Althouse has always been a self-entitled, privileged, upper class woman who likes to preen about her pseudo-victimhood and responsibility while enjoying her life of luxury and lack of consequences.A defender said: "That is not true. She has never played a victim card. She has always been fair to both sides. She tends to take the other side in a devil's advocate kind of way, to see if people would react in same way if the names/parties were different. You must not read her blog."
Which caused somebody else to say:
You missed the "splooge stooge"* meltdown where she told all of her readers to fuck off and die, closed down comments and stayed drunk for 2 months and pouted. To say that she is emotionally unstable is an understatement. She is an alky on a decades long bender, someone who makes Hillary look sober and steady. The devil's advocate part might be right, if you leave out "advocate"....Finally:
Althouse is an Obamavoting cunt. There. It is said. It is out there....________________________
* Here's where I originally wrote "splooge stooge." It was in the context of saying men are responsible for the children who are born when they have failed to control where their genetic material goes. That was unrelated to shutting down the comments, which I had to do for a time because of a technical problem — later solved by some people at Blogger — that had made moderation next to impossible.
पोस्ट्स
२१७ टिप्पण्या:
217 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Why my small business is not on social media.
Except for a few topic you have a personal interest in I've alway found you even handed and reasonable.
I know you have been patient with the likes of me
Now that "Mead charachter......."
some people just don't get the "cruel neutrality" thing - which says a lot more about them than you
"She is an alky on a decades long bender, someone who makes Hillary look sober and steady."
Yep. That's the Althouse we've come to know and love. Drunk-bloggin' the law, since 1985!
How can Althouse be hated on another website? Answer: Althouse is a big new media star.
Sad comments.
Anyone who comments with "There. It is said. It is out there" should be wacked aside the head.
Insert Comics reference here.
I was initially excited when Instapundit opened up comments, but quickly found that they were universally knee-jerk terrible and absolutely nothing like my beloved comment section here at Althouse. It brings down the whole site, IMO.
A lot of people out there are incapable of engaging or understanding disagreement. It's more encouraged on the left, but definitely not limited to them.
"She is an alky on a decades long bender, someone who makes Hillary look sober and steady."
Hmmm...in my first bill for this year for my annual apartment insurance, the insurer described for my consideration a new product they offer (for the very reasonable price of $20.00 per year): insurance to protect me if I make comments online that result in my being sued (for slander, libel, etc.).
It seems you have an opportunity here to make this commenter wish he were covered by this insurance.
I'll always be a fan of Prof. Reynolds, but the IP comments section is littered with vile and bile these days.
To be fair, the AH comments section is not what it once was, either. It's the anonymity that's the problem.
"Splooge stooge" is without a doubt one of your most memorable phrases.
"Here's where I originally wrote "splooge stooge." It was in the context of saying men are responsible for the children who are born when they have failed to control where their genetic material goes."
An argument for Bukkake.
If you are the only guy to shoot your load on a woman's face, and she were then to surreptitiously use that genetic material to impregnate herself, you are on the hook.
But if that same woman was doing Bukkake and you and eleven other men shot their loads on her face then there is only a one-in-twelve chance she will use YOUR genetic material.
I think my point is made.
I am Laslo.
Robert Cook said...
"It seems you have an opportunity here to make this commenter wish he were covered by this insurance."
I think Althouse has a prior commitment to the pious sentiment that the cure for bad speech is more speech. Certainly works with alcohol.
I'm surprised no one called you a Watership Down spurning bunnyphobe who openly discriminates against men whose trouser legs happen to be hemmed on the wrong side of the knee.
Althouse is an Obamavoting cunt. There. It is said. It is out there.
Althouse thinks like a woman.
The trick if women are going to be good citizens is women realizing where they're thinking like women when the better course is to think like a man. For example national elections.
The principle, that you abstract from details to get to, is more important than the complexities.
Complexities are better for neighborhood-sized things, where principles often better fail.
People, man. People.
Clearly none of those commenters have spent time reading your blog. While you are clearly more liberal than I am, you do try to be fair. I see a number of them assert that "She voted for Obama TWICE!"which isn't true, However, there are people here in Wisconsin (and in Ohio, PA, and Michigan)who did in fact vote for Obama twice - and voted for Trump in November. (I' know Ann that you have not divulged how you voted in November.)That's how Trump won. it's pretty counterproductive to endlessly berate people who did not vote the way you wanted them to in past elections if they have since wished up. I know people who voted for Doyle who went on to vote for Walker - 3 times. I'm not going to yell at them for voting for Doyle.
I've tried to read Instapundit comments a few times in the past, but typically ended up just feeling embarrassed for Reynolds.
Like Raiders fans at the game all dressed up in their face paint and Mad Max costumes.
Thunderdome should NEVER be boring.
I am Laslo.
Laslo Spatula said...
I think my point is made.
I am Laslo.
4/20/17, 8:22 AM
Laslo, taking this line of thought to its obvious conclusion, answer me this: How many cars back in the ensuing train does one need to be to have a "very strong" likelihood of not being the father of any resulting child AND is that spot past the point where your average man will skip the train entirely due to "over capacity"?
Agreed with MPH. His comment section is filled with people who never leave the internet. 24/7.
People who never leave the internet are___________________.
So what's the proportion of lefty to righty vilification? 10 to 1?
OK, enough with data, let's go to theories. 1. Lefties are more active on social media etc., therefore overrepresented among bile-spewers. 2. For lefties, prog politics is religion; therefore, they are more likely to vilify heretics and apostates. 3. Lefties are continually fighting the culture war, and approach any person strategically in that context: who is not with us is against us. Althouse delenda est.
It was said in the context of men being forced to support children after women had stolen their semen and impregnated themselves, or had actually raped men.
By day, a mild-mannered law professor/blogress, but scratch the surface and you find an out of control alky, trolling the bars (and her own commenters), looking for adventure and whatever comes her way. Git your motor running' Ann. Head out on the highway.
She is an alky on a decades long bender, someone who makes Hillary look sober and steady.
I'm not sure what to make of such a statement. Projection at best.
I'm not sure how you capture the moral high ground with such a statement.
The secret of comments is read it for the best comments, like in a movie judge it by the best moments.
We had a very civil discussion of postmodernism on Instapundit just yesterday I think.
The devil's advocate part might be right, if you leave out "advocate"....
That's kind of a compliment. It appears to answer the question of the "unlikable heroine" from earlier this week.
Except, of course, for the fact that the Devil is always the most likable character. Just ask John Milton.
I read Insty almost everyday, but seldom go into the comments section. It looks like that is a wise decision.
MHP, Althouse has always had anonymous commenters. Yes, it might bring down the level of the commentary, but it also protects people. In the early days of Web comments sections , I posted on a site using my real name and was doxed by a left wing commenter. The loon went so far as to contact my then-boss, who really didn't care what I wrote about on blogs. however, other employers might have taken more of an interest.
I couldn't sleep at night worrying about being raped or having my sperm otherwise absconded with, so I started an internet commenting campaign.
The downside of Althouse, if you had to live with her, is that she has her thing, as explained by Barthelme in Snow White.
But of course with the spread of literacy you now tend to get girls who have thought and feeling too, in some measure, and some of them will probably belong to the Royal Philological Society or something, or in any case have their own 'thing,' which must be respected, and catered to, and nattered about, just as if you gave a shit about all this blague. But of course we may be different, perhaps you do care about it. It's not unheard of.
The comments here are still pretty good, as long as you know who to skip.
Robert Cook said...
insurance to protect me if I make comments online that result in my being sued (for slander, libel, etc.).
I am going to get this, and then all the useless cocksuckers, pederasts and anal sex obsessives who routinely inhabit this blog can just go fuck themselves. No more Mr Nice Guy for me.
I tried reading Instapundit a while back, but it seemed he wasn't making posts so much as just putting up a link and adding "heh". For all Althouse's ups and downs, she at least writes out posts for you to agree or disagree with.
"Hmmm...in my first bill for this year for my annual apartment insurance, the insurer described for my consideration a new product they offer (for the very reasonable price of $20.00 per year): insurance to protect me if I make comments online that result in my being sued (for slander, libel, etc.)."
