Disqus - Friends of nicrivera

Re: Situational Justice

AustinRoth — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:58:41 -0000

Final post.

Kathy -

This will I am sure come off as a "I am blaming you for me leaving" post, but trust me, it is not that at all. The problems we had with my viagra post and your reactions to me are just the proximate cause event of allowing me to realize what I suspected - I need to take a long break from this board (showing my age there using the term 'board' rather than 'blog').

However, I also think you do not realize just how deeply you offended me and frankly hurt me over this whole issue.

From initially thinking I would post something hateful to women and calling me out for posting a misogynist statement (an exceptionally loaded word, and despite your being correct in not directly calling me a misogynist, it certainly was implied, IMO), to your complete unwillingness to address me fairly when I made it clear I had no idea why you thought that, to the fact that finally once I made it abundantly clear what my intent had been and always was you still refused to do the decent thing - provide a simple, sincere apology for mis-understanding my post and using hateful words to describe it, and for treating me so shabbily along the way.

I truly thought you were a bigger person than that, and despite our obvious political differences, I thought you thought better of me than that. But obviously not. It has permanently changed the way I think of you as a person.

So be it. We don't have to respect each other, or like each other. That is what I was getting at in my previous post to tidbits about caring too much what people think of me.

Take care.

Re: Situational Justice

AustinRoth — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:42:17 -0000

tidbits -

I did not say I was never defended against unfair attacks, especially in the past. But the progression of the tone on this board over the past year, and then the past few days in particular with the issues I had with Kathy were the final straw. I truly felt I was being viciously and unfairly maligned (I still do), and got a bit of tepid support against her attack, at best.

That left me with a very bad taste, and as I said, after reflection, a realization that I spend too much time here, care too much what people here think of me, and I need a break.

As I said, I need to stop my obsession with this board (really doc, I can quit after just one last post!)

I most likely will be back. I have been here almost 6 years (not 4 like I mis-posted), and took a 4 month or so break a few years ago. I will probably do about the same this time.

Re: Situational Justice

AustinRoth — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:34:04 -0000

My final sets of comments before I go away, at least for a long while..

To JD, I am truly disappointed in your apology, especially the almost groveling way you wrote it.

You expressed an opinion. You did not call Kathy names. You did not say she should be banned, or that her posts should not be allowed at TMV. Yet you capitulated to the call of the mob rather than stand by a rather innocuous statement. If anything, the people here who heaped such scorn on you owe you an apology.

That is part of the atmosphere here that makes me feel I have to leave - criticism of left positions is voraciously attacked and apologies demanded, but think about what has been said to you about your religious beliefs, your positions on abortion, and your positions on gay marriage, with no apologies forthcoming for over-the-top statements.

BTW - TMV is really is not analogous to Kos. It IS becoming analogous to Balloon Juice though, IMHO

Re: Situational Justice

AustinRoth — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:14:50 -0000

I may disagree with her far-left perspective, but I'll defend her right to express it either here or on her other blog

I second that.

Re: Situational Justice

AustinRoth — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:13:35 -0000

the only perspective not found at TMV is the far left
Michael Stickings is far left.

Re: Terrorist Trials in the Big Apple

AustinRoth — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:07:22 -0000

GS -

It is no that I have no faith; it is that I do not have complete faith. There have been too many high-profile cases in our lifetime where obviously guilty people walked free.

You and Elrod are also ignoring the other issue I raised - there is no way this is not spun against us in the Middle East. None. Well, unless he is acquitted and set free.

Scylla and Charybdis.

Re: Terrorist Trials in the Big Apple

AustinRoth — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:03:43 -0000

Elrod -

And people who are known to be guilty get acquitted, too. Are you saying they don't, that no guilty person goes free?

Re: Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?

AustinRoth — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:37:15 -0000

You are correct that I am unaware that stating what I did the way I did is a culturally loaded statement full of hidden subtext and meaning, and generally known to society to be so.

Could you provide me some links about that? You have my curiosity up now on that matter )absolutely no pun intended).

Thanks.

Re: Terrorist Trials in the Big Apple

AustinRoth — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:42:26 -0000

The waterboarding is a red herring. He is being brought to trial, meaning the rules of evidence of a trial court apply.

Was he read his rights? Did he have access to an attorney before and during questioning? We already know the answer to those questions. So, there is a non-trivial chance that the courts would rule ALL statements he made inadmissible.

That is just one potential (and truly possible) outcome of many, many issues that any competent legal team will bring up. And this is going to be a wickedly high-profile case, so his defense team will be well stocked, I am sure.

That is why I still say this is a dangerous game. There is only one good result, conviction with a general opinion the court was fair. The likelihood upon a conviction of it being turned into anything other than an indictment of the U.S. not providing a fair trial, particularly in the Middle East and other less than friendly to us States, is close to 0.

And that will be used against us.

Anyone care to guess in advance what the U.N. will say about the trial?

Re: Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?

