worker and some cookies was posted recently. While funny, I thought it appropriate to do some more realistic versions:

    No Union, current Government level:
    A CEO buys cookie ingredients, mixing bowls and utensils and baking trays and an oven. He tells a worker that if he will make and bake a dozen, he will get to keep 2 of them.
    So he takes 10, the government takes 5 of those away. The Worker gets 2, the government takes 1/2 of a cookie from him. A homeless guy gets 1 cookie from the government, the government wastes 2 cookies, sends 1/4 of a cookie overseas, gives 2 to the military, and keeps the rest for themselves and special interests.
    CEO = 5 cookies
    Worker = 1.5 cookies
    Unemployed person = 1 cookie
    Other government stuff = 4.5 cookies
    The government tells the worker that the CEO is too rich and that you should ignore the fact that the government gets as much out of it as the CEO does.

    Overzealous Union, current Government level:
    A CEO buys cookie ingredients, mixing bowls and utensils and baking trays and an oven. He tells a worker that if he will make and bake a dozen, he will get to keep 2 of them.
    The union guy says that is ridiculous, you give that worker 4 cookie! So the CEO takes 8, the government takes 4 of those away. The Worker gets 4, the government takes 1 cookie from him. The union demands 1.5 cookies for his services from the worker. The government takes 1/2 a cookie from the union guy in campaign contributions. A homeless guy gets 1 cookie from the government, the government wastes 2 cookies, sends 1/4 of a cookie overseas, gives 2 to the military, and keeps the rest for themselves and special interests.
    CEO = 4 cookies
    Worker = 1.5 cookies
    Unemployed person = 1 cookie
    Union guy = 1 cookie
    Other government stuff = 4.5 cookies
    The CEO decides it is not worth buying more ingredients for 4 cookies and buys cookies from China.

    Useless Union, current Government level:
    A CEO buys cookie ingredients, mixing bowls and utensils and baking trays and an oven. He tells a worker that if he will make and bake a dozen, he will get to keep 2 of them.
    The union guy says “Thats ridiculous, give that worker 3 cookies! So the CEO takes 9, the government takes 4.5 of those away. The Worker gets 3, the government takes 1/2 of a cookie from him. The Union Guy demands a cookie for his services, government gets half of that. A homeless guy gets 1 cookie from the government, the government wastes 2 cookies, sends 1/4 of a cookie overseas, gives 2 to the military, and keeps the rest for themselves and special interests.
    CEO = 4.5 cookies
    Worker = 1.5 cookies
    Union Guy = 1 cookie
    Unemployed person = 1 cookie
    Other government stuff = 4.5 cookies
    The CEO and the Worker wonder what the Union guy actually did for anybody…

  12. Naten53 says:

    So who is following the NFL labor talks?

    I saw this article and wondered. So what if the owners are billionares. How come this article doesn’t say how the owners made their money to become billionares instead of implying that it all came from owning the NFL team. If a billionare owns 5 companies, wouldn’t a buisnessman only keep companies that are turning a profit. If companies A, B, C, and D are making a profit, and company E keeps losing money, then why would the owner keep it if they don’t really like it? As far as I can tell, the players are asking for a % of revenue of the NFL team. How the owner makes money elsewhere should be none of their concern.


    NFL owners’ false labor pains.

    Are you the kind of person who loves hearing the bug zapper?

    Who likes it when the highway paves over a few neighborhoods? Who secretly wants the tank to flatten the kid with the flower?

    Then you’re going to love the NFL owners in this mess.

    It’s hard to find anybody to like in this coming distraction known as the NFL lockout. But look closely. Yes, some of the players are millionaires. But half of the owners are billionaires.

    Their estimated combined net worth is well over $40 billion, which is more than the GNP of 150 nations. Paul Allen, owner of the Seattle Seahawks, has a 414-foot yacht called “The Octopus” with two helicopters, two submarines, a swimming pool, a music studio and a basketball court. He also has two backup emergency yachts.

    You’re really worried about his wallet?

    Yes, many of the players are diamond-coated knuckleheads. But have you ever met Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder? He’s worth $1.1 billion and yet, two years ago, the Redskins sued a 73-year-old grandmother for not keeping up on her season-ticket package payments.

    This man also got caught buying stale peanuts from a defunct airline and reselling them at games.

    For the owners to lock out the players at this time in American history is unconscionable. You don’t like the players? Fine. There are still nearly 9 percent of Americans out of work. Think of the people who’ve lost their homes, lost their cars and can barely pay the rent. Watching an NFL game on a Sunday — and getting ready for it all week — is sometimes literally the only thing keeping them going.

    Do you realize what having no NFL season would do to the economy? According to the NFLPA, it’s estimated it would cost each NFL city $160 million and 3,000 jobs. That’s 93,000 jobs nationwide. For what? Another Aspen chalet?