I should sue myself for republishing it.
I'm giving it the old "Streisand effect" — no one would have noticed it otherwise.
If I'm on a decades-long alcoholic bender, I should get extra credit. It's impressive writing this much and this well with a disability so severe.
I don't agree with you on probably 9 out of every 10 issues. I don't get the hate. I love Althouse. Even the rare unfair jab is hard to be really offended by. Who are these people?
"You missed the "splooge stooge"* meltdown where she told all of her readers to fuck off and die, closed down comments and stayed drunk for 2 months and pouted. To say that she is emotionally unstable is an understatement. She is an alky on a decades long bender, someone who makes Hillary look sober and steady. The devil's advocate part might be right, if you leave out "advocate"...."
While not at all clever, that's some solid, workman-like, ad hominem commenting. If Blogger had a stylebook, that would be in it.
Clearly Althouse is not a lush, though.
Commenters here at Althouse are some of the best anywhere. (I include mine.) Althouse deserves full credit for that. She has created a unique blog that attracts interesting people.
Keep it up, professor.
He makes it sound like being an alky on a decades-long bender is some kind of bad thing.
Sticks and stones and all that kind of stuff. Except for the men-in-shorts phobia, you're eminently reasonable.
Why can't today's left think any more? Why is their discourse a sudden slide to an ancient and foggy sewer? from which they jump out screeching: "My Hillary, my precious, my precious, gone, gone, we hates you, Trumpies." Yet some good comes. Suddenly our own oh-so-irritating leftys are revealed as thoughtful, rational, decent people - left-over leftys from a better time combating the last liberal left standing while attentively pointing out to resurgent conservatives error, lapse and defect in the minutest detail. Thank you Chuck, Inga, Robert Cook, Garage and others - no one has ever come up with an argument I hadn't already heard from you and usually you were days ahead of the pack, giving me time to think it out. [Remark about Soros removed as insufficiently lofty.]
Althouse is as fair as a lefty blog gets. Everybody has their bugaboos.
"Althouse is as fair as a lefty blog gets".
A lefty blog? No, I don't think so.
Most comment sections are toxic. This one's at least interesting.
Well...that escalated quickly.
If I'm on a decades-long alcoholic bender, I should get extra credit. It's impressive writing this much and this well with a disability so severe.
It worked for Churchill.
Althouse has always been a self-entitled, privileged, upper class woman who likes to preen about her pseudo-victimhood and responsibility while enjoying her life of luxury and lack of consequences.
They forgot to mention Ann is white. Very white. Meade is white also.
Dr. Evil and Mini Meade.
Ann's last name is a brand.
Do not sue these commenters. Their typing fingers have already convicted them of coming down on the easy side of the "truth or insult" question, aka Krugman's Disease.
In response to unfair criticism, Althouse garners support.
Is there such a thing as a "useless cocksucker"?
Robert Cook said...
"...insurance to protect me if I make comments online that result in my being sued (for slander, libel, etc.)."
I think it's interesting that people are suing each other over internet comments. As for accusations of being an alcoholic, that's the first thing that is usually thrown at an opponent, even here at Althouse in a heated discussion. Althouse has been slandered and libeled for a long time with this ridiculous notion that she's an alchy. Commenters that try to discredit an opponent with lies are really some of the lowest of the low.
First they came for Milo. Then they came for O'Reilly.Then they came for Bannon. Now they are coming for Althouse. And all because they are insane over having their Queen of Darkness, Hillary, lose.
But we are here to be your character witnesses...boy are you in trouble now.
Is there such a thing as a "useless cocksucker"?
Yup.
"Now they are coming for Althouse. And all because they are insane over having their Queen of Darkness, Hillary,"
Hahahaha, Instapundit commenters are the "they"? So Instapundit commenters are lefties and Hillary supporters? Funny.
oh ann please get to thr new paglia cohen interview. There are about a dozen blog posts in there...
This blog grew from nothing and had commenters all along and has had a group of long-time commenters that, while people come and go, as a group provide stability and generally police the bomb-throwing newbies and professional trolls. Such people don't stay long because they can't hang long.
Meanwhile, Instapundit grew without commentary and then opened the barn door wide. As a result, it doesn't have that stable base of commenters to take on the trolls.
Jesus.....I've been stopping by Ann's place for some time and never got the sense of any victimhood . Sounds like this dude just had some vomit to unload. Sometimes I can't tell what her politics are, but she's fiercely smart and definitely opinioned.....and being attractive doesn't hurt her chances either.
And the "C" word? Come on man. I frequent numerous far left blogs and throw my share of nasty personal jabs but not the C word !!
But somehow I get the sense Ann is not crushed by any of this :)
"Althouse has always been a self-entitled, privileged, upper class woman who likes to preen about her pseudo-victimhood and responsibility while enjoying her life of luxury and lack of consequences."
That may be an accurate description of your average white Madison liberal who thinks NPR is edgy radio, but not of our esteemed hostess
I've been an Instapundit reader - daily - for I think 12 years now. Usually within one sentence of reading, I can tell a post by Stephen Green or Ed Driscoll - both of whom bring down the site IMO. Sarah Hoyt is just different in her postings. And the comments section is an embarrassment.
I think Instapundit was trying to achieve a "Volokh Conspiracy" style of multiple writers of different flavors all bringing intelligent discourse to the table. But Ed, Stephen, and others are too focused on either clickbait or unable to take apart their own biases. I hope one day the comments section improves, and the overall quality goes back to ~2010 levels.
The problem with Insty is Disqus. Encourages hit and run and comments disappear too quickly, and a troll with time on their hands can easily filibuster a thread.
On another note, why hasn't the internet adopted a comment/discourse platform like the one fictionalized in "Ender's Game"?
An agreed upon "level" of commenter that is either anonymous or identified, maintain an identify across platforms, and gains "levels" based upon the content of their discourse over time.
This would enable comments sections to effectively filter down/out trolls and paid commenters and focus on people who have built an online persona.
Of course, those commenters would eventually become commercialized as well.
Because #VanLife
TreeJoe, I also have been an Instapundit reader for many years. I rarely read the comments and will occasionally add a comment if the topic is something I think I can add to. The other bloggers are OK although Austin Bay is pretty good.
I think it began with Glenn's vacations and now to take the load off.
"Except for the men-in-shorts phobia"
I shouldn't have to explain this. It isn't a phobia. It's a preference. For her, adult men, leisurely walking around in short pants read as overgrown boys, thus losing any sex appeal they might otherwise exhibit. Personally, I very much appreciate it whenever other men are waddling around town wearing short pants because, by comparison, my look, in her eyes, registers higher on the old hotness meter.
So please, Insty commenters, keep wearing your short shorts. (Though not TOO short. Ya gotta keep it in your pants. Protect your stuff. You know — don't be a short-panted splooge stooge. No one likes that.)
"This would enable comments sections to effectively filter down/out trolls and paid commenters and focus on people who have built an online persona."
That would certainly be an improvement. I understand why some might want to remain anonymous because of work, etc but it also empowers some nasty people.
"You missed the "splooge stooge"* meltdown where she told all of her readers to fuck off and die, closed down comments and stayed drunk for 2 months and pouted."
I never get invited to the good parties.
"Hahahaha, Instapundit commenters are the "they"? So Instapundit commenters are lefties and Hillary supporters? Funny."
Incorrect assumption, like assuming all of Althouse's commenters are conservative.
And thanks, everyone, for rising to her defense. I've been giggling my way down this list. For hilarious vulgarity, Laslo and ARM are tied, and I never thought I'd write that sentence.
And she can't smell!! Off with her head!!
The left would quickly seize control of any method that elevated certain commenters and stifled others. See Hugo Awards, Gamergate, etc.
Ann, you are in good company with Charles Murray. Most of your critics don't read your words. The few that do read them don't understand them. A hand full read them and intentionally distort their meaning.
What is so annoying is that no one sees the cloth-less emperor. You put up the worst possible candidate - public sick of Clintons, Bill back in White House, A proven loser, ethic issues up the wazoo, few accomplishments as Senator and SOS. as First Lady she wrecked health care policy for twenty years, lousy campaigner and screams a lot. Any other Democrat could have easily beat Trump. The party needs a complete overhaul from top to bottom. Anti-Semitic Ellison as Deputy Chair of the party? Berkeley doesn't arrest violent rioters and then cancel speeches by mainstream conservatives because of worry that the people they didn't arrest before will riot. Pleeessse.