AustinRoth — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:30:56 -0000

OK. I will try to keep things as civil and straightforward as I can.

First, I made no mention of abortion in my post. None. I was only making reference to some of the comments being made about viagra by others. Therefore any equating or relating of my comment about viagra to funding of abortion was done by the reader, not by the author.

Second, I am and always have been pro-choice, and have had posts since you have been on this board stating so. So, there should be no question about that.

Third, I have not directly expressed my opinion on the funding issue, so anything you decided you thought I was saying did not and could not have come from me. The closest I came was when I said ...language that supported current federal law against spending government funds may have made sense, or specific language using this bill to overturn that law or provide an exception, but to say no participating insurer can offer coverage seems draconian the other day about the Stupak Amendment (a comment, BTW, that you posted that you agreed with).

Fourth, your assertion of "your statement emphasized that very point (which had been explicitly mentioned here by, I think, roro), that it's just naturally assumed that the physical and psychological benefits of Viagra to the relationship between a man and a woman *are* benefits, while simultaneously ignoring or dismissing the fact that ending an unwanted, unviable pregnancy has similar very real benefits for that same relationship" is a logical fallacy. As I made no mention of abortion or its effect on couples, there is no basis to say 'because you commented on "A" but not "B", that is a negative inference on "B"'. To use a legal term, it assumes facts not in evidence. But I do agree I didn't write a long dissertation comparing and contrasting the myriad faults you found buried in my simple, straight-forward sentence.

Fifth, your comment that This underlying message, or assumption, that a woman should weep in despair when her man's penis isn't working, and leap for joy when it's "fixed" almost borders on misandry. Sex is indeed part of a healthy, adult relationship. Perhaps, in the name of hyper-PC-speak, I should have said, 'This whole debate seems to assume there is no benefit for the other partner when their partner has to take Viagra", but given your visceral reaction, I am not sure it would have helped.

Sixth, I made a follow-up post, after you accused me of misogyny, clearly spelling out the intent of my initial post. You however seem to have chosen to pretend I did not do so.

Seventh, Sex is for procreation, not for pleasure, right? WTF??? When have you seen me write ANYTHING remotely like that? I am as sexually liberated as they come, have been outspoken about that, have repeatedly stated that whatever two (or more) consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business and no one else.

Eighth, everything you wrote after the seventh point If a woman isn't ready for a pregnancy...I don't. :-| is again NOTHING remotely close to words I have ever written, and shows a deep anger at others that have written such stuff. But how am I supposed to defend myself against the words, thoughts and opinions of others, especially when I had no idea you were using them against me, and could not possibly have known?

Ninth, I started off in a very civil tone questioning you about your comments to me. You repeatedly refused to address my questions, continued to say my comments were misogynous, and hell yes, I got offended and defensive. Can you really blame me? Given my often expressed personal views on women and their equal rights to men, calling me or statements by me misogynist is truly offensive to me.

That brings us to the end of this issue. As I look over all of this in toto, there is no doubt in my mind that you dumped a shitload of garbage and anger you have in your mind at others for what they have said into my statement; words and thoughts that plain and simply were not there and would not be there from me.

While I appreciate your taking the time to spell out your reply to me and your candor in it, I have to admit it bothers me a lot, because almost nothing in there relates to words I have ever used here, opinions I have expressed, or positions I have taken.

I have re-read (numerous times) what I wrote. As I said earlier, I could have written it in completely gender-neutral words (to the extent one can discuss viagra in a gender-neutral manner). But even allowing for that, in my opinion, no one who did not read it with a preconceived desire to find misogyny in it and my words could possibly have done so.

I truly believe you have done me wrong on this one Kathy, and accused me of thoughts, opinions and attitudes that were not there or implied, and that I actually find repulsive in others.

Re: Terrorist Trials in the Big Apple

AustinRoth — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:18:35 -0000

JS - then you are going with 'show trial'?

Re: Fort Hood Warning Signs

AustinRoth — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:53:28 -0000

Nope, your original post called out the Bush administration directly for Hasan personally, not the generalities you now fall back on.

Either both administrations missed him, or neither did. I say the latter. I say the Army screwed the pooch on this one, at their mid-level officer review level.

Re: Fort Hood Warning Signs

AustinRoth — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:35:47 -0000

ignored by the Bush Administration

Oh, get real. That is really stretching it to provide yourself another slam at Bush.

You can say the same thing about the Obama administration, that they ignored it for the past 10 months while the concerns over his rhetoric got more strident, but that would not be true either.

You can't lay at the feet of an administration low-level personal reviews and investigations that no high-level member was aware of, not for Bush nor for Obama.

And the credit you want to give Obama is after the fact of the shooting. If he had started this review prior, then indeed you would have a leg to stand on.

Re: Sean Hannity Apologizes to Jon Stewart Who….(Etc.)

AustinRoth — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:29:53 -0000

Fine, don't comment, but I find it very difficult to believe that someone as well read as you are on current events is not aware of how the terms 'tea bag' and 'tea-baggers' have been turned into a derogatory term for the tea protests. And you quoted and then used that derogatory term yourself on your very last post preceding this one, which is why I thought it relevant.

And of course Stewart's bit was funny. He is our most consistent political and observational humorist, and I rank him up there the very best, on par with H.L Mencken and possibly even Twain.

Re: Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?

AustinRoth — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:19:05 -0000

Kathy -

I do not want to keep any 'feud' going between the two us where you feel the need to completely ignore my questions and comments to you.

However, I have been sincere that I have no clue, none, as to what in my original post you found misogynist. I truly want to know what I said, or what you felt was implied in my words, that so offended you.

We have communicated strongly back and forth in the past, but never have either of us gotten to the point of completely refusing to communicate, so I have to assume whatever it was deeply offended you. And again, I have no idea why.

I cannot think of a nicer way to ask you to work through the apparent anger you seem to be feeling towards me about this issue.

Re: Don’t Push Your Luck, Stupak

AustinRoth — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:15:02 -0000

She probably thinks it is easier to hide from me here!

:-)

Re: Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?

AustinRoth — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:24:04 -0000

I don't happen to believe a fetus is a person

So, that means you believe up until the instant of birth, when the fetus is then a child, the woman has the right to kill the fetus.

Nice.

That, btw, does indeed put you in the nut-case far left side of the equation.

Unless I misstate your position and you DON'T believe that after all.

enraged by the fact that the appropriateness of arguing over exactly how and to what extent and by what means women's bodies will be regulated and controlled

Of course, then you contradict yourself, and DO support women's bodies being regulated and controlled, and the argument is instead about when in the pregnancy that regulation and control is allowed.

Re: Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?

AustinRoth — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:41:35 -0000

Not nice.
At this point, who cares?

And besides, the one who is being 'not nice' is the one throwing charges of misogyny around that refuses to say why, despite multiple people questioning it.

Re: Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?

AustinRoth — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:39:32 -0000

When I read it, I chuckled and thought it was a good point- and that it's the opposite of misogynistic since it pointed out that women enjoy better sex as much as men do.

Thanks CS. I was satrting to wonder why it wasn't obvious what I was saying, and that I meant it in an absolute positive way towards women.

The only thing I can think of is what Polimon said - she is obessising on the words 'their men'.

Oh well. She seems to be off her meds today. I guess it is time to drop it, because she is neither going to admit she misunderstood the post, nor say what she found so offensive.

btw - I learned something new this weekend after years of owning dogs. They can pull muscles in their butt just from wagging their tail too hard! I never would have thought it possible.

Re: Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?

AustinRoth — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:26:37 -0000

Austin, as you can see, I've been busy answering a whole lot of other comments. They keep streaming into my inbox with no pause.

The more you push me via these comments to give you an answer, the less likely I am to do so.

Sorry Kathy, but I am calling you out again.

You are completely full of shit on this one, you know it, and you simply do not have the strength of character to admit it or your mistake.

Perhaps the real issue is not any misogyny on my part, but misandry and deep anger towards men on your part. It is also obvious now what a small and petty person you are.

Re: Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?

AustinRoth — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:17:12 -0000

drugs like Viagra being vastly overused

No doubt. But the misuse of drugs, even if you concede by the majority of people who take, and that is likely true, doesn't negate the positive it provides for those who have a medical need.

Re: Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?

AustinRoth — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:02:50 -0000

So answer the question.

WHAT, in your mind, was misogynist about the comment? What did you think that I was saying in that comment that 'shows a hatred for women'?

You seem to be doing your best not to say.

Cat got your tongue?

Re: Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?

AustinRoth — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:12:24 -0000

So answer the question.

WHAT, in your mind, was misogynist about the comment? What did you think that I was saying in that comment that 'shows a hatred for women'?

You seem to be doing your best not to say.

Re: Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?

AustinRoth — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:42:16 -0000

Polimom -

That is why I made the follow-up post to clarify. What politically correct term SHOULD I have used? I knew reversing it and saying 'their women' was a no-go.

The wording I used was a woman-centric structuring of the relationship, so even if you read it to mean 'possession' or 'ownership' (which is REALLY trying to find reason to be offended), how does that lead to 'that statement was hateful to women'?

Re: Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?

AustinRoth — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:36:36 -0000

And as a matter of plain and un-ambiguous fact, I did not state that I think you are a misogynist.

Oh, you disingenuous double-talker.

OK, you did not directly say I am misogynist, but you have said multiple times my statement was misogynist, so answer the questions I asked, if you can.

What in the world is misogynist in pointing out that viagra provides a benefit for both members of a couple when a man has ED?

Are you saying that me implying that women enjoy and also want sex as part of a healthy relationship is misogynist?

Can you provide a cogent answer? I say you cannot, because there is nothing remotely misogynist that I said.

Can you bring yourself to be as 'brave' as you characterized me when I admitted I was out-of-bounds the other day, and simply admit you misinterpreted my meaning?