Disqus - Latest Comments for CStanley

Re: Best Line About About Goldman Sachs

CStanley — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:17:49 -0000

It's really more of a holistic understanding of the gospel story, JSpencer (cherry picking individual quotes is never very helpful anyway.) Neither the political powers nor the 'greedy capitalists' were exactly protagonists in the gospels, and Jesus surrendered himself to the political authorities rather than challenging them or advocating that his followers should seek out that kind of power.

Re: Sniper Execution

CStanley — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:29:26 -0000

I suspect that DLS may be talking about the politically partisan part of the death penalty debates (using death penalty convictions as a partisan bludgeon against the red states that issue and carry them out), which will likely mean a lot less noise about this particular conviction.

At any rate, I also wanted to mention that there is another dimension to the anti- death penalty argument that you didn't include, and that's the view that no one (or no government) has the right to take another life even if the person is guilty of a heinous crime. That's my personal viewpoint, and that's why I don't celebrate or support this execution even though I don't harbor the doubts about guilt or fairness that might apply in other cases.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

CStanley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:07:11 -0000

Thanks...you too, Polimom.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

CStanley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:36:08 -0000

How do you define terrorism? Your comment about this not being part of any war is puzzling because reliable reports are that this shooter was at least in part motivated by his objection to the Iraq and Afghan wars. It's also not clear to me why a definition of terrorism would necessarily be related to a 'war'- isn't it true that instances like the shooting of abortionist Tiller are considered domestic terrorism? Or the Oklahoma City bombing?

I understand the concern that we not overstate this as the type of terrorism that is organized, state sponsored, or more coercive in nature. But I don't understand the overblown criticism of those who would use the word terrorism to describe it either.

Overgeneralizing is the problem. In the abortionist killing, there was legitimate concern expressed that the killer held an ideological belief that his action was heroic because he would prevent fetal deaths by killing Dr. Tiller- but anyone who overgeneralized to think that this was a widely held belief among abortion opponents, or that this idea would be sanctioned by most Christian groups, was wrong to do so. In the current instance, there's emerging evidence that the killer may have believed that he was acting heroically by killing soldiers who would be sent to kill Muslims- and again, we can and should acknowledge that a minority of people might believe that even while we take care not to paint most or all Muslims with that broad brush.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

CStanley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:27:15 -0000

Actually that's not accurate. The regulations on a military base for carrying weapons is quite similar to a college campus, and the soldiers are not walking around armed. The 'soldiers' who shot and wounded Hasan were first responders- basically law enforcement officials assigned to security patrol.

I don't know that the argument of allowing people to be armed in either situation holds water- but the fact is that in both situations the majority of the victims and potential victims were in the exact same situation, having had no choice but to be unarmed and to rely on security officials to protect them against the attack.

Re: TMV blogger wins race, may be first to go from blogging to political office

CStanley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:48:14 -0000

Congrats Jill! Well done.

Re: Obama has Become a Japanese Verb

CStanley — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:44:19 -0000

J, I guess that's one way of looking at it but virtually all of the 'seemingly insurmountable challenges' you mention didn't require ignoring facts and realities...rather, they involved decisions to commit resources to solving the seemingly insurmountable challenges. About the only one that you mentioned that could fit the category would be the moon launch, since we really did lack the technological know how at the time that JFK issued the challenge- but that's still not exactly the same as ignoring facts, it was still about committing resources.

Today though, with many of the 'seemingly insurmountable challenges', those who chant 'yes we can' actually ARE in many cases ignoring facts and feeling that if they wish it hard enough, it will all work out.

Re: Obama has Become a Japanese Verb

CStanley — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:21:48 -0000

“To ignore inexpedient and inconvenient facts or realities, think ‘Yes we can, Yes we can,’ and proceed with optimism ..."

I don't know if that definition of how it's being used is accurate or not, but I'm struggling to understand how that would be 'mostly positive'. You're the leader of the free world and you make decisions based on 'ignoring inexpedient and inconvenient facts and realities', using blinded optimism to proceed in spite of those realities, and that's supposed to be a good thing?

Re: The House Health Bill: Here come the taxes

CStanley — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:39:59 -0000

Sil, if you're proposing a tax rate of 10% (which is what tithing is)...I'm in!

Re: Pres. Obama Stands Witness at Dover Air Force Base

CStanley — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:12:41 -0000

It's turning my stomach to see this being used as a game of political football. Really, what are we coming to that we're going to argue about which president honored the fallen troops in a more appropriate way? People should be ashamed of themselves.

Re: Animals and Humans

CStanley — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:44:21 -0000

I'm a veterinarian, yes.

Re: Animals and Humans

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:42:24 -0000

Cats are interesting to me, and individual ones are really, really cool- while others I just don't connect with as well. Although I try not to let on to my clients, and have a great rapport with my feline patients (I'm told) I can't deny that by nature I'm much more of a 'dog person'.

Re: California High School Student, 15 Years Old, Gang-Raped for Two Hours While a Crowd Watched

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:26:36 -0000

With all due respect to you in return, Kathy, there are numerous details in your account that I have not seen in ANY of the reporting and in fact I've seen some facts reported that contradict some of it. I'm not interested in debating those points though because undoubtedly you'll view that as an attempt by me to diminish the horrific nature of what happened to this girl and that is not something I wish to be accused of. IMO, she was completely innocent and undeserving of the attack (which should go without saying) but in terms of how the incident would appear to people on the outskirts of a crowd in a dark courtyard, with the victim unconscious (so not making any cries of distress), I simply disagree with you that it couldn't possibly appear one way to some onlookers than what it really was.

Which is to also point out that of course at NO time did I in any way imply or say what you claim I did here:
Your lack of clarity on whether at least four and up to 20 boys raping a girl for two and a half hours, into unconsciousness, left to die under a bench, is really a rape or whether it might possible be consensual sex, is appalling

Since any fair reading of everything I've written here would clearly indicate that I am not at ALL confused about this incident being a 'real rape' or not, and instead I'm pointing out a potential problem that I feel may need to be addressed on whether or not our KIDS know the difference, I'll thank you not to twist my words and to save your indignation for Whoopi "rape-rape" Goldberg.

Re: Animals and Humans

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:32:01 -0000

Elephants are my second favorite animal after dogs, so I find the grief rituals fascinating too.

I think the take home points about intelligence and social structures is that each species has its own adaptations based on the social needs of the species- and that's again a reason not to anthropomorphize. Of course just the fact that there's evidence of the evolutionary basis for social adaptations and advancements which rely on more advanced cognition can be a source of discomfort for some people with religious viewpoints, but personally I don't consider it any more of a deal breaker than heliocentrism ultimately proved to be.

Re: Obama “Thesis” Controversy a Hoax: Limbaugh Gets “Punked”

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:12:48 -0000

Not meaning to keep this going so long I just enjoyed the conversation.

Same here and I'm glad we've found some common ground vis a vis immigration.

Re: California High School Student, 15 Years Old, Gang-Raped for Two Hours While a Crowd Watched

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:07:46 -0000

Oh, and on this:
Are you objecting to middle- and high-schoolers being given information about birth control?

No, not at all...but sometimes I don't think it's taught appropriately (sometimes giving kids too much confidence in what it can and cannot protect against, or even if the scientific information is presented correctly there's evidence that girls tend to be most freaked out about pregnancy and so all they really hear is the part about "do this and you won't get pregnant" even though many of those activities still leave them vulnerable to STDs.

And, I think there should be more emphasis on the emotional /psychological effects of sex instead of just brief platitudes of 'being ready'. I think that schools could do more to help kids understand the actual emotional ramifications more clearly, and to present information about how girls are even more affected by sex as an emotional bond and that is why boys need to better understand the girl's readiness or lack of readiness.

Re: California High School Student, 15 Years Old, Gang-Raped for Two Hours While a Crowd Watched

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:57:24 -0000

Kathy, I don't think you and I disagree as much as you might think on much of this. I absolutely agree with your point in the last paragraph about teaching toward boys, and although I may not have been clear that is a big part of the moral teaching that I feel is missing from current school curricula.

I don't pretend to have all of the answers- there really IS no good substitute for family support. But I do think we could make the surrounding culture less toxic and stop accepting certain elements of entertainment or calling people prudes if they don't accept the status quo. And if schools are going to be the stand in for educating kids about sex, then I simply can't agree that morality has to be left out (it just needs to be secular morality rather than religious.)

And even more to the original point of this discussion, how does all this lead you to believe that a mob of boys gang-raping a girl for two and a half hours is in danger of being misinterpreted by passersby as consensual sex?
As I tried to indicate, I could be completely off base on that- but what I have been made aware of currently is that teen parties often include a fair amount of group sexual activity and voyeuristic stuff so that I'm not so sure that a bystander wouldn't see this as 'normal'. And just as in my time, if you came upon a couple having sex in a car or somewhere at a school dance, you wouldn't report them- if these kids have normalized those kinds of activities then they're not going to report them either.

I also have been told that a lot of girls are participating out of a sense of coercion so that it's not enough to say that boys should be taught to accept no for an answer but to also understand that the default answer isn't yes.

Anyway, it may or may not be the case that the event in question was obviously not consensual, and without more details it's impossible to know how much it might have appeared violent vs. sexual in nature, and whether or not there were signs that other kids would have necessarily have seen as indicators of rape.

Oh, and btw- on the point about teaching of boys, I feel that's an area that even most good PARENTS neglect. There's still way too much of the attitude that boys will be boys- and now, instead of it just being about boys having sex with the 'bad girls' until they're ready to settle down with the one that they can bring home to Mom, the only change is that all girls are considered potential willing partners in the casual sex during that earlier period.

And listen, none of this has easy answers either. With such a long period between puberty and the time we consider ready for marriage, it's hard to know how to guide kids. Even I struggle with what to teach my kids about this since my religious sensibility says to wait for marriage but in the secular sense I tend toward teaching waiting until you're mature enough to handle a committed relationship even if that doesn't end up being a lifelong commitment.

Re: Obama “Thesis” Controversy a Hoax: Limbaugh Gets “Punked”

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:15:31 -0000

I still do see the Willie Horton ad as mildly racist(that is the way Lee Atwater framed it by his own admission and H.W.'s discomfort, H.W. from everything I have read was never comfortable with the strategy nor that ad).

My sense is that Atwater saw that the line of attack on Dukakis had a racial angle and considered that an added bonus, but that still doesn't change the fact that the attack itself was legitimate and was based on law and order, not race.

And the only reason I address that (not wanting to get off on a tangent, IOW) is that this is what happens with a lot of issues- including the one you bring up here, immigration. One doesn't have to be racist or bigoted at all to want meaningful immigration reform and enforcement. The problem is that if you have that view, you also end up in the company of racists for whom it's all about keeping America white by denying influx of another race.

I was for the comprehensive immigration reform that Bush and McCain attempted, and was really sorry to see it blow up on them. And at the same time, I felt that some of the opposition was principled in that people don't trust the govt to handle the enforcement part well enough before granting them the control over flow of immigrants. I felt that McCain nailed it when he said he'd heard the message loud and clear to 'fix the damn fence first'. One of the reasons I'd hoped McCain would win is that I wanted to see if he'd continue to fight for reform by taking a two step approach- perhaps we'd have gotten to a policy that didn't kick the can down the road but addressed people's real concerns. And if he'd been able to finesse it without having Latino voters feel that the border enforcement was racially motivated, then all the better.

Re: Animals and Humans

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:48:33 -0000

I'm agree completely with your comment, mikkel. Not sure if anyone is still visiting this thread but I didn't get a chance to check it out yesterday, and my immediate thought just at the title was in regard to the exaggerated anthropomorphizing that often happens when reading these kinds of studies lately (whereas in the past I also agree that there was a completely utilitarian attitude toward animals.)

And interesting that you brought up Cesar Milan because I agree completely there too. He respects dogs for being dogs, with all of their unique qualities, and that's why he is able to bond and affect behavior so well. I recommend his techniques to all of my clients, but I often find that people don't 'get it' because they actually prefer to think of their pets as humanoid companions and they don't want to think about how the dogs react to being treated that way. And that's fine as far as it goes, but it's frustrating for someone to ask my advice on changing a behavior that they can't live with when they're unwilling to change other behaviors that they find desirable.

Anyway, I'll also mention that another thought I had before reading the thread was that it might have been about this story, which I really did find rather touching.

Re: Obama Goes to Dover

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:10:57 -0000

Agreed- give him credit where due. Our CIC should always be committed to this difficult task during wartime.

Re: New Tax Cheat Bill from… Charlie Rangel?

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:07:46 -0000

On the other hand, maybe someone like Rangel is uniquely qualified to close loopholes since he is well versed in finding them. :-)

Seriously though, this is just the absurd natural conclusion of letting him keep his chair of the Ways and Means Committee. I guess they could have had enough concern for the optics to put someone else's name at the top of the bill, but it doesn't really matter because he'd definitely be a primary contributor to it as long as he holds that position and Nancy is unwilling to strip him of it. It's just ridiculous.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:00:47 -0000

Hopefully, the definition of victory will be something like denying the use of Afghan territory to those who would attack us, and not some ill-defined evolutionary process that has us propping up an unpopular government in Kabul indefinitely.

I don't understand how you do the former without some of the latter though. What Gates is pointing out is that the legitimacy of the Afghan govt is not going to be settled in a matter of weeks, and if we're going to continue this process at all its essential to provide security for the Afghan people during the process.

For more nuance though, there's a possibility that the waiting game is partly to put pressure on other NATO allies to provide more troops before we make our commitment. The trouble with that theory though is that 1) Most of the European countries don't have much reserve capability to send large numbers of troops, even if the political will could be bent that way and 2) their reaction so far seems to be to echo the line about waiting until after the elections too.

Re: Obama “Thesis” Controversy a Hoax: Limbaugh Gets “Punked”

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:47:48 -0000

Well, I admire your principles but I think you've got some of it wrong and I think you're perhaps a bit too fixated on this. Nothing wrong with taking a stand, of course, but at some point I think you have to ignore noise and look at actual issues and policies and just vote for whoever makes the best case for their side's approach.

As for 'southern strategy', I just don't get the continued harping on it and I think that your view of it somewhat enables the Dem reverse southern strategy even though that's obviously the opposite of your intent. I think if you concede that there have been all of these dog whistles to Southern racists (which I think is way overstated- I don't even agree with the general consensus that the Willie Horton ad was racist,) then you hand the strategy to the Dems of campaigning this way.

I also disagree with the idea that real entrenched racism is primarily in the South or in the GOP. Not denying that there are elements of it there, but there was a good deal on display during the Dem primaries in certain states in the rust belt in particular. I think it's more rural vs. urban than in any one particular region of the country.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:54:00 -0000

dgfunk- read the interview with Gates I just linked to. Unless you are willing to concede defeat right now, we really don't have a choice but to fight on while the legitimacy question gets sorted out. We don't have the luxury of waiting.

Now, I realize some people do feel defeat and withdrawal are inevitable, and I don't think that's an irrational view at all. But if that's the case, we should start pulling out right now- not keep the troops that are already there hanging out on a limb. We either commit the necessary force level or get out now.

Re: California High School Student, 15 Years Old, Gang-Raped for Two Hours While a Crowd Watched

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:44:08 -0000

Kathy, I think our areas of disagreement stem from two things.

First, you seem to think that if or when I express discontent with current policies or trends, that this means that I want to return to the status quo ante. In this discussion, you made several comments here indicating why we shouldn't return to the old ways and attitudes, and I mostly agree with you. The trouble is, you seem to think there are only two choices and I think that we need to evaluate critically the way we're currently educating our kids, and the cultural environment they're growing up in, without meaning that we should go back to the 1950s.

The second area leading to some disagreement, I believe, is our age difference (I'm not younger by that much, but I believe your child is grown and mine is in the trenches of this right now, plus I'm very immersed in this stuff out of concern for where it's leading for my younger kids when they reach adolescence.) I honestly think that you are a bit out of touch when you indicate, for instance, that sexual activity in a girl of 12 probably indicates prior abuse- because although I was shocked by it, I found that 12-13 is now not at all uncommon for loss of virginity (although more common than that by far is oral sex among middle schoolers.) Part of that trend seems to be physiological, as puberty is occurring at younger ages- but I believe the cultural immersion in all things sexual is partly to blame as well.

FWIW with regard to the girl I mentioned, abuse could be possible (that's always possible anyway, no matter what things look like from the outside), but primarily the family seems to not provide appropriate emotional support and guidance. And when I talk about all of these societal factors, that's the kind of thing I'm referring to as well, with families abdicating their responsibilities to the kids and then in that void, the surrounding culture and authority figures at school fill the gap in ways that aren't at all healthy for kids.

It's not the concept of discouraging early sex, sex in the absence of emotional maturity and mutual commitment, that I object to. It's the linkage between that kind of education, and "morality" I find counterproductive at best and repugnant at worst. DE-link moral issues from fact-based conversations about reproduction, birth control, and the emotional/psychological/maturational component of sexual activity.
My issue here is that morality need not be (and shouldn't be) distinct from those emotional/psychological/maturational components. I think you're confusing morality in general with religious morality, and a particular kind of religious morality at that. I'm sensing that you hear me say 'teach the morality' and think of the kind of stigmatizing/shaming that you probably believe goes hand in hand with religious morality with regard to sex. At its core though, morality is about treating other people with respect and that's my opinion of the proper background to teach both the religious aspect (which I agree should not happen at school, but through the home) and the secular aspect of sexual morality. What I sense there's not enough of in school based sex ed is teaching the self respect to know when you're actually ready (which protects against the societal and peer coercion) and the deep respect for others which goes beyond just 'don't push if the other person says no' and extends toward really knowing and caring for the other person enough to know if there's a 'silent no'.