I like this blog. Ms. Althouse is not a drunk, based on the quality and quantity of her writing. Doubt she's a cunt (which is a terribly rude way to refer to a woman), although I don't know her personally. Of course the commenter was anonymous. I look forward to years of more good writing from Althouse. And the comments section here is indeed superior to Instapundit.
You know, I voted for Obama the first time. So Althouse is in good company. He suckered a lot of otherwise rational Americans.
I loved the splooge stooge drama. First, the phrase is perfect, and second, people freaked, which was great fun!
Now that Taranto is no longer doing BOTW I find Ann's blog stands alone. I don't follow her pop culture stuff because I don't follow pop culture, but I enjoy most of the rest. The things I like about Ann are that she can think and write in complete sentences; she does attempt cruel neutrality and she blogs a variety of interesting stuff. There seem to be very few who can do that as consistently as she does.
I admit that I don't understand Chuck and wonder where Mick has gone since the election (into the Trump administration?), but find most comments are made with the intent to add, rather than detract from the conversation- even though I might disagree or find them a bit predictable. Every once in a while I am forced by a commenter to do some research - which I enjoy. I also enjoy comments by "guys" who actually know how tech stuff works. Alky or not Ann's blog is required daily reading for me.
Being described as "self entitled, privileged, and upper class" is more aspirational than demeaning. That's like telling a girl they remind you of Princess Grace.
Yes, I have met useless cocksuckers and they are really bad. A useless cocksucker is unable to get you to blow your load because they are a useless cocksucker and don't know how to suck hog.
NPR propaganda from Kat Chow.
Prof. A: your blog is one of my go-to places along with Insty. The posts are exceptionally intelligent and force the reader to, you know, think. And the comment section adds multiple layers and angles. There is a rare and transient gathering of personalities like ARM and Cookie, Laslo and Exiled, lots more. They mix it up in a productive way. I always come away with more than I brought.
Lately there are a couple of unpleasant angry types trying, IMHO, to vandalize the threads (e.g. on Bill O'Reilly). But I would hope you can check those occasional excesses and continue to create one of the best blogs out there.
Thanks.
Agreed, khesanh, but I could surely do without the anonymous posts/schticks here. I think Ann's blog is great.
Ann Althouse said...Here's where I originally wrote "splooge stooge." It was in the context of saying men are responsible for the children who are born when they have failed to control where their genetic material goes. That was unrelated to shutting down the comments, which I had to do for a time because of a technical problem — later solved by some people at Blogger — that had made moderation next to impossible.
I notice you didn't address the charge that you "stayed drunk for 2 months," Professor. And in your response you use the phrase "made moderation next to impossible." That's got to be an admission!
I very rarely read Instapundit comments. He sometimes front-pages comments, but not as frequently as Professor A. Check Insta itself daily but don't have any idea what kind of a comment community he has over there...I don't think there's any way it's as good as this one, though.
Never complain, never explain.
I've been reading and commenting on Althouse for some time now. I must admit I was irked by the splooge stooge event and did feel that the commentators were being unfairly attacked and that the commentors themselves were becoming rather rude and obnoxious both in attacking the host and each other.
(Not to rehash that issue, please let us not!!!!...but for those who don't remember. IIRC....it was about a guy who had sex with a woman. Used a condom. She took his sperm from the used condom, inseminated herself and then the guy was on the hook for child support for the rest of his life. Althouse iirc took the position that it was his fault for not guarding his sperm and called men splooge stooges. Others took the position that he was being unfairly blamed, tricked, set up. and then the shit hit the fan................anyway)
I like the comment section here because people (mostly) are interesting, have diverse arguments and seem to be able to have a decent discussion on a topic that has been presented by the hostess (Althouse) without viciously attacking each other. Sometimes it is a topic that is being looked at in a way that is coming from a different or unique angle. More like a cocktail hour at a diner party or salon where people are mingling, sharing ideas and you can avoid the obnoxious drunk by just moving to the other side of the room (not responding)
Like exiledonmainstreet, I find that I "think" that Althouse, and many of the commentators are more left leaning/liberal on many (not all) issues than I am....but then...who isn't :-)
That isn't the point. The point is to think, discuss, debate and make jokes sometimes too.
Ann; I know how you feel.
Meh, I believe Althouse did lose her patience with the commentariat a couple of years ago, as is her right. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often. But to still be dwelling on it and writing about it like the wound is fresh? A tad obsessive.
FWIW I find Althouse usually insightful, sometimes brilliantly so, but also sometimes almost willfully obtuse. Yoga classes are offensive and "problematic", airlines have the "right" to drag passengers to save a few bucks?
No-one is always fair, but I think she mostly tries. She does question her assumptions, and only occasionally decides she needs to signal her membership of the club. But I don't believe cruel neutrality was ever neutral.
Tommy Duncan said...They forgot to mention Ann is white. Very white. Meade is white also.
Yes, white people in a white place doing white things, for sure. But YOU forgot--they're also cisgender & heterosexual (or, as far as I know, present themselves/publicly self-identify as such). The need for atonement is that much greater!
Gahrie said...It was said in the context of men being forced to support children after women had stolen their semen and impregnated themselves, or had actually raped men.
Yes, that's accurate, but also: it was a while ago and it's ok for people to be wrong about things. I think the Professor was wrong in that discussion and it sounds like you do, too. That's ok--she's right in a lot of other discussions and usually even when I think she's wrong I appreciate that she makes good arguments for her positions and ideas. The stooge discussion is an example where I don't think she did, and for me that's why it's so memorable (not just that I disagreed), but that's one of only a few times I can remember that being the case in several years worth of daily discussion. That's a damn good average--much better than most! I think it influences the quality of the commenter discussions, as well. That's why I hang around.
Not to rehash that issue, please let us not!!!!...but for those who don't remember. IIRC....it was about a guy who had sex with a woman. Used a condom. She took his sperm from the used condom, inseminated herself and then the guy was on the hook for child support for the rest of his life.
There's a romcom with more or less that plot. I wonder what it was.
Holes in the condom. Sisters. Lake house. I've forgotten the plot details whicm means I can watch it again.
Your Sister's Sister (2011). Google finds all.
I like Instapundit. He links to stuff Drudge misses.
The comments are another story.
Now that Taranto is no longer doing BOTW I find Ann's blog stands alone.
Life without a daily Taranto read is sad. Freeman is doing his best; I think he will end up being great, but those are some hard shoes to fill.
Taranto went downhill into WSJ prose and analysis and I stopped reading him.
It was the Jonah Goldberg smarter-than-you syndrome.
The replacement is worse in just being dumb.
"Althouse iirc took the position that it was his fault for not guarding his sperm and called men splooge stooges."
Not quite.
I took the position that the child is the most important person, and the father's interests can be subordinated, especially if the mother is seeking government assistance. The father can be compelled to take responsibility for his child. The woman did wrong and deserves blame, but that doesn't entitle the man to be free of the child. The typical argument was made: The woman could have had an abortion, so it's appropriate that the man should have something equivalent. I did not accept that a man's not supporting the child was equivalent to the woman's right to decline to use her body to grow a new human being. The man has no similar situation with the unborn child. His body is out of the picture once the sperm has left it. That's why I said the man must assert his bodily rights at the point where his body is involved. Don't let your sperm out into the wild where it may take purchase. You'd better realize what that stuff is and guard your interests while you can.
"A useless cocksucker is unable to get you to blow your load because they are a useless cocksucker and don't know how to suck hog."
Fine, but "useless" seems unnecessarily harsh. Surely even a feckless cocksucker can make himself useful — take out the garbage, boil water, make coffee, do the dishes...
Ann Althouse said...
I took the position that the child is the most important person,
If not killed by Mommy.
and the father's interests can be subordinated, especially if the mother is seeking government assistance.
The cum bucket gets all the choices and support.
Ann, you are one of the top three blogs I check multiple times a day (along with Instapundit and Ace of Spades). I don't always agree with you, but I find you to have a very high degree of intellectual honesty, something missing all too often in modern discourse. And when I don't agree with you, I give greater re-examination to my own opinions.
In short, ignore the bozos. ..bruce..
Richard Fernandez has the best commentators in the PJ Media franchise. Of course he is the best columnistninline.
And so to absolutely prove your point, after you mildly criticized democrats, you are now demonized by them.
Welcome to the democrat party, the most dangerous organization in the country.
Althouse and Instapundit are both good but beneficiaries of Zipf's law.
The blogs on top attract more readers, as the mechanism.
Blogger Birches said...
Meh, I believe Althouse did lose her patience with the commentariat a couple of years ago, as is her right. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often. But to still be dwelling on it and writing about it like the wound is fresh? A tad obsessive.
Birches is right, but I'm still glad DBQ posted a fairly objective summary of the incident because Althouse's sanitized version didn't ring true. Kinda reminded me of the old sitcom trope where they'd show flashbacks of an incident seen through the distorted perceptions of the various characters.
"The father can be compelled to take responsibility for his child. "
But he had better not be caught traveling with the child.
The “incident”: another passenger on the plane, who was obviously inebriated, accused my husband of child trafficking. She claimed that my fair-skinned daughter didn’t look like her Mexican father, and stoked suspicion that he had kidnapped her. This passenger had no basis for this claim, nor any evidence to back it up.
Stop. I think claiming the other passenger was drunk let’s her off too easily. It also conflicts with later remarks about the passenger–
The passenger who shared her “concern” with the flight attendants had been sitting next to my husband. According to him, she had been friendly throughout the flight, but my husband noticed her strange obsession with our daughter, sometimes throwing her body over his to try to engage my daughter.
It seems to me this passenger was either racist or crazy.
So what happened? Port Authority and CBP officials met the flight, escorted them off, interrogated them, and only let them go when the father’s story was corroborated with the mother’s.
Maybe DNA testing of his sperm was needed.
Althouse has always been a self-entitled, privileged, upper class woman who likes to preen about her pseudo-victimhood and responsibility while enjoying her life of luxury and lack of consequences.
S.T., or Mary G., my guess.
"And so to absolutely prove your point, after you mildly criticized democrats, you are now demonized by them.
Welcome to the democrat party, the most dangerous organization in the country."
Wait. Those commenters over at Instapundit who are bashing Althouse are Democrats? Hahahahaha.
Obviously Althouse is doing a bit of tap dancing around the unborn human being's moral rights, and relying, like slave owners on that human being's lack of legal personhood, which is probably why her comment reads illogically.
Still she has a real world point. Stay out of the beds of women you don't know and trust.
Which caused somebody else to say:
You missed the "splooge stooge"* meltdown where she told all of her readers to fuck off and die, closed down comments and stayed drunk for 2 months and pouted. To say that she is emotionally unstable is an understatement. She is an alky on a decades long bender, someone who makes Hillary look sober and steady. The devil's advocate part might be right, if you leave out "advocate"
Once written?
Don't do one night stands is the general rule.
Althouse is A-OK in my book. She reads the NYT and WaPo so I don't have to. She is the Scrubbing Bubbles of the Internets!
"Birches is right, but I'm still glad DBQ posted a fairly objective summary of the incident because Althouse's sanitized version didn't ring true. Kinda reminded me of the old sitcom trope where they'd show flashbacks of an incident seen through the distorted perceptions of the various characters."
Yes, and I've seen this very phenomenon happen with regularity here, when it comes to all things Trump.
@rhHardin I am a pretty smart guy, but I always respected Taranto's intelligence and that he could express himself better than I could ever hope to. I thought during the presidential campaign that he showed a lot of courage by consistently pointing out to the WSJ editorial board that they were essentially a bunch of jerks, missing what was going on in the country, and that they were prisoners of their NYC bubble. By November he had turned Jenkins and Henninger; Stephens was so screwed up that he had to escape to the NYT. Taranto also has a great - and nasty - sense of humor.
Freeman can't hold a candle to Taranto and if he doesn't improve in a hurry someone else will have the job.
"If I'm on a decades-long alcoholic bender, I should get extra credit. It's impressive writing this much and this well with a disability so severe."
Isn't this the case with all writers?
I always wonder how the most self-righteous posters lives would stand up under scrutiny. About the same as everyone else's I expect.
@khesanh0802
Taranto doesn't get to the point, as if he's writing to a word count.
The fill is boilerplate WSJ.
Richard Fernandez writes like Walter Lord, taking that as a good thing.
For what it's worth, I read your blog daily in part because I often do not agree with you. Sometimes I walk away with my preconceived beliefs intact, but because you are open-minded and because you use reason and logic, you are entirely capable of changing my mind. I cannot say that about Paul Krugman or Bill O'Reilly or any other faith-based adherent of the Church of the Right or Left.
Anyone who enters the public sphere without hiding his or her political beliefs soon encounters animosity. I am not surprised some of your readers can't stand you. But I suspect in your case there are far more of us who thoroughly appreciate your writing even if we don't feel compelled to shout about it in comments.
Stephens was so screwed up that he had to escape to the NYT.
I watched an Intelligence Squared debate with him about Trump. It was awful. The definition of smug. I wasn't surprised to see him go to the NYT. I don't think he can play nice with anyone who doesn't have TDS.
Eh, I wouldn't even take that comment seriously. I would describe the fundamental Althousian ethos as fighting like hell to neither victimize anyone, cooperate in victimization nor be a victim. That's a struggle for any serious person who genuinely has ethics/morals. It's the ultimate human struggle. I admire anyone who engages seriously in that effort/debate.
Someone who could even make that comment is demonstrating a lack of knowledge of this blog that's self-refuting, IMO.
As for voting for Obama - if I have this right, Ann voted for Obama against McCain and then Romney against Obama. The Obama/McCain election was awful for me (far worse than the last one, which was something of a difficult experience), because I was sure that neither Obama nor McCain should be president.
Obama lacked all problem-solving skills and personal introspection, which is a pretty severe disqualification for the job. And McCain - well, I wrote about it at the time, but the McCain-Feingold election "reform" bill sums up McCain's serious deficits as a politician. I think he deserves great honor and respect for his behavior in the service. But the utter lack of understanding of the underpinnings of the Constitution embodied in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was horrifying to me. McCain always chooses to be bipartisan in the worst possible way!
To criticize anyone for voting for Obama in the 2008 campaign is really odd to me. To criticize someone who has spent her life on constitutional law is bizarre!
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
I took the position that the child is the most important person, and the father's interests can be subordinated, especially if the mother is seeking government assistance. The father can be compelled to take responsibility for his child. The woman did wrong and deserves blame, but that doesn't entitle the man to be free of the child. The typical argument was made: The woman could have had an abortion, so it's appropriate that the man should have something equivalent. I did not accept that a man's not supporting the child was equivalent to the woman's right to decline to use her body to grow a new human being. The man has no similar situation with the unborn child. His body is out of the picture once the sperm has left it. That's why I said the man must assert his bodily rights at the point where his body is involved. Don't let your sperm out into the wild where it may take purchase. You'd better realize what that stuff is and guard your interests while you can.
Morally I agree about the hierarchy of child's rights over the adults, but disagree with the rest of your reasoning because you place too much weight on the idea of bodily autonomy. As the more reasonable commenters pointed out at the time, the responsibility for men to financially support children is a burden that is different from the woman's burden of housing a developing child in her body but the two things should not be given such unequal weight- the man's body, after all, is forced into labor to provide that financial support.
Any moral or legal system has to decide on first principles and the bodily autonomy seems to be a predominant one for you, but I think we should rethink first principles when they lead to unjust situations.
I took the position that the child is the most important person,
If the child is a person, doesn't it have the right to life?
and the father's interests can be subordinated,
But not the mother's..right?
The father can be compelled to take responsibility for his child
But the mother can't...right?
Men have responsibilities and no rights, women have rights and no responsibilities.
Bob Boyd: openly discriminates against men whose trouser legs happen to be hemmed on the wrong side of the knee.
See? That's how you write clearly without resorting to trite phrases or even simple nouns that would say the same thing. Well done, Bob. (I would have suggested "his knee" in order to further the H alliteration, but this is excellent first draft writing!)
Thanks Mike.
"Men have responsibilities and no rights, women have rights and no responsibilities."
Oh Lord. Should I laugh? Who gets impregnated, carries and gives birth and then cares for the child? Who does all this and still has a job outside the house? Men are turning into such whiners.
I tried reading Instapundit a while back, but it seemed he wasn't making posts so much as just putting up a link and adding "heh".
That describes Instapundit's general operating style, often with more comment than heh. And that is why I read his blog. He is an aggregator, like Drudge, who draws from content available world wide, often sources that I have not read myself or wouldn't see if not for his blog. Althouse, for me, is more akin to PowerLine Blog whwre topics are explored, almost always with a link to the original text or article.
OMG...we ARE going to rehash this topic. (splooge stooge). /quietly moves to the other side of the salon and refreshes drink.
Bob Boyd IMO is an underappreciated commenter who often makes me laugh. Glad Mike highlighted his comment to give me a prompt to mention it.
FWIW Ann I find your website very open, reasonable and most rare: intellectually diverse. You have admirably tolerated a lot of abuse in order to keep this unique cross-party channel open and I appreciate it.
"For her, adult men, leisurely walking around in short pants read as overgrown boys, thus losing any sex appeal they might otherwise exhibit."
Meade, I'm 72 and could give a rat's ass about sex appeal, which is good because I'm pretty sure I don't have that much. I've been presonally decorated in three combat tours in two wars, so I'm pretty confident I'm not a boy. Besides, where I live on the Spanish coast, if it requires more than shorts, Tee shirt and flip flops in the summer I'm probably not going. Further inland I usually make some concessions, but no more than necessary. I'm proud to say I've worn shorts in at least 35 different countries and certainly wasn't the only one to do so. For the week around Memorial Day, I'll be wearing shorts in Catalonia, Spain and the Midi- Pyrennes and the Occidente regions in France. In July, I'll be wearing them in Stockholm, St Petersburg, Tallin, Warnemünde, Copenhagan, Oslo and Amsterdam. Me and a whole lot of other old farts. So, I've got that going for me. Which is nice.
Don't do one night stands is the general rule.
You mean sport fucking is out? You can't be serious.
"(Not to rehash that issue, please let us not!!!!...but for those who don't remember. IIRC....it was about a guy who had sex with a woman. Used a condom. She took his sperm from the used condom, inseminated herself and then the guy was on the hook for child support for the rest of his life. Althouse iirc took the position that it was his fault for not guarding his sperm and called men splooge stooges. Others took the position that he was being unfairly blamed, tricked, set up. and then the shit hit the fan................anyway)"
"OMG...we ARE going to rehash this topic. (splooge stooge). /quietly moves to the other side of the salon and refreshes drink."
Too late now DBQ after which you do this very thing@9:45, depsite the disclaimer, lol!
Kind words CStanley. Thank you.
Ann Althouse said...
If I'm on a decades-long alcoholic bender, I should get extra credit. It's impressive writing this much and this well with a disability so severe.
4/20/17, 8:54 AM
You don't normally come across as a "glass half empty" kind of gal, why so negative? What you describe as a "disability so severe" I would see as one heck of a skill, being such a high functional alcoholic for so long a time...
"So I've got that going for me. Which is nice."
A Caddyshack reference classes up any blog.
@ Inga
At least "I" can restrain myself and not discuss the issue :-\
"For her, adult men, leisurely walking around in short pants read as overgrown boys, thus losing any sex appeal they might otherwise exhibit."
"Meade, I'm 72 and could give a rat's ass about sex appeal..."
This anti shorts on men thing has always seemed petty and shallow. Sex appeal in elderly men, and elderly women being concerned with it, lol. As for young men in shorts, IMO, their manly legs can be pretty sexy. Well, no one is perfect.
"At least "I" can restrain myself and not discuss the issue :-\"
But you didn't restrain yourself from bringing it up.😇 Lol!
Irony: when this blog began, Instapundit (then all Glenn Reynolds) gave it a "check out this intelligent, perceptive ..." That's how I came here. Certainly since Instapundit became a group blog, the average quality is higher here.
@DBQ
Are you watching Season 3 of Better Call Saul?
There's sweet '71 or '72 K5 Blazer featured prominently in Episode 2.
The resale value of your rig probably just went up.
The problem wasn't splooge stooge but that comments were closed.
It was taken by the commenters as insulting to the commenters, who thought that the comment section was the talent.
Opinions can vary.
I'm an old guy with manly legs.
On the other hand my clothing style choices are utilitarian in the extreme.
...we ARE going to rehash this topic. (splooge stooge).
She started it.
Splooge stooge was just woman expressing the women's point of view.
Men see it in terms of playing fair.
Rhhardin, jeez, those shorts of yours are very short. Maybe those shorts that end closer to the knee might enhance the look of your old man legs.
@inga
Those are old shorts. My new ones have a 5" inseam (Cabalas trail shorts, though I think they're phasing them out).
I ride a bicycle thousands of miles a year and so have huge leg muscles.
Now, now rhhardin, don't think you're going to turn me on with talk of your very big huge thigh muscles...
Gahrie - that is really a strikingly clueless comment. Whether a woman who becomes pregnant decides to abort the child or not, the responsibility is hers. Not the man's. Having the right to abort also means that the woman has the responsibility of making the decision.
I am amazed at how hot the feelings still run over that case here. My take on that is:
A man who is shooting live bullets and relying on condoms for contraception must either be hideously and pathetically ignorant or knows that he is playing Russian roulette. If the man wants to not impregnate women with whom he is sleeping, he has the right to get a vasectomy, which will render him infertile. A man who is sleeping with a woman or women without getting a vasectomy has MADE THE CHOICE TO RUN THE RISK OF BECOMING AN UNWILLING FATHER, and therefore must have the responsibility for the outcome if that happens.
Women have the right to get their tubes tied, use multiple methods of contraception, or rely on condoms with the backup of abortion. But many women don't find abortion a personally acceptable choice!
Further, if the courts accepted the idea that a man who used a condom was not responsible when a woman became pregnant by him, then every man would claim that he did, whether he did or not. That's not a viable legal position - instead it means that men have NO responsibilities. While I understand that the freedom to fuck without consequences is highly regarded by men, the fact remains that if you knock up a woman while frolicking in your freedom, you're apt to find it an expensive date lasting about 18 years.
One has autonomy only when one has behavioral choices. The fact that the rights and responsibilities vary with pregnancies is due to the biology involved rather than discrimination by the legal system.
What you are really arguing for is the proposition that the taxpayers - who had no say or participation in the matter whatsoever - should take over the burden of the child support. That is surely the least equitable solution possible, and makes laughable your claim that this question turns on the man's rights.
It's the man's right and responsibility to either ensure he's infertile or not to sleep with a woman who may be fertile. It's a woman's right and responsibility to make sure she's infertile, not to sleep with a man, or to bear the consequences (and abortions and motherhood are consequential, no matter what you believe) as best she can. It's not the taxpayers' obligation to pay the price for your orgasms. If a child results from the coitus, and its yours, the responsibility is jointly yours.
The idea that children who resulted from intercourse by unwilling fathers should pay the price is obviously the least equitable at all. The child had no choice and has no ability to pay the freight.
If you want to talk about rights and responsibilities, talk about them. Don't rely on meretricious indignation to make your case.
During the summer my chest muscles grow out too, owing to scything the lawn to mow it.
Ann Althouse said...You'd better realize what that stuff is and guard your interests while you can.
In one of the specific examples we discussed back then the (underage, I think) man had been raped. This sentence, in that context, is equivalent to "the results of your rape are partially your fault: you should have fought harder against it." Which, obviously, is monstrous.
Anyway, I really don't want to discuss it again. You still think we're all chauvinists who can't understand the distinction between things done against one's will to one's own body (as opposed to things done to one's life--including imprisonment, etc) by a child and things done to a person against their will (but not directly to their body) for the good of society; we still think you're inadequately supporting your assertion that it's morally correct to treat the man in your scenario(s) the way you say it's obvious he must be treated. You think we are taking a reflexively anti-woman (or anti-woman's choice, or anti-woman's bodily autonomy) position and we think you're relying much too heavily on the "we as a society have chosen X, therefore..." line of reasoning (either begging the question or committing a naturalistic fallacy) and not properly weighing the harms.