    Question: In 10 years, do you think you’re going to find New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft wandering the streets because of the 200-plus concussions he didn’t know he had from his time in the NFL? You figure Detroit Lions owner William Clay Ford will end up with ringing in the ears and depression the way former Patriots linebacker Ted Johnson did? Within the past year alone, two former players killed themselves.

    You recall any NFL owners killing themselves lately?

    The players aren’t asking for more money. They deserve what they get, and they get it for an average of only three years. The Bidwills have owned the Cardinals for 79 years. The Rooneys have owned the Steelers for 78 years. Nine NFL owners inherited their teams. There’s no easier path to permanent hot-and-cold running jets than your dad handing you an NFL team.

    On the other hand, nobody hands NFL players anything but a chinstrap. With what we know about the dangers to brains now, would you exchange jobs with an NFL player?

    This isn’t baseball. These guys go to a job every day in which safety is Job 1,379.

    The people asking for more money are the owners. They want $1 billion more out of the deal they have now.

    They say they’re losing money. But if you were losing money and were asking for $1 billion back, wouldn’t you slap some proof down on the table? The owners are more secretive with their books than KFC is with its recipe.

    Take our word for it and just fork over the billion. Oh, and play two more games for free. Thanks.

    In this, the greediest and most shameful era in American business history, the NFL owners would steal the cake. No set of sports owners in U.S. history has known this kind of popularity, love or cash. If there is a lockout, the day the 2012 season starts, every fan ought to pelt the owners’ luxury boxes with pennies.

    Jeffrey Lurie, owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, owns an 18-bedroom estate with a three-hole golf course, two-lane bowling alley, two-story recreation center and indoor tennis court. He’s really going to lock players out? For what, his own ski hill?

    Stan Kroenke, owner of the St. Louis Rams, owns four homes, four ranches and three vineyards. He once ordered his employees to destroy $3 million in wine because he didn’t think it was up to his standards. His wife is a Wal-Mart heiress.

    Are you really fretting about his future?

    NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said the other day that the owners need this money to build new stadiums. And who profits from new stadiums? The owners. A new stadium doesn’t make the team any better. The seat under your butt isn’t any bigger. But a new stadium, usually built with vats of your tax dollars, funnels millions more per game into an owner’s pocket via luxury boxes, concessions and advertising. That’s money that isn’t shared 32 ways. What Goodell is saying is, “We need that billion so my owners can buy new Bentleys. Theirs are dusty.”

    Locking out the players now would be unjust, unfair and as indefensible as Al Davis’ wardrobe. There is so much to go around, it’s obscene. A billion back? These guys have that in cash.

    Malcolm Glazer, owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, once bought a $14 million Palm Beach mansion and never moved into it. He later sold it for $24 million.

    Bud Adams, owner of the Tennessee Titans, has 10,000 head of cattle.

    Jennifer Lopez, part owner of the Miami Dolphins, has offered to auction off her twins’ clothes because they’re not allowed to “repeat” outfits.

    When’s the telethon?

    • I’ve been watching just a little. My biggest thought was I want Charlie(Greater Good) to give us a solution to the NFL.
      Then we could look at how it would apply to our county.

      IMO, the owners are greedy. They use the revenue the teams bring to get cities to build them stadiums, give them special breaks, etc. (big business & big gov.)

      The players are greedy, demanding more and more millions first, then paying lip service to how poorly the rookies are treated.

      In the end, it’s the fans who get screwed(compare to taxpayers)

      How about it Charlie?

      • Naten53 says:

        taxpayers get screwed when they have to pay for their stadiums.

      • Charlie says (and said), nobody should be permitted to swallow that much money (whether it’s the billionaires or the millionaires). Nothing is worth what either the owners or players get paid, but certainly the players should have enough to survive on (especially regarding health issues) since the game they play is so detrimental. Yes, they choose to do so, but the monies they “earn” for the owners goes on earning … their careers are short-lived; sometimes crippling.

    • This’ll get the ball rolling …

      How the billionaires got their money has little to do with “earning it” … at some point or other, others did the work for them, including the players with the short-lived careers.

      I’m not going to cry for athletes making millions (and too many of them complete morons if not miscreant Neanderthals), but I am going to bitch about the fact the owners refused to open their books. Why? What’s the big secret? If so much of their revenue is completely dependent on the miscreants they hire to play for their teams, why shouldn’t the miscreants see how badly they’re getting screwed over? Certainly there are athletes who are not miscreants, who did their due diligence and graduated (some with law degrees) and who can speak for themselves quite eloquently … so why shouldn’t they huddle together and take a look-see at just how out of whack all that wealth THEY generate is distributed?

      Why not redistribute some of that unearned billionaire income so the communities where they play are the benefactors not only of minimum wage jobs, but actual redevelopment?

      And while we’re at it (us redskies), why not make damn sure the wealth can’t be handed down generation to generation (right, no more inheritance beyond a fixed figure/dollar amount).

      • Yep! Sounds like a bunch of Socialist/Communist dookie to me.

        Those poor Pro players. They only make several million a year for playing a KIDS game.

        And those mean old owners are hoggin’ all that money for themselves.

        I do agree that the taxpayers shouldn’t be paying out the nose to build them a new stadium.

        But the no inheritance crap is just that. CRAP.

      • Ahhhh…Charlie, Charlie, Charlie…….Is it cold on the other side of Pluto? Me thinks you are in a brain freeze. I do not feel sorry for the players or the owners. Unlike NAten, I do not care what the owners have….I noticed he did not list what the players have (their mansions, cars, airplanes, summer homes, winter homes)…..and the fact that the players get 60 % of the Revenues now. But, your analogy of “not earning” it is amazing. But it always is. It is amazing how you relate earning it to money levels. It is a good thing I am not an NFL owner. I would be butching about the 60% the players are getting and I could care less about the concussions that they know they are going to get for playing the game. They are raised by their parents to go for the gold and they do. The market place dictates how much they get.

        I would miss football but it is not my life. I do not pay to go to games now…I can find a lot better things to do with my money than go to professional sports with overpaid testosterone neanderthalls…

        As to the books….it is not your business nor their business. I would not show my corporate books to anyone….they do not have the right to see it. It is private. If you wish to think that I have something to hide by not showing the books, then that is your choice. I have nothing to prove. IT ALL COMES DOWN TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. IF the two sides do not come together…..then strike or lockout….but it is collective bargaining. No one has to agree. Personally I would like to see the revenues split be 50/50 but that is also a bargaining issue. If a player can make 20 million in one year (as I heard Vick is going to do this year) great fo him. If an owner can make another billion,….bully for him. Spend it well, it is theirs.

        • Colonel, Pluto is fine this time of year … it’s sunny here in the most corrupt state in the union. I haven’t gone to any professional sporting even in more than a dozen years and for exactly the same reasons (I think) as you … just not worth the value (mostly, though, I feel because the players don’t give 100% way too often) but … I would prefer it if billionaires and the like were living on a more level playing field with the porters for the simple fact that they couldn’t possibly earn all their billions on their own (it is physically impossible). [there’s a BF mosquito buzzing in my irrational ears right now] … so, hand over the loot, NFL owners and redistribute that unearned wealth or else.

          Forecast for tomorrow is more of the same here on Pluto.

          As for Michael Vick … I’m too much of a dog lover to not want to see that piece of shit put through a meat grinder … very, very slowly.

        • Naten53 says:

          I don’t care what the owners have either, the person who wrote that article did, and they also made it seem like all their money came from football.

          • Wherever their monies came from, trust me, there’s no way they “earned it” without the help of others.

            • Charlie,

              without the help of others

              The nature of cooperation – nothing new here.

              But you ignore that these “others” got paid too. They received compensation as per their agreement.

              Everyone got what they agreed to.

              But to Charlie, that is immoral.

            • IlliterateVagrant says:

              They earned what they got fair and square. If they “choose” to help those who helped them then that’s their business. If they don’t then that’s their business as well. The funny thing about karma though….

              With that said, I agree with Black Flag. If an agreement is struck, it doesn’t matter the value of money. It’s still earned fair and square.

      • Charlie

        What’s the big secret

        Ah. duh.

        The same reason you don’t publish your bank account transactions and balance on the internet

        You are a strange man, Charlie.

        You demand others must do what you would never do.

        • Duh … (I thought USW precluded you from being a smartass)
          Others are not employed by my bank accounts, for one thing, but in the interest of the greater good, if it is necessary for the betterment of us all, so be it, go crazy.

          • Charlie,

            So let’s get a link to your bank account right now.

            The “Greater Good” is not fickle, true? If it exists, it must exist at this moment, and it is in its interest to have your information.

            Please also include your medical history, your criminal record, your employment records as well.

            I wait with bated breath.

            • Duh, duh, duh and double duh … as soon as socialism rules in America, you got it, hojo.

              But you have to show me yours if you wanna see mine …

              As for up above, the “agreement” was one-sided … very unfair … taking jobs because there are no others isn’t close to the same thing as agreeing to work for X wages. Accepting a job from need doesn’t compute when the disparity in income is so great as owners vs. popcorn pusher. How did the owner reach is status (was it fair, did he “earn” it … was he perhaps lucky?) … distribution of wealth settles all problems … everybody earns close to the same, enough to live a dignified life. Greedy SOB’s need not apply.

    • This article has Charlie’s name written all over it.

      I’m surprised I’m not included here, as a Packers’ shareholder.

      “Kathy, a (very minimal) owner of the Packers’ has, like, lots and lots of shoes! Low heeled boots, high heeled boots (pointy toed boots!) snow boots, and sandals, and running shoes and, and, like flip flops in a multitude of colors. She even once sold a pair of shoes in a garage sale that STILL HAD THE PRICE TAG ON THEM! Strike her down for her greediness!”

      The unheard voice here? The fans! Just got the renewal notice for our season tickets (which by the way we inherited from the in-laws – chew on that Charlie!) and oh yeah, went up another $6 a seat on top of our “opportunity to donate”.

      But crap, now I got this great Rodgers superbowl jersey so we’ve got to renew! Just need a really hot pair of shoes to go with it.

      • Kathy. No offense dearie, but as a Atlanta Falcons fan, Piss on your Rodgers Jersey. 😀

        • Yeah, Falcons, hmmm, think I remember swinging through there on our way to the big dance. How’d that end up? Oh yeah…

          Green Bay Packers 48, Atlanta Falcons 21

      • Kathy, Kathy, Kathy … did you know that Vince Lombardi is my God … and that Vince was from Brooklyn (like me) … and that Vince was a Democratic (like I once was)?

        He’s be turning in his grave at all those shoes!

        I can’t knock Green Bay … socialism won it all this year, didn’t it? The Pack (and socialism) are back!

        • Charlie,

          Come on buddy, lets look at the NFL under true socialism. 32 teams, 9 billion yearly revenue. Do you turn the teams over to the cities? Shoot the owners. Are the players senior owners or just workers? How much do they get paid for risking almost certain debilitating injuries? Is admission free? If I “own” the damn team(1 of a million), why do I have to pay to see them. And would you keep the NFL president, etc, to run things(reminds me of union bosses) or do they get the 9mm memo, “your services are no longer needed”?

          • LOI, you’d have to socialize the entire economy before we could work out the intricate details of the NFL, but essentially, players wouldn’t make much more than those going to see them (they’d actually play because they want to)… and there just wouldn’t be owners, brother. We’d all partake of the benfits. See, wasn’t that easy?

            • Charlie,
              ….and after a few years of brutalizing their bodies so they can’t even walk for the rest of their lives – no prob! Charlie will steal your money to pay for them to sit in a chair for the rest of their lives!

              • What’s so wrong with that? I wouldn’t consider it stealing but we disagree there. I consider you stealing from others when you own the means of production.

                See, it all works out in the end. We don’t agree, BF … live with it.

  13. Jeez Louis G! What the crap have you done? 🙂

    You have presented a reasonable and valid arguement for working together instead of fighting one another.

    And look what it’s gotten you my friend!

    These Progressives and Radical Lefties don’t WANT to work with the rest of us. What our esteeemed government is doing to us is exactly what they want them to do.

    What a suprise it will be when this Progressive Utopia that they are all looking foward to erecting oppresses THEM just as much as it will the rest of us.

    Anyone from the slightly left of center all the way to the far right can see it.

    • We miss you Esom! You need to come play with us more often~

      • Hey hon. I hope the above response to you is taken as the ribbing it was supposed to be.

        • I haven’t been around because I have had to have back surgery. Fusion Surgery.

          I am now so broke I can’t even pay attention. I am on my long term disability, which is only 65% of my already non-existent salary. I can’t AFFORD internet. Not even dial-up.

          Right now I’m on my daddy’s internet.

          I keep up somtimes by getting on here and reading but mostly don’t respond.

          This is because I am turning into one of those Seccessionist Radical Patriots for Freedom and Liberty. My Ass is completely CHAPPED at the damn Constitution ignoring, Socialist loving BASTARDS we have in government.

          Obama is a total and complete fool. The Republicans are only VERY MARGINALLY better.

          I see no change for the better, only for the worse.

          AND I AM SICK OF IT.

          • Esom, take a chill pill and think Socialist … you wouldn’t be so broke (not from healthcare costs) … and I guarantee we’d find work for you. It is capitalism that has put you in this condition … think positive!

            • Pardon my french Charlie, But FUCK Socialism! 👿

              Socialism won’t do anything but make things worse.

              I am broke because I don’t make anything to start with. 65% of nothing is….. well you see where I am going. Your Universal Healthcare would not have changed a thing. I HAD insurance. And it’s better than what will replace it when that screwed up law takes effect. We already have evidence from the insurance company itself.

              And capitalism most certainly did not put me in this position. A degenerative back problem did.

              You see Charlie Commie, I am one of those who takes responsibility for their own actions and life. I don’t blame others. I also don’t WANT the government to take care of me. Only borderline morons want that shit.

              I’m not one of them.

              • Dear Capitalist Esom … A degenerative back problem did. Think Good Will Hunting here for a minute.

                It’s not your fault. It’s not your fault. It’s not your fault, etc.

                So, no need to take responsibility for a degenerative back problem, but wouldn’t it be neat if you didn’t have to sweat it out and others contributed to your health? I mean, to quote the famous BF a second … “Duh” …

                I do hope you get better and feel better. I mean no disrespect at all. Peace.

          • Oh no. So sorry to hear about your surgery and troubles. Keep the faith Esom; it took a long time for this mess to be created and it will take a long time to clean it up.

        • Back at ya Buddy!!!

    • gmanfortruth says:


      I have no idea what I did. All hell broke loose yesterday, now I’m concerned that my next article might lead to fist a cuffs 🙂

  14. Anita

    Why wouldn’t you? Because you do not believe it to be acceptable. There has to be a connection between that statement and that it (sex) shouldn’t be seen in public.

    True, for me it is not acceptable.

    Therefore, I do not engage is such an action

    Therefore, I do not attend where such an action will occur.

    But I do not inflict myself upon others who defer with me in this

    I leave and what they do or do not is not my concern

  15. But I do not inflict myself upon others who DIFFER with me in this

  16. BF and I agree? Okay, where are MY meds?

  17. Anita,

    And we’re never going to change that..so it has to be pliable

    Freedom is not pliable – it is or it is not.

    What is pliable is your attitude.

    You either accept that other people act and may do so that is crude to you or you do not accept this.

    If you do not accept this, you thus must accept that others will judge you the same way and enforce their attitude upon you – whether you like it or not

    You will sow what you reap.

    • Then explain this..Matt thinks he’s free..I don’t think I’m free..therefore we both think freedom is something different. It has to be pliable. Therefore , no matter what, it has to be constrained.

      • You go girl!

        In BF’s world, only what HE thinks counts.

        Not me … we’re all equal. Freedom is whatever you want it to be, love.

        • Sort of Charlie..but I’m closer to BF’s way of thinking than yours!!!

          I’m trying to chip away at some of his mental block though. 🙂

        • Charlie is a great example of total confusion.

          • 🙂 Leave Charlie alone..we’ll drag him along with us just for laughs!!!!!! Plus he’ll buy the beer and play poker with you

        • Not me … we’re all equal. Freedom is whatever you want it to be….

          Good, glad you said this. My freedom means what I earn is mine, not to be stolen/taken/taxed/appropriated or otherwise removed from my control and spread around to others – unless I choose to share it.

          Now you can give up your socialist worldview since you’ve come to your senses about freedom. 🙂

      • Disregard! I forgot the attitude part..I’m still struggling here though.

      • Anita,

        Then explain this..Matt thinks he’s free..I don’t think I’m free..therefore we both think freedom is something different.

        Yes, that maybe true that either or both of you are completely confused to what “freedom” means.

        But that does not mean “freedom” does not exist.

        Freedom is “acting without imposition of another human being”.

        It has to be pliable.

        Do not confuse “confusion” with being “pliable”.

        Therefore , no matter what, it has to be constrained.

        Freedom -constrained- is called slavery.

  18. Charlie,

    but you have to show me yours if you wanna see mine …


    So, you do believe in “what you demand of me, I demand of you” rule!

    Nope – you are the one who said “no prob” – now, you renege when it means you have to do it

    As I’ve complained often about you – you demand of others that you will not do yourself.

    The typical ego-centric personality: “Freedom for me, slavery for you”

    distribution of wealth settles all problems … everybody earns close to the same, enough to live a dignified life. Greedy SOB’s need not apply.

    It settles one problem but makes a million worse ones. You forget the latter.

    Everyone does not provide the same value in their effort. You think that digging a hole and filling it again is the same value as a brain surgeon. Well, actually you don’t. But you are so confused that you have no way to measure value other than by violent imposition – stealing what you think is a “right” amount” and giving to others

    So its the same old Charlie – you know what is valuable, you know how to measure it, and you know how to allocate it – and no one else does.

    • Don’t you EVER stop?

      Everyone does not provide the same value in their effort.

      That’s is one of the points, BF … the disparity between top and bottom earners (or top any pretty much anyone else) is absurdly out of whack.

      But please, go drive someone else crazy for a little while … or take that walk and get some air (what I suggested yesterday–take a break). You’re the ego-centric one … very full of yourself (and hot air) but … us redskis love you anyway … well, maybe put up with you is a better way to put it.

      Under socialism everybody would have to show theirs (so there goes another of your ten minute typing lessons out the window) … oy vey …

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    Ruger is coming out with a new pistol in honor of Obama. It will be named the “Union Worker”.

    It doesn’t work and you can’t fire it.

  20. Charlie,

    You do make me laugh. Your confuse is so great it is a comedy!

    when you own the means of production

    So what I own is me stealing!

    I own my own effort, therefore I am stealing from you!

    You should get a comedy show!

    • What a putz … it is a phrase … it means (as used above) you’ve already stolen if you “own it” … sweet jesus, get yourself some nasal spray or something to clear your sinuses.

      The point, lord laugh a lot, is you can’t possibly own the means of production … those who do now under capitalism are in fact stealing … stealing from their workers (over and over again). Their end of the deal is too disproportionate for what they contribute to the final product. Why doesn’t that compute for you? Oh, right, your head is made of brick, I forgot.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Holy Cow Charlie,

        CS: stealing from their workers (over and over again).

        So a guy invents a product, invests tons on his money building a factory, hires workers to run the factory. It is successful, and the owner/investor gets wealthy. An you want to take that wealth and pass it out to those who are unwealthy.

        So tell me Charlie, how long do you think there will be owner/investors actually investing and hiring workers?

        • I actually think Charlie is one of those confused anarchists-who hate the government and hate any type of authority-so they think the whole world should be unions which control and run all business. What was it an Authoritarian Anarchist or some such-which when you think about it is close enough to communism to not make a lot of difference.

        • Gman,

          Don’t fret. The likes of Charlie never actually work out the consequences of their evil pograms. They are superficial.

          They see what they believe (because it is all about them) is excess over here, and see what they believe is a shortage over there.

          They steal from over here and give to over there, and then end their evaluation with a high-five to themselves (image: 300lb man clapping his hands over his head yelling “High Five, good job!)

          Then he goes deaf/dumb/blind to the rest of the story.

          The man over here – getting something for nothing – demands more of it. Why not? No effort got massive gain – so demand more gain for no effort because … it has no cost

          The man over there – getting nothing for his effort – stops effort. Why? Since effort suffers lose and no effort gains, a rational man stops effort and demands gain! He joins the guy over here and demands goods for nothing!

          The collapse of every Communist/Socialist nation does not deter Charlie. His only measure is immediacy, not the longer – more permanent – long term.

        • So a guy invents a product, invests tons on his money building a factory

          Where does he get those tons of money, Gman?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Well, he may have earned it a saved. Or he may get loans that must be paidback.

            But if you take the money he was to save, he would not have the means to get loans. The company then does not exist.

        • Hey, Phil Rizzuto (Holy Cow) … we all work together (see Rodney King) … yes, I want to pass around the wealth … I do, I do, I do … I want everybody to rise together. Those already on top have to take a step down and acknowledge they aren’t kings. Incredible, isn’t it?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Yes, Frenchy, it is amazing. Take the top down, every private business will close, there will be only government jobs, which do not produce, and extreme poverty will ensue. That is the end result of communism, as has been proven by history.

            • But G, Charlie just can’t wait for us to have the experience of standing in line to buy a loaf of bread, work in dead end jobs dictated by five year plans with no incentives to turn out quality products, and getting sent to the “rest” camps to realign our thinking when we slip from the required “norm” of greater good thoughts.

              All the while the new socialist 2% will have the very lifestyles Charlie screams about now, ruling us with even tighter control over the populace. Step out of line and see disappear for “hooliganism.”

              You know you can’t wait for the experiences my friend. 🙄

      • Charlie,

        So go ahead and make the shoe – good luck in selling any of them, let alone luck for producing even one shoe.

        Further, the company PAID THE WORKER for his effort

        That is where you get confused.

        You believe that the worker is a slave – but he got paid!
        He works there voluntarily, entered into a trade of value (his work) for value (money).

        So your complaint is idiotic. Your ego makes you believe you know what is a fair deal between two independent parties

        You burst in – knowing what is good for the worker and what is good for the owner – and you neither do the labor or own the company!

        Utter insanity – but you’re Charlie so I repeat myself.

        You do not understand that your labor is just an economic good.

        You trade the goods you have in excess for goods you do not have.

        The worker has excess of time and talent. The owner of the company trades money for the use of that time and talent. That is the end of that trade and everyone got what they wanted.

        What the owner does with the shoes after that is the owners business, just like what the worker does with his money is his business and not the owners

        • So your complaint is idiotic

          Uh-oh, we’re back to you being a MORON again.

          You can’t comprehend the inequity, therefore you’re right?

          Wrong … as usual, BF … but I really do have to get back to the gravey (you probably call it sauce) … just poked in to see if you could resist having the last word (because you’re life is kind of spent in here it seems) … have fun.

          • IlliterateVagrant says:

            Why force the people who have succeeded to share their success with those who helped them get where they are? For every dollar YOU make, someone has to spend one somewhere. That’s the beauty of Capitalism. Without the support of the money-spenders, the money-earners collapse. It is up to the consumer, not the government to choose who they collaborate with.

  21. Antia

    Plus he’ll buy the beer and play poker with you<

    True. I get two for a laugh!

    He buys me beer while I take his money!!!

  22. I have to cook for my wife & son now so I won’t be back until tomorrow (probably late) … I’ll bang my head against the wall a few times and make believe BF is whispering in my ear.

  23. Charlie

    Don’t you EVER stop?

    Against irrational idiocy, …. never.

    Everyone does not provide the same value in their effort.

    That’s is one of the points, BF … the disparity between top and bottom earners (or top any pretty much anyone else) is absurdly out of whack.

    On who’s opinion? Yours???

    Why does YOURS matter, and not the CEO’s opinion???

    Oh, I remember – since you have a ego-centric world view, only your opinion matters and his never does.

    • IlliterateVagrant says:

      I used to think like Charlie. That is until I realized that it’s very rare to find someone who is both good at something, and just as good at making money from what they are good at. Some people’s skills is simply to make money with what they are given. Without these people we skilled workers would be SOL (trust me I know, I’m among many things a freelance artist.)

      The thing is that the Charlie types don’t want to hear is that there are plenty of amazingly skilled people but only a market for a small percentage. Once entered into a business accord, with both parties satisfied, it doesn’t matter the monetary discrepancy. If you have agreed to work for a set wage, then it doesn’t matter how much your CEO makes. The individual is the one responsible for their own paycheck, not the company. If a skill is truly so desirable to command a CEO’s wage, then that worker will be paid well. If the skill is amazing but isn’t desirable enough to command such a sum then obviously the wage will have to change. Money is what makes everything work, not skilled labor.

      • If you have agreed to work for a set wage

        Most people do not AGREE to work for a set wage; they take the job because it is there (and may be the ONLY job available). Come on with this nonsense already … most people do not “agree” to anything other than work (feeling grateful for having a job is not the same as “agreeing”); they have no voice other than need. No CEO on Wall Street is worth more than the guy sweeping up nights (as they proved by bankrupting the economy). Why should they be paid so much more? Education? Ha, tell it to the teachers you want to keep from collective bargaining … those big $46,399 salaries in WI that are “bankrupting” the state.

        Please … wake up … smell the coffee … you’re all slaves to your wages …. unite, put on some red clothes … dance in the street (think Charlie Sheen here) … WIN

        • IlliterateVagrant says:

          Heh, I think I’ll pass on replicating Charlie Sheen. I keep relatively off the crazy-meter 😉

          The reason I’m not sold that people like the janitor sweeping up deserve as much as a CEO or someone of any higher position is responsibility. A good CEO if he leads his company to great financial success gets rewarded with his immense salary. If he tears the company down then he will be fired and never hired again in that position of responsibility by any other company. If the janitor doesn’t sweep one night or gets fired it has no effect on the company earning money.

          The CEO makes decisions every day that affect the outcome of the whole company.He is saddled with the companies financial success which ultimately means the jobs for all those who work. Regardless of how moral a CEO is, if he directs the company to financial success he deserves every penny of his salary. If the workers don’t like it then they can strike and quit thus forcing the company to either find workers to replace (if the jobs are menial and unskilled) or adapt and change (lower CEO wages, raise employee salary.)

          Making the world an equal place seems like a “just” thing to do, but the fact is that we are not all equal in our drive for success. Those who have the drive will make it. Those who do not will be our janitors. It’s life.

  24. gmanfortruth says:



    Agent Tells CBS News: “The More Our Guys Buy, the More Violence We’re Having Down Here”

    Tonight on the CBS EVENING NEWS WITH KATIE COURIC (6:30 PM, ET), CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson will follow up on her February 23 report about a major scandal within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). In an exclusive interview with Attkisson, a Phoenix-based ATF agent risks his job to describe the practice of letting guns “walk,” and gives an insider’s perspective about how the ATF knowingly contributed to the escalating violence in Mexico and American border states to that country.

    Following are advance excerpts from tonight’s broadcast.

    On his bosses’ denial of the gunrunning practice and going public:

    ATF Agent: “I’m here boots on the ground in Phoenix, telling you we’ve been doing it every day since I’ve been here. Here I am. Tell me I didn’t do the things that I did. Tell me you didn’t order me to do the things I did. Tell me it didn’t happen. Now you have a name on it, you have a face to put with it. Here I am. Someone now – tell me it didn’t happen.”

    On role of ATF in violence in Mexico:

    Sharyl Attkisson: “Did you feel that the ATF was partly to blame for the escalating violence in Mexico, and on the border:

    Agent: “Yes ma’am. I even asked them if they could see the correlation between the two. The more our guys buy, the more violence we’re having down there.”

    On finding two assault rifles at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, and hoping to help Terry’s family:

    Agent: “I felt guilty. I mean it’s crushing. I don’t know how to explain it.”

    Agent: “First of all, I’d tell them that I’m sorry. Second of all, I’d tell them I’ve done everything that I can for them to get the truth. After this, I don’t know what else I can do. But I hope they get it.”

    Sharyl Attkisson’s full report broadcasts tonight on the CBS EVENING NEWS WITH KATIE COURIC. Web exclusive elements will be available at http://www.cbsnews.com after 6:30 PM, ET tonight.

  25. gmanfortruth says:

    A US Air Force C-130 was scheduled to leave Thule Air Base, Greenland, at midnight during a winter month. During the pilot’s preflight check, he discovers that the latrine holding tank is still full from the last flight. So a message is sent to the base and an airman who was off duty is called out to take care of it.

    The young man finally gets to the air base and makes his way to the aircraft only to find that the latrine pump-truck has been left outdoors and is frozen solid, so he must find another one in the hangar, which takes even more time. He returns to the aircraft and is less than enthusiastic about what he has to do. Nevertheless, he goes about the pumping job deliberately and carefully (and slowly) so as not to risk criticism later.

    As he’s leaving the plane, the pilot stops him and says, ‘Son, your attitude and performance has caused this flight to be late and I’m going to personally see to it that you are not just reprimanded but punished.’ Shivering in the cold, his task finished, he takes a deep breath, stands tall and says, ‘Sir, with all due respect, I’m not your son; I’m an Airman in the United States Air Force. I’ve been in Thule, Greenland, for 11 months without any leave, and reindeers’ asses are beginning to look pretty good to me. I have one stripe; it’s 2:30 in the morning, the temperature is 40 degrees below zero, and my job here is to pump shit out of an aircraft. Now, just exactly what form of punishment did you have in mind?’

  26. Ray Hawkins

    Loose end from earlier

    “Ray Hawkins Says:
    March 3, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    @JAC – take your pushy morals and go sign up for a different class. I suppose notions of “freedom” and “liberty” only apply when they fit your narrow definition of what is moral?

    My position as stated does not affect anyone’s freedom and certainly not Liberty.

  27. USW

    You stated you disagreed with me on the moral decay question. It seems you also did not read my words carefully.

    I see this as just one more example of denigrating human relationships. A direct attack on the norms that allow more civil society. But no where did I say that the Govt should be involved in this.

    I also think a lot of people are underestimating the coercive nature of the “authority” vested in a professor. Why the hell are universities establishing moral clauses that punish professors for having sex with undergraduates? It is because of the effect of authority.

    Funny how so many on this site have overplayed the psychology card with respect to how people are manipulated by the supposed conservatives. Yet in this case we assume there is no such coercion.

    But even if such coercion were absent I still find this an example of moral decline. If I were a parent I would jerk my funding. I would view the Universities “rationalization” and argument as something I do not want to support.

    They are free to continue their ignorant behavior, but I will not support it financially.

  28. For those that think this University is completely private, please tell me WHO provides the monopoly protection for their athletic programs?

  29. V.H.

    Society accepting ones right to do as they choose doesn’t mean that society should accept that what is being done is acceptable. Our society is doing just that.

    This is central to almost all of our discussions.

    It is NOT that you have to accept the act – it is how you respond and act yourself that counts and nothing else

    If in your disgust, you invoke violence by proxy (government) you will have destroyed yourself at the same time

    If in your disgust, you invoke non-violent responses (such as shunning, condemnations, oustraziation, public embarrassament, etc.) you will provide society with a statement of moral cnter and a protection of human rights

    • Perhaps this part of the fighting for freedom should be stated more often because I think it is being lost in the fight against restrictive laws. All the “it’s none of my business” remarks and “nothing is immoral” remarks without stating the individual responsibility of standing against that which one believes is immoral -is in my opinion stopping the one and endangering the other.Because in my opinion and history both are essential.

      • V.H.

        I believe the “none of your business” only is extended when comments of “inflicting law upon the actors” is made.

        Remember, you are as free as your “immoral” actors to do what is your right

        You have a right to NOT deal with anyone you do not want to deal with. You do NOT need to justify “why”

        You have a right to speak your mind on topics of your choosing. You do NOT need to justify why

        And if by your dealings (or lack of) and by your words (or lack of) you present a moral opinion and rhetoric sufficient to influence your neighbors to that same opinion – good for you.

%d bloggers like this: