Disqus - Latest Comments for Peter_Allen

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

Peter_Allen — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:23:30 -0000

Tidbits wrote:

Your reply included the implication that I believe the girl should be held criminally responsible for her own rape. In your words, "The young girl who had the misfortune of being targeted in this atrocity: is she also to be implicated of (sic) the crime committed against her?" That is deeply and personally offensive! An apology is in order. I regret that you haven't the honor to offer one.

I shall assume, then, that your answer to my question would be no. Another thing which we agree upon.

As an aside, what you have quoted from me is, in fact, a question that I posed to you. Were I to have implied, I wouldn't have asked in such a way. I didn't write anything that was misrepresenting you; you read it as if I were. You demand an apology for something I did not do, holding further healthy debates as ransom. It's a rather unfortunate turn of events.

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

tidbits — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:29:28 -0000

No, this is not about agreeing to disagree, something I have done many times.

You misrepresented what I said. Period. That has nothing to do with your position on any underlying issue. When you misrepresent what someone said, take responsibility for having done so.

Your reply included the implication that I believe the girl should be held criminally responsible for her own rape. In your words, "The young girl who had the misfortune of being targeted in this atrocity: is she also to be implicated of (sic) the crime committed against her?" That is deeply and personally offensive! An apology is in order. I regret that you haven't the honor to offer one.

If you take responbsibility for having misrepresented my position, we can have a discussion about the underlying issues. Until then, you do not warrant the respect necessary for discussion of those issues. In my opinion, you are not only cold hearted and insensitive vis-a-vis the incident reported in the article, you are equally insensitive to your own faults and the offense you visit upon others with that insensitivity.

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

Peter_Allen — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:06:30 -0000

Tidbits wrote:

Here is the exact quote from my comment, copied and pasted to avoid any typos, "We are all implicated in what has become of our culture."

Read it!! Do I anywhere say that we are responsible for the individual criminal act?

Tidbits, you will find that I am actually a quite caring person. Perhaps a bit different than the person I may come across on some random (though quite well-written) news blog. I've helped raise children, tried to mend hearts and bodies, and ache when someone is in pain. This, and other similar stories, do not exactly bring peace to my mind. On this, we are in agreement.

However, please do not read this as anger, but simple emphasis. My culture is not in line with mainstream America. My culture is not willing to accept blame for something it did not create nor condone. My culture has nothing to do with the culture of those that attacked that young girl. I was not raised to be like them. I do not associate with people like them. I will not raise others to be like them. Therefore, I will not be associated with them in any shape or form.

This is, unfortunately yet understandably, a heated topic for conversation. In the realm of letters, it's easy to assume one's tone in speech - even when such a tone doesn't exist at all. When there comes time for me to apologize for something that I have done in error, I shall. However, even in re-reading my response to you, I find it still holds its own weight to your original statement.

Perhaps the best course of action is to agree to disagree on each other's notion of culture. After all, if we take out that aspect, we both agree that the act was an atrocity, that the police should do all that they can, that we hope the victim can heal in some way in the future, and that we would never wish something like this on anyone. I would hope, in the future, that we focus on all those agreements rather than that one disagreement, eh? :)

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

tidbits — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:28:02 -0000

Kindly do not misrepresent what I said.

What I said is that we are all responsible for what has become of our culture. I did not say, as you attempt to falsely misrepresent, that we are individually responsible for the specificl criminal act.

Here is the exact quote from my comment, copied and pasted to avoid any typos, "We are all implicated in what has become of our culture."

Read it!! Do I anywhere say that we are responsible for the individual criminal act?

You are, however, correct about one thing. The insensitive attitude displayed by you and DLS is , to quote you, "cold hearted" and, I would add, inexcuseable.

In the future, if you wish to reply to one of my comments, begin by representing accurately what I said. If you are unable to do that much, you lose credibility...at least with me...and I suspect with others.

I will, no doubt in utter futility, await your apology.

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

Peter_Allen — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:00:22 -0000

kathy wrote:

but to suggest that a gang rape egged on by mob violence has no larger cultural, political, or sociological implications, beyond the individual acts involved, is just abject nonsense.

The country is quite a large place. Full of many, many different people. Surely you do not seem to suggest that, to a one, they in some way support this type of behaviour?

Life is full of outliers. So, too, is society. Sometimes, those outliers work for the betterment of humanity; others work specifically against. Luckily, the bell curve of applied ethics agrees with those of us who are angered by the latter. Perhaps, then, it is not the outlier that speaks for an entire culture, but instead the reaction it creates.

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

Peter_Allen — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:50:58 -0000

Tidbits wrote:

How dare you excuse anyone as being "in no way implicated"? We are all implicated in what has become of our culture.

Because he is correct: those who were not at the scene are not guilty of the crimes committed therein. Those who have no contact with or knowledge of any of the perpetrators are not guilty by association. To reason other is unwise.

But, for a moment, let us walk that path. The young girl who had the misfortune of being targeted in this atrocity: is she also to be implicated of the crime committed against her? Perhaps the person that called the police should be brought in for trial. Maybe the police themselves. After all, they are a part of the society which allowed for the environment of her attack to exist.

No, of course not. I feel sorrow for the victim, and much anger at the attackers. But I do not feel guilt at something to which I not only had no idea was going to occur, but would have tried to stop to the best of my ability. And no amount of reasoning nor hypothesizing will achieve that.

DLS and I may be cold-hearted bastards, to you, for thinking along those lines... but, you know. Too bad :).

Re: “Sexing Up Halloween”

Peter_Allen — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:34:02 -0000

Mark wrote:

Our absorption with things sexual seems disproportionately obsessive to me.

Humans are social, sexual creatures. We can survive without society, without sex, but it is not part of our natural makeup. Further, history has shown that if a society tries to impart a stigma of some fashion on that which is human nature, members of society will, in time, overturn that stigma. If some make a buck or two without harming others, then no harm has truly been done.

Now, as far as "hypersexualization" is concerned, I'm of the firm opinion that there's more hyperventilating than anything else. As Leonidas mentioned, we are one of the more prude nations of the world. Other nations have (again, my opinion) rightfully come to the conclusion that more open expressions of sexuality are not only normal, but healthy for their citizenry. Why create a taboo on a subject for which we are supposed to be proud?

I wager that, for every woman that is said to "dress too scantily" for Halloween, even more examples can be made of women who don't believe that they are beautiful. These women (and, correspondingly, men) use the "excuse" of Halloween to boost their confidence. Why dissuade them? Sure, it could be argued that they can gain confidence other ways. But even David through parties in the streets. After all, humans were also given the capacity for fun and laughter.

To be fair, I think that one of the sexiest things a woman can wear is a properly fitted sweater and jeans. But that's my heterosexual male mind just doing what it does best :D.

Re: Apple Denied Health Care App Over Politics

shannonlee — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:58:57 -0000

The App store is owned by apple and they are free to pick and choose whatever applications they wish to sell. It is the advantage of ownership.

Re: Apple Denied Health Care App Over Politics

Peter_Allen — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:43:02 -0000

Gadgets should, unless subsidized, be open to running whatever software will work with their operating system and hardware. If PCs are able to run iTunes and play music from the Apple store, then any other hardware that can achieve the same functionality should be allowed as well. A loose analogy would be like trying to restrict mopeds from being able to use the gasoline from a certain station, even though cars and trucks were freely allowed to purchase.

Personally, I would be highly surprised if the app store for Apple remains under such stringent approval processes for extended periods of time.

Re: If Texting Ban Comes, Truckers Want an Exception

shannonlee — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:31:27 -0000

At 65, having a conversation with a passenger while driving isn't a problem. At 130, it is. My point is that any distraction while driving is dangerous considering the conditions.

Re: If Texting Ban Comes, Truckers Want an Exception

Peter_Allen — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:29:26 -0000

I don't believe that all cell phone usage should be banned while driving. Used properly (speaker phone or headset), cell phones have about as much distraction as chatting to a passenger. I will grant that some drivers are more prone to accidents during both than others.

I rarely text while driving (a quick, "on my way," while at a red light or such), but would welcome a ban on the practice. Then again, I would also welcome a ban on teenagers driving anything that goes over 35 mph, but that's me :).

Re: Obama Calls Kenya A ‘Jackass’

Peter_Allen — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:50:13 -0000

If anything, this "slip" is going to help the President's image aside from a few areas of the public. No real harm done, and nothing that they have to apologize for. If he does, in fact, apologize for use of that language, then we've gotten way to politically-correct than needed.

Re: Biopic on Charles Darwin Is Shunned By U.S. Distributors

AustinRoth — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:20:47 -0000

THE #1 selling non-fiction book of ALL of 2009, which entered the NYT's list in March at the # 1 spot, spent 12 weeks as #1, 6 weeks as #2 book, and has not left the top ten all year, is Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto".

The fact that it is that popular, has sold well over a million copies (may be closing in on 2M by now), and no one here could name it speaks to EXACTLY what I was talking about. And this is an academic book, not a page-turner, which makes its success even more incredible.

Have you heard the book mentioned as a publishing phenomenon (which it is)? No.

Have you seen Mark interviewed on any major TV show, like almost every other writer with a fraction of those sales? No.

Why? Because not only is he conservative, he is very intelligent, well-spoken, and non-demonstrative. He would eat up and spit out any of the the light-weight morning hosts and make them look the platitude-spouting, non-thinking Leftist robots that they are.

Re: Biopic on Charles Darwin Is Shunned By U.S. Distributors

Peter_Allen — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:44:21 -0000

Austin wrote:

If you are implying it was a book by Glenn Beck, wrong answer!

I was stating, not implying. Glenn Beck currently holds the #1 spot for paperback non-fiction. Michelle Malkin holds the #1 spot for hardcover non-fiction. If it is not these two, then which non-fiction might it be?

By the way, I don't accept books of mythology as non-fiction. As such, the Christian Bible, Koran, Tanakh, Sruti, or a dozen others don't apply.

Re: Biopic on Charles Darwin Is Shunned By U.S. Distributors

AustinRoth — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:19:02 -0000

If you are implying it was a book by Glenn Beck, wrong answer!

Re: Biopic on Charles Darwin Is Shunned By U.S. Distributors

archangel — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:06:28 -0000

I think that's likely right, that there's something about this film that isnt compelling. Given 'irreligious' by Bill Maher about his world view on 'religious' (sorry I dont have the spelling of his name or movie at my fingertips) and sasha cohen's 'borat' et al, and 'the passion,' and the ongoing popularity of 'I am a camera,' and 'I am curious, yellow,' and the film on Kinsey, and the ubiquitousness of 'rocky horror' etc, -- a bouquet of art and skunk cabbages, depending on one's point of view... I'd say the distribs are never ones to pass on a buck.

and Dear Shard, just from a bit of witness... the asterisk usually means one or more othings:1. the book is being used heavily in study groups. 2. the book is required reading at present in a school or seminary (or a city). 3. the book is being given in volume as gifts, say by a corp at Christmas. 4. the book is being ordered in bulk from 'reporting source bookstores' to the NYT, and some books might be kept, but most / many returned later. The premise is to artificially force the book to climb the NYT list.

Its useful to note, I think, that it takes around 1000 books sold per week in a single title, to hit the NYT or PW list. I am not sure re definition of bulk, I would think maybe 10+ books at a time? The reason they are bought from bookstores instead of distributor, is twofold, 1. the distributor might not sell/ discount to the public, and some of the big distribs are owned BY the bookstore chain, OR by the publisher. 2. Only 'some' bookstores report their weekly sales to the NYT, not all bookstores. The secret of which stores report is speculated on by authors all the time; we think we know, but in reality, people who are cunning have prob figured it out far better than anyone. Thus, if they are trying to force the book into 1000+ sales per week, they'll order from, or go to those 'nyt reporting' bookstores to order bulk.

Author might not know the answers to the good questions you asked... unless they studied the industry and its history... which are contained in three or four books that written by publishing insiders, specifically re NYT list. I think Michael Korda, one of the older editors, might be author of one such book.

Re NYT losing its leftist halo as you so aptly put it, Shard, that halo is only photoshopped on. The NYT has been known for decades as showing caring of what I sometimes call, "the popular poor" and mostly ignoring all the other poor, most often the poorest of the poor.

I think many do not realize that as within the conservative movement, it is also so within the progressive or liberal movement... there is often a three and four tiered culture, with tops and bottoms, invisibles and untouchables.

I think some call the people who belong to the top economic layer 'elites' or limosine liberals or cadallac conservatives? Just my personal observation/ experience; the tops almost never bend far enough or deep enough to see the rest of the people in the bottom, invisible, untouchable layers of their own parties. I hold hope that someday, all will.

thanks,
dr.e

Re: Biopic on Charles Darwin Is Shunned By U.S. Distributors

Peter_Allen — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:33:38 -0000

Austin wrote:

How else do you explain almost no mention ANYWHERE except in very right-leaning places of the top-selling non-fiction book of 2009 (by a HUGE margin), which has spent an amazing 19 weeks as the New York Times #1 best selling non-fiction book?

Mostly in jest: does this mean that the New York Times will lose the "leftist" halo that those on the right bestowed it? :)

I also noticed the asterisk the NYT gave to denote the bulk sales which were counted in the tally for Glenn Beck's book. Mind you, I'm not going to fly off the handle as others do to decry all sales as coming from these. Rather, I'm instead intrigued: what is the percentage of bulk to individual? what is the definition of bulk? why by through booksellers at bulk and not the distributor? These valid questions would be asked of any author, due to that little sidenote that they put on it :).

I tend not to agree with the man's more extreme viewpoints, but kudos to him on the sales.

Re: Biopic on Charles Darwin Is Shunned By U.S. Distributors

Peter_Allen — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:30:46 -0000

(double-post)

Re: The American Taliban Is Coming to Florida

Peter_Allen — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:06:26 -0000

Gegenschattenbild wrote:

Unless maybe you're someone who works at an abortion clinic.

I agree and yet I disagree. Those who protest peacefully are not one and the same with those who act violently and take life. There are extremely significant differences in the mindsets between the two.

I'll go one step further, in saying that abortion-clinic murderers are still not of the same ilk as the Taliban: they do not disagree with over 75% of the modern American mindset. Yes, they are still murderers and thus wrong, but the focus of one who murders over abortion is different than one who murders over ethnicity or even levels of education.

I have to take a moment to explain that, for few things in life am I adamant about one's usage of labels or words in politics; it is what it is, and hyperboles abound. However, throwing around the mark of "Taliban" (as with other labels) dilutes the real issue while exaggerating the lesser one being discussed. It is because of this that I can't accept a mixing of the two.

Re: The American Taliban Is Coming to Florida

Gegenschattenbild — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 06:57:59 -0000

Unless maybe you're someone who works at an abortion clinic.

Re: The American Taliban Is Coming to Florida

Peter_Allen — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:53:18 -0000

Ah, but the difference between this group and the Taliban: I don't have to worry about being at the opposite side of a gun in expressing my dissent from their views.

Re: The Permission Slip Of The Silly (Well Not To Some) Times

Peter_Allen — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:37:13 -0000

I wish that I needed a permission slip when younger, for having my parents force me to watch most State of the Union addresses - and that was after school, in the safety of my own home. I would have loved, at that point, to have been able to skip the political science lesson and focus more on my own interests. For me, the President was just a stodgy old guy talking to other stodgy old people who clapped every now and then.

Now that I'm a little closer in age to that "old guy," and directly due to my having watched so many speeches that I didn't want to, I have a much better appreciation for what's going on in my country, and its government. It also taught me a valuable lesson: I may not agree with what your speech says, but I'd be a damned bit better off hearing it and scowling than smiling as I pretended it never happened. Ignorance may be bliss, but intentional stupidity is just plain... stupid.

Re: 19 Kids And Counting (How High ?)

Peter_Allen — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:17:10 -0000

DLS wrote:

The celebrity or tabloid aspect of it is what is disgusting, as well as the whiff of anti-children radicalism here.

Far from it, actually. I adore children; that doesn't mean that I want to try to repopulate the earth within two family generations. Moderation. It's a good thing.

Re: 19 Kids And Counting (How High ?)

Peter_Allen — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:42:51 -0000

Having a few more kids than the average seems fine, to me. Having a few more ~times~ the average? It's a wee bit much.

As someone who might some day be a parent, cost factors alone come into that decision: medical, education, clothing. Add in the emotional contributions, and I just don't see how I would be able to "give my all" to that many of my own children at once.

Re: BREAKING: Lutherans votes to Allow Gay Clergy

Peter_Allen — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:26:42 -0000

Good on them. Undoubtedly news which we'll hear about on Prairie Home Companion.