We all disagree. We all, I think, were a little insulted by some of the arguments and tone of the people with whom we disagreed back then. We all stuck around anyway and have had many other discussions since then. I...I think we're good, on this one, yeah?
"During the summer my chest muscles grow out too, owing to scything the lawn to mow it."
Now stop it rhhardin, are you trying to make me perspire? We're too old for such nonsense, besides you don't take women seriously which is insulting to women, you know.
Women don't take women seriously, is my point.
It would be so much better if we were men, they think.
But they're not wired to be interested in men stuff. They're wired for woman stuff.
Details instead of principles.
Derrida, in _Spurs_ (a nice read but skip the preface by somebody else) did a nice treatment, using the texts of Nietzsche and his _supposed_ misogyny, reversing the claim.
Derrida's first translator Gayatri Spivak (Of Grammatology) was very angry about it. She's the feminist that would have the opposite opinion.
It's the man's right and responsibility to either ensure he's infertile or not to sleep with a woman who may be fertile
The discussion was about women who had taken semen and impregnated themselves without the man's consent and women who had been convicted of raping men.
Feminism doesn't want a castrated man. It wants a castrated woman.
"Women don't take women seriously, is my point."
Wrong.
"It would be so much better if we were men, they think."
Wrong.
You are still not understanding women.
Stamping of tiny foot?
A line from R Emmett Tyrell.
Oy. So you have really big feet too, huh, rhhardin?
A woman who is sleeping with a man or men without getting her tubes tied has MADE THE CHOICE TO RUN THE RISK OF BECOMING AN UNWILLING MOTHER, and therefore must have the responsibility for the outcome if that happens.
Except of course..she doesn't.
She can kill the child before birth
She can abandon the child
She can give the child up for adoption
...all without asking the father or even notifying him.
A more general treatment of woman's place is in Choreographies.
Read a few pages, say up to where woman's place is creating places.
Big feet means big shoes.
- Notting Hill
The sperm debate comes down to 2 questions: When is a man a legal father? When is a man a legal sperm donor?
There's no 1 answer that fits all situations.
Under the law there's no such thing as a half-way-father. Or a "uncle" with rights. The law sees men as either the father or the sperm donor.
A happy marriage, and no divorce, takes care of a lot of the sperm questions. Infertile men are also legal fathers if the couple visits a fertility clinic and uses anonymous sperm from a donor.
Outside of marriage it gets messy. It's not as straightforward if a man is a father or a sperm donor.
The question of fatherhood inside of marriage gets very, very messy if there's cheating. But it's the same legal question: is the interloper a sperm donor or a legal father? What if the husband wants to be the legal father of the child? Does he have rights if the other man wants to claim the child? When?
Splooge Stooge seems a better description for a woman who is talked into condom-less sex and winds up preggers.
Why is it "hater" vs "defender" and not hater vs lover?
MaxedOutMama said...If you want to talk about rights and responsibilities, talk about them. Don't rely on meretricious indignation to make your case.
That's good advice.
If the man wants to not impregnate women with whom he is sleeping, he has the right to get a vasectomy, which will render him infertile. /
One has autonomy only when one has behavioral choices. The fact that the rights and responsibilities vary with pregnancies is due to the biology involved rather than discrimination by the legal system. /
It's the man's right and responsibility to either ensure he's infertile or not to sleep with a woman who may be fertile.
Neat. Now do rape. The examples Gahrie's talking about are: 1.) where everyone agrees a woman retrieved a used condom from the garbage after sleeping with a man to intentionally impregnate herself (against the man's expressed wishes and actions) and 2.) where everyone agrees a woman forcibly raped a man but the man was nevertheless found responsible for the child that resulted from that rape. Saying "women with whom he's sleeping" implies a level of consent that doesn't exist in those scenarios, so it's avoiding the issue and/or begging the question.
Saying the rape victim had "autonomy" because prior to the rape he chose not to have a vasectomy is a little...well, that's probably not something you want to argue. "You could have voluntarily undergone surgery to make the consequences of your being a future rape victim less bad" isn't inaccurate, but it's wrong.
If I recall correctly some people argued that 1.) was maybe not a great way to act but wasn't really a violation of the man himself since he was to blame for not taking more precautions (thus making him a splooge stooge). Others found that to be a little close to victim-blaming and pointed out that our current understanding of sexual assault and/or rape covers things like someone deciding (well after the fact) that the consent they appeared to give at the time wasn't really heartfelt, etc, so surely an intentional violation of this kind must qualify, too...
Anyway even if you think 1.) doesn't rise to the level of a crime you'll still have to apply your argument to 2.) if you want to address what was actually under discussion at the time.
NOT THAT YOU SHOULD WANT TO DO SO NOW! I'm still voting MoveOn.Org on this one, myself.
Both the man and woman are responsible. Both are well-aware, or should be, of human reproduction. If they're not, the implication is that they are not sufficiently mature to have sex.
Her choice... His choice. She conceives. Both are responsible.
I have had to pull my cock out of a useless cocksucker's mouth and then proceed to beat of and chizz on his face.
Waste of cum if you ask me.
And I make sure when I pull it out of his mouth that I have a very disappointing look on my face, and maybe shake my head in disgust, just to let him know what a useless cocksucker he is.
I have always been under the impression that women are bad cocksuckers or that they don't like it. All my straight girlfriends hate it and wont do it.
Straighties? How is a woman at cocksucking? Do you guys ever get blown? If not, why not?
thanks and have a super day!
"I ride a bicycle thousands of miles a year and so have huge leg muscles."
I have always accepted shorts for activities where shorts are the traditional clothes, which would include biking.
I have also always made exceptions for men who look good (manly) in shorts. There are a couple pictures in the blog archive where I've noted this.
"Big feet mean big shoes."
—Pee Wee Herman to Chairey
"....but also sometimes almost willfully obtuse...." Concur with that. Some years ago Althouse opined that roofing professionals should simply learn Spanish, in order to compete with the illegal aliens swamping their industry. Spoken like a true academic.
"This blog grew from nothing and had commenters all along and has had a group of long-time commenters that, while people come and go, as a group provide stability and generally police the bomb-throwing newbies and professional trolls. Such people don't stay long because they can't hang long."
There were some weeks last summer that were a bit brutal, with the Crooked Hilary shills trolling the site I shifts. I always wondered if they ran out of money or just interest.
"Meanwhile, Instapundit grew without commentary and then opened the barn door wide. As a result, it doesn't have that stable base of commenters to take on the trolls."
I very rarely read Instapundit comments, but have been reading the blog compulsively for many years. I read Instapundit for content, Althouse for commentary, and Drudge for breaking news - though recently Instapundit seems to have scooped Drudge on occasion. One of my favorite things about this blog is the community. Glad to see Titus pop on by today. Been too long. And then there is our new star - Laslo. And a bunch of others. Always a homey feel - bickering, but somewhat like a family. Where else can you find one of the commenters having managed to marry the blogger?
I have been watching quite a bit of amateur porn lately. It seems like everyone is a porn director now.
these are real people, not porn stars, and they have the video set up so you watch them, and they are watching themselves on the tele. Isn't that awesome?
one guy might put a camera up but the other guy has no idea he is being filmed. This would fall under the category "Video of guy not knowing he is being filmed". Love those.
@ Bob Boyd
There's sweet '71 or '72 K5 Blazer featured prominently in Episode 2.
The resale value of your rig probably just went up.
Yes!!! Very nicely done, although I'm not so sure about the dark top. I also have the wood look trim on the outside too. When we bought the Blazer we had to promise the seller that we wouldn't repaint it a different color. He had already been pestered/begged by many people to buy but didn't want to sell until we asked him. No problem on the paint. I love the bronze.
Yay on the resale value. I guess we'd better up our Haggerty ins on Flo. Now...if they would just also show a 68 Rambler American station wagon. Not my car...but this is our next project. We are de-tuning an engine that was built for racing, a Chevy small block 400, so that I don't kill myself.
Way off topic but there you go.
"roadgeek said...roofing professionals should simply learn Spanish, in order to compete with the illegal aliens "
Right. You know.."assimilation" ;)
I have always accepted shorts for activities where shorts are the traditional clothes
Jack Paar had a tux with Bermuda shorts. In fact, Bermudas are correct attire for gentlement in ...Bermuda.
"I have always been under the impression that women are bad cocksuckers or that they don't like it. All my straight girlfriends hate it and wont do it."
Have no idea whether women are better or worse at it, since I have never had a guy do it for me. But wouldn't be surprised if you were correct here. Kinda like bi women complaining about guys eating their pussys. The two sexes are different enough that it is harder to understand the pleasuring of someone wired differently from you as contrasted to pleasuring some wired like you. Except that in the straight world, men seem more interested in satisfying women than the other way around. Which from a biological/resource commitment point of view makes sense. My guess is that in straights, blow jobs are something provided younger, high testosterone level, males by younger women in lieu of intercourse, and its use drops off quickly once the women become comfortable with intercourse. And maybe part of why a lot of straight guys prefer intercourse s that they have more control over their sexual pleasure.
Ann Althouse said...
I have also always made exceptions for men who look good (manly) in shorts.
--
I feel the same about women going topless in public.
I took the position that the child is the most important person, and the father's interests can be subordinated, especially if the mother is seeking government assistance. The father can be compelled to take responsibility for his child. The woman did wrong and deserves blame, but that doesn't entitle the man to be free of the child."
So the woman did wrong but suffers no consequences for her choices. Got it. How about this, once the kid is eighteen dad get's to garnish mom's income until debt is repaid. College loans are not dischargeable by bankruptcy,neither should fraud be shielded from collection or discharged by bankruptcy.
@Titus - probably don't need to tell you this, but if you ever do want to do one of those porn films where only one of the participants knows that they are being filmed, be careful. A bunch of states are two party consent states, requiring both parties to consent to recording their conversations (or their sexual exploits).
Titus said...Waste of cum if you ask me.
--
Ha! Yes..mo bettah down the throat, right?
"All my straight girlfriends hate it and wont do it."
Weird. For me it's always been just the opposite. Even my non-straight girlfriends.
I am the Splooge Succubus! I am the Woman Demon who uses my Womanly Demon wiles to steal the precious semen from Unsuspecting Men! I dress in skin-tight Black Leather, although I have been known to wear Short Flippy Cheerleader Skirts, Naughty Librarian Attire, and, on occasion, a Japanese Schoolgirl Outfit with White Socks; in the Seventies I was known for wearing tube tops and bell-bottom jeans and rocking your world in the back of an air-brushed van…
Sometimes I am a one-night stand, sometimes the man is asleep, sometimes I am a little, little girl: regardless of my presentation, I collect the precious male fluid in jars to add to my Collection. Oh, my Precious Jars of Man Spunk…!
I can be a Woman, or a Jaguar, or a Spider: I can bite, I can suck, I can bite and suck -- but I NEVER swallow! Whatever my Method, I WILL fill my Jars…!
Extra! Authentic Splooge Succubus! Dialogue!
"Does Baby Boy Want Mommy to suck his cock?"
"Does Baby Boy Want Mommy to suck his cocky-wocky?"
"Does Baby Boy Like Mommy sucking his Big Boy cock?"
"Does Baby Boy Like Mommy tickling Baby Boy's Balls?"
"Does Mommy's mouth feel good, Baby Boy?"
"Uh oh, it looks like Baby Boy is about to Come!"
"Is Baby Boy going to go Boom into Mommy's mouth?"
"Good Boy! Good Boy!"
Then: Into The Jar!
Like that.
I am Laslo.
Titus said...Waste of cum if you ask me.
Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick
Knocked Up (2007) has the guy too much of a pig.
Not getting along with the girl has to be much more normal, and her rejection and acceptance trajectory much more subtle.
I can improve every romcom I've ever seen. I'm surprised directors don't call on me.
Ideal plot, he's a conservative and she's a liberal, for instance.
Ann, you should be honored. Few people ever earn the "C" word, much less with a coined adjective modifier. This is like the moment when a pro wrestling heel enters the arena and someone throws his beer at him.
Juno (2007) was good. I noticed it under $5 at amazon too.
Laslo said...I am the Splooge Succubus! I am the Woman Demon who uses my Womanly Demon wiles to steal the precious semen from Unsuspecting Men!
Missed one: Semen Demon.
Bruce Hayden said...Have no idea whether women are better or worse at it, since I have never had a guy do it for me. But wouldn't be surprised if you were correct here. Kinda like bi women complaining about guys eating their pussys. The two sexes are different enough that it is harder to understand the pleasuring of someone wired differently from you as contrasted to pleasuring some wired like you
Seinfeld script: The Beard
Jerry: He went back? What do you mean he went back?
Elaine: He went back.
Jerry: I don't understand it. You were having such a great time, the sex, the shopping.
Elaine: Well here's the thing. Being a woman, I only really have access to the, uh... equipment, what,
thirty, forty-five minutes a week. And that's on a good week. How can I be expected to have the same
expertise as people who *own* this equipment, and have access to it twenty-four hours a day, their entire
lives.
Jerry: You can't. That's why they lose very few players.
Elaine: Yeah, I guess I never really stood a chance.
"If the child is a person, doesn't it have the right to life?"
If we are talking about legal rights, the right the unborn would assert is not against the government, but against the women who in seeking an abortion is only wanting to be left alone by the govt.
If the govt were to try to stop her, she asserts a right against the govt, the right to have an abortion, which the courts have found exists, and which I think is right, because the woman is the ruler of the inside of her own body. I see it as a question of sovereignty.
The woman can think for herself about whether the child has a right to life within the sovereign territory of her body, where she is the highest court and absolute ruler. Getting the abortion is the decision that the right to life is not recognized in her territory, which she rules... or it is a decision by the dictator to go ahead a violate rights. Once the action has been taken, what recourse is there for the wrong she committed within the law of the inside of her body? She can feel guilty, she can think of apologies to the unborn or devote a portion of her mind as a memorial to the unborn. But that is all inside her -- her uterus, her conscience, all of it.
The worldly government has no way to intrude on all that. It's freedom of conscience.
"Holes in the condom. Sisters. Lake house. I've forgotten the plot details whicm means I can watch it again."
That also happens in the old hippie novel "Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up to Me."
Althouse plays the old shell game.
She says that sovereignty starts with the woman's body. But not a man, we can draft him, and send him off to war, and get him riddled by enemy fire! It's just an artificial distinction that, combined with the backing of a legal argument that a human being is not a person before they are born, removes all rights. Same as an enslaved human being used to not be considered a person. Roe v Wade is little different than Dred Scott. in that regard.
I really wish Althouse would give up the presentation of fake logic and just say "We had the power, so we did it! I agree with it!" It's at least honest.
"So the woman did wrong but suffers no consequences for her choices."
I didn't say that.
Remember what the wrong was: Fishing a used condom out of the trash, turning it inside out on some object (e.g. a hairbrush handle), and jamming it up inside her to achieve fertilization. Since she wanted the pregnancy and didn't get an abortion, she forced the man into fatherhood, a very substantial wrong against him.
He has legal claims that he could make against her. But the problem is that the government doesn't care about that. It wants parents to provide for whatever children enter the world and would otherwise be a burden on the community. The question is whether the govt has the power to require him to pay child support. The govt doesn't have to do that, but is the govt empowered to do it if that's what the people of the state want to do? Or does the father have the right to avoid supporting his child?
Keep in mind that fathers might lie about what happened in their effort to avoid paying for the child and that the state would have to expend resources to litigate if the father has a right.
The mother also has consequences in that she is also legally required to support the child. And she bore all the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth.
Maybe if you just started explanations as you have given with a phrase like "This is the reality as your betters have decreed it."
Ann Althouse said... Since she wanted the pregnancy and didn't get an abortion, she forced the man into fatherhood, a very substantial wrong against him.
A very substantial harm? Since when? I thought complaining about that circumstance (being victimized in that way) was "whining." And that we, as a society, correctly ignored such self-interested whining and dismissed claims of injustice in that situation--based on the moral weight/moral worth of the person you're now saying suffered a very substantial harm. We don't care about him or people who think things shouldn't be so unfair for him, remember? Remember why we don't care?
"The backbone of society is the married, committed couple who channel their sexuality into making and growing the next generation. Those who do other things are free to make choices, but we as a society have no reason to facilitate their choices, especially their destructive choices."
Acting in a way that leaves open the possibility of being vicitimized--being made the victim of a "very substantial harm" isn't something we, as a society, have any reason to facilitate, so if a person doesn't take sufficient precautions and is victimized in that way, well, fuck 'em. They aren't "the backbone of society."
Just when I thought I was out
"The backbone of society is the married, committed couple who channel their sexuality into making and growing the next generation. Those who do other things are free to make choices, but we as a society have no reason to facilitate their choices, especially their destructive choices."
Plus gay people who get married for the benefits originally conferred for the purpose of "growing the next generation," they are also the backbone of society, and, well, you know "Love Wins!" It's right there in the constitution!
I am neither against gay marriage or abortion. What I am against is pointy headed intellectuals creating rhetorical arguments out of thin air and using them to over-ride the will of a democracy. I think that is far more dangerous, in the long run, than outlawing either abortion or gay marriage.
Intellectuals thought WWI was a capital idea!
but we as a society have no reason to facilitate their choices, especially their destructive choices."
Yes we do! Love wins!
"She says that sovereignty starts with the woman's body. But not a man, we can draft him, and send him off to war, and get him riddled by enemy fire! It's just an artificial distinction that, combined with the backing of a legal argument that a human being is not a person before they are born, removes all rights. Same as an enslaved human being used to not be considered a person. Roe v Wade is little different than Dred Scott. in that regard."
None of that is happening in the sovereign territory of the inside of the body.
Both men and women can be forced to contribute to the defense of the whole group.
As for slaves, they are not inside someone else's body. They were deemed to be property in the terrible legal regime that existed before the 13th Amendment. The 13th Amendment gives rights against private individuals, but other rights in the Constitution are only rights against the govt. Where is the legal right to life by the unborn? You can say it is a moral right, but then the question becomes where that right can be enforced. I say the right is enforceable in the mother's conscience.
Ann Althouse said...The govt doesn't have to do that, but is the govt empowered to do it if that's what the people of the state want to do?
Yeah, that's the question, sure. If the people of a state decide that abortion is illegal, is the govt empowered to enforce that decision via law? No, of course not, because that involves women's bodies. Bodily autonomy overrides any other considerations (personal responsibility/culpability, etc).
Since by your definition bodily autonomy doesn't factor into forcing a person to pay child support, whatever we as a society (through empowering a judge, through the law) decide is best for us as a society is acceptable to you. If a guy doesn't pay he can be arrested and imprisoned, of course, and the product of his bodily effort (work) can be confiscated without his consent, but none of that counts as bodily autonomy so fuck 'em. Economic freedom isn't real freedom since everything you do or have belongs to society and/or the government first. Well, everything except your body...if you're a woman and by "body" we mean womb.
If I remember correctly the real-life example of a (male) victim of rape who was forced to pay child support didn't move you much, Professor--I think you hand-waved it with "in those circumstances we should make an exception" or something similar. I never really got an answer as to why having THAT exception wouldn't fatally weaken the rule (that guys should always pay) by allowing possibly-false claims but an exception regarding guys who were done a "very substantial harm" of the type under discussion would.
The mother also has consequences in that she is also legally required to support the child.
Bullshit.
Not only can she kill it before birth, she can abandon it after birth by dropping it off at a fire station or hospital due to safe haven laws. Or she can put it up for adoption.
The father has no such options.
If the govt were to try to stop her,
You mean if the government tried to prevent her from killing her baby.
she asserts a right against the govt, the right to have an abortion, which the courts have found exists,
Found being the key word. "Finding" it where no one else had seen it for 100 years. It would be more accurate to the courts "created".
and which I think is right, because the woman is the ruler of the inside of her own body. I see it as a question of sovereignty.
But only when it comes to abortion.
Both men and women can be forced to contribute to the defense of the whole group.
How? Women are exempt from the selective service.
Ann Althouse said...Both men and women can be forced to contribute to the defense of the whole group.
No ma'am: in another discussion on this site we decided that we couldn't force women to bear children even if doing so "contribute[d] to the defense of the whole group." It was a comparison of the draft and abortion laws. Again, bodily autonomy, for women, trumped everything else. (We spent a lot of time talking about how the only circumstance where a large general draft would be necessary would also involve needing to preserve women/protect women as breed stock so they wouldn't be subject to the draft orders, etc, but we still decided they couldn't be FORCED to have kids.)
I'd like everyone to think deeply for a moment, though, about what it means in this day and age to say someone was "irresponsible with their genetic material" and therefore it's just to make them (as opposed to society at large) responsible for the product of a subsequent pregnancy. Given modern medical technology how far will you take that seemingly-straightforward principle?
You don't need sperm to produce a baby anymore. When you accuse someone of being "careless with their genetic material" you mean they didn't take ENOUGH steps to keep their DNA out of the hands of someone who was intent on gaining that DNA (for the purpose of producing a child). But what if there's no sperm involved--what if we get into Gattaca territory and I happen to leave an eyelash or a few hairs at my desk and someone scoops that up, nabs a few viable cells, takes those to their Dr, pays to have them combined with their own egg cells, and implants those artificially-fertilized eggs? Am I still on the hook for child support?
Why wouldn't I be? If I'm not then society will be, and it's still in society's interest to assign some cost to me. Clearly I've been the victim of a "very substantial harm" but why wouldn't I be subject to the same rule as the guy in our original scenario?
Hey, if I didn't want to pay child support I shouldn't have left an eyelash or two in a commonly-accessible place, right? Anyway what's important is what's best for the child, and that's forcing me to pay.
None of that is happening in the sovereign territory of the inside of the body.
I don't know about that. Once a bullet enters your body, it seems to have violated it's sovereignty. On D-Day, soldiers were often ordered on the suicide mission of planting a bomb under and enemy emplacement. They would have just enough time to plant the bomb before being killed. Did this violate the sovereignty of their body? What about a forced inoculation? So it's a matter of degree, and matters of degree are exactly what should be decided by democratic will, because "intellectuals" have demonstrated time and again that they can't be trusted.
If you are going to bootstrap a right to special sovereignty of a woman's body, why not just admit you are doing it, rather than pretending that it is some long accepted principle that exists in the constitution and existed at the time of its framing? And if you are going to point out that the government can force women to take projectiles into their body, what makes child bearing so special?
Many gay guys like nothing more than to suck a dick and are professional cocksuckers.
I never liked sucking cock and was bad at it so I stopped the sucking years ago. I could only do it for a few seconds anyways.
I have had guys sucking on my cock for over an hour, seriously. They know when you are about to cum and can squeeze the head to stop the cum and then start over sucking. The term for this kind of blowjob or hand job is "Edging". I hope you all learned something new today.
Edging.
So Ann, don't you think that chasing Instapundit blog comments, hoping to determine that someone loves you, just might be like Donnie Trump slurping down the sweet tweets on his personal twitter account?
Some time ago Instapundit joined up up with Roger Simon at PJ Media. At some point they turned over management of the joint property to a third party. What you see there today is the result of that third party's monetization of the blog. Outrage inducting, around-the-clock links are designed to produce pageviews and payouts. The comments provide an outlet for the outraged and keep them engaged and clicking.
There's still an ideological aspect to the posts (particularly from Reynolds) but the primary purpose of Instapundit today is making money with clickbait. Sad.
To Althouse's credit she has not given in to the greed. With her readership numbers she is leaving significant money on the table. Money that would buy a lot of boxes of wine.
Sorry about that last one. I couldn't resist.
"Money that would buy a lot of boxes of wine."
heh.
Gadfly, I hope you are charging Donnie Trump rent for living in your brain and taking up so much room.
"heh" has given way to "hmmm."
Try to keep up.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा