Loose women in South Dakota to be horse-whipped

...everyone should watch the movie called " North Country " it says everything. It was a great movie and I believe that even today this is how our country lives. Not all over but none the less its still a sexist world.
Just for the record! I don't think we women would eat our own babies, how assenine. Everyone has a right to his or her own beliefs and it should stay that way, but nobody should try to shove it down anyones throat either.

-- and how the right wing has kept the HPV vaccine under wraps-- will be an embarrassement and a scandal.

How we are able to make such strong distinctions between our society and those controlled by the Taliban et al, is mind-boggling. "I'd rather see my daughter die..." How is that significantly different than the custom of "honor" killings?

Ai yai yaiii!!!! At that point, I was a mother thinking only of her daughter and her future. Now, some 11+ years later, I am a grandmother, who would put my grandson's needs first. He is a most delightful child.

I couldn't really know... no one ever can... what was the absolute best solution. I only knew that I had to tell her what I thought first-- that she should consider all of her options-- in order to be able to move forward and support her in her decision.

As for your question, prosecute the daughter? For what, making a mistake? The mother? If anything, she may have harmed her daughter emotionally, by forcing her to have an abortion she didn't want, but that's as far as I am willing to go with that, and I don't know how you could prosecute for that kind of emotional harm. In such a situation, they're both suffering already, and in an ideal world, one would want them to be able to heal their relationship, rather than serve a prison term which would benefit no one.

But then I subscribe to the belief that actual life begins with the breath. Until then, it's only potential.

But rather a reminder not to fall for the tricks that the fascists use to separate us from one another. I make these mistakes too, and try to remind myself whenever I catch myself doing it. I can't afford to let myself think that way. If we don't hang together, we will surely hang separately.

I am not sure what these terms mean as they are used today. Ostensibly, fascism is to the far right, while communism is to the far left. What does that really tell us about any society? Hitler slaughtered millions, while Stalin slaughtered tens of millions. Human rights were probably on a par in both of these incredibly repressive societies. What was the real functional difference to the individual trying to survive inside the brutal structures? So, why insist on representing them as diametric opposites?

My primary concern, as a Conservative Libertarian with strong Liberal leanings, is the amount of freedom that an individual has to control their life. That is the sum of all freedoms economic, political, personal, not just the freedom that any particular group decides is appropriate at a given moment. The right pole of this scale represents a totally anarchistic society with no controls, while the left is the pole of total repression and slavery. In a lot of ways, this scale is of much greater use in describing the condition of the average citizen. One value added benefit of using this approach, is that the Bush camp is now on the far left. You can really tweak some Bushies with this description, and sometimes I have a lot of fun doing that.

So, I would agree with nylla that humans have inherent rights to pursue their interests in as free a manor as possible. Repression only serves to increase thanatophillia and peversion. The fewer the strictures on human behavior, the better. It is not the function of any governmental organization to enforce any persons morality on another person, but to prevent violence both real and implied.

There are certainly an incredible number of fertile areas for discussion that spring forth from here. Lead on!

But they are. More and more states are passing laws that allow pharmacists to opt out of dispensing contraceptives. Perhaps they should consider a different line of work, if they are unable to meet the demands of dispensing specific drugs. And, if morality really were the issue, wouldn't we have heard of at least a few pharmacists refusing to dispense Viagra?

Why is there such an insistence on abstinence-only sex education from this administration? You'd think that an honest broker wanting to eliminate, or at least decrease the number of, abortions, would consider making information and access to contraception a priority. [On this front, the left has made overtures, but has been totally rebuffed by the right.] The Bushes have children from only one pregnancy. I doubt that GWB is really opposed to contraception, but he sure is on board with accommodating his religious base whenever he can do so without it costing him too much. So, the FDA, against all advice from its advisory groups, continues to refuse to approve OTC sales of Plan B (which is, scientifically, not an abortifacient), even after the manufacturers came up with a solution to objections about women younger than 16 being able to get it without a prescription (permission).

I agree with most of your third paragraph, and am more than willing to pay out of pocket for my acupuncture and homeopathy, etc.

As for lefties wanting to control behavior... I think most progressives would agree that the war on drugs has been a miserable failure (and especially that existing drug laws unfairly single out the poor, and minorities, whose drugs carry greater penalties); that too many people are in prison for drug arrests; that medical mariajuana should not even be an issue; and that hemp would be a far better cash crop than tobacco. And so forth... the real distinction is between ethics (public sphere) and morality (private).

But smoking? Well, that doesn't affect only the smoker, if the rest of us have to put up with it, too. Expecting not to have to breath 2nd-hand smoke is pretty much on a par with expecting industries to clean up their own messes, rather than poisoning people, or the dog-owners in my neighborhood to clean up after their pets (surprising how many dont!). Crack? not if it means neglecting children, or otherwise harming other people. And what rights do women have that men don't? If you mean reproductive rights, well, then no. Men don't bear the same burdens reproductively, and cannot reasonably expect to exercise the final say on whether a woman (wife or girlfriend) should bear a child.

Believe it or not, I'm actually a libertarian sympathizer, but as a woman, I have too much time and skin in the game to be able to ignore the increasing assaults on our autonomy. And, "a woman should have the right to control her own body" is more than just a euphemism for abortion. A woman has (or should have) the right to say no. No to sex when she doesn't want it. No to being a vessel when she is not prepared. No to being denied legal prescriptions, or being sent to another pharmacy because the only pharmacist on duty refused to dispense her medication. No to being a mother. If she doesn't want to be one. Period.

There was a comment on a blog somewhere awhile back, in which a man was quoted as saying to his wife, that he finally got what was so important about women's reproductive rights: that it was really about whether women would/could have any power in their lives or in society, because if they couldn't control their reproduction, then they couldn't really exercise any power.

>> More and more states are passing laws that allow pharmacists to opt out of dispensing contraceptives

Can you document that? Because I doubt that it's true. I don't doubt that you've heard such stories, but rumors abound. No drug store owner has ever been required to carry every medicine available. Just like Kroger isn't required to carry Peace Cereals.

>> I think most progressives would agree that the war on drugs has been a miserable failure; that too many people are in prison for drug arrests;

But people are being sent to prison for smoking marijuana every day of the week and there is no public outcry. This has gone on for 40 or 50 years and most people don't even know what NORML is. If your state starts sending women to prison for having abortions, will you join in public protests? How many public protests have you joined to stop sending people to prison for smoking marijuana?

>>But smoking? Well, that doesn't affect only the smoker,

If I own a business, it should be my choice to allow or disallow smoking. If you prefer to not be exposed to second hand smoke, then you should take your business elsewhere. Simple solution that allows both you and I full freedom of choice. And likewise, if I own a pharmacy, I should be able to choose what products I sell or do not sell. If you do not like my choices, then take your business elsewhere. If you wish to have the freedom to make the personal choices that you value, then you have to allow others that same freedom. Yes, they will make choices that you do not like. That's life.

>>And, "a woman should have the right to control her own body" is more than just a euphemism for abortion. A woman has (or should have) the right to say no.

People should have those rights. Not just women. What I was trying to say is that a more encompassing statement can be made that includes us all and demands freedom for us all.

nylla

however, it is well documented that some companies are in violation of the law by refusing to dispense forms of birth control prescriptions. You can find out more through the "BuyBlue" movement. It is not the same with smoking. Though both involve the public health, one of the few areas in which the government should take some responsibility, the one involves the mandated AMA system of dispensation of officially sanctioned "remedies." The other has no such restrictions on its purchase unless you are underage. One is a medical preventative, the other a toxic substance that kills thousands each year. While people have the right to smoke, they do not have the right to violate my lungs.

And your comparison of protesting abortion with protesting the right to smoke weed is interesting but pretty much deflective of the point Karen made, which was in response to your assertion "The problem is lefties don't want other people to be free to make their own choices any more than the religious right does. Lefties only want people to be free to make the choices that they approve of. So how is that any different than the religious right?" You kind of threw in some apples to her oranges, and your statement is factually inaccurate in the face of collective reality. Personally, neither abortion nor weed should be illegal, and neither were until relatively recent times. And I do agree with you that we all should have the personal freedom to do as we feel is best for our bodies and our lives, so long as we do not hurt another who is independent of us.

"If not here, where? If not now, when?"

>>however, it is well documented that some companies are in violation of the law by refusing to dispense forms of birth control prescriptions

If a person or company is violating the law, then you can go to your Sheriff's office and file a complaint and force the Sheriff to enforce the law. It's that simple. Being someone who supports liberty I have no problem with any company deciding what it is willing to sell or not sell. We are both opposed to totalitarianism, correct?

>> public health, one of the few areas in which the government should take some responsibility,

And that is why we have the AMA intimidating alternative health care providers, the DEA intimidating pain management providers and the FDA outlawing Ma Hung (ephidrene).

>>While people have the right to smoke, they do not have the right to violate my lungs.

If you go to a nude beach, expect to see naked people. If you go to a business that allows smoking, expect to be exposed to second hand smoke. We are both opposed to totalitarianism, correct?

>>And your comparison of protesting abortion with protesting the right to smoke weed is interesting but pretty much deflective of the point Karen made,

That's because it was Karen, not me, that tied my statement about "lefties" to the drug war. My comparison was to illustrate how we all take certain issues and make them all consuming, when in reality if we would only support the personal liberty of all then most of these compelling single issues would disappear. Additionally, I was trying to make the point that if people howled as loudly about marijuana prohibition as they do about abortion prohibition then the laws would have been changed a long time ago.

>> "The problem is lefties don't want other people to be free to make their own choices any more than the religious right does. Lefties only want people to be free to make the choices that they approve of. So how is that any different than the religious right?" ..., and your statement is factually inaccurate in the face of collective reality.

Reread your own posts. You don't want to allow business owners to be able to choose which products they carry. You don't want to allow business owners to be able to choose whether or not they allow smoking. And if we talk further, I'll bet there's a whole lot more things that you want outlawed.

I can only add that if one believes abortion is murder, and one is against abortion because it is murder, then one ABSOLUTELY MUST also be against capital punishment and war, as these are state-sanctioned murder. And it also implies that assisted suicide is murder, mercy killings are murder, and a lot of other things, including cops shooting people and so on. Either you are for forms of killing or not. Anything less is a form of hypocrisy. Then we get to discuss the meat industry, which inflicts unbelievable suffering on millions of cows, chickens, pigs, and you get my point.

Me? I'm against all forms of killing humans and animals (except for ticks, mosquitos, fleas and a few other disease spreading vermin) but death is a fact of life. I will never want to put my pets to death, but if they are terminally suffering, then I must weigh my need to decrease their suffering against my selfish need to perpetuate it.

As for the entire issue of who we get to kill or not, until we humans come to grips with the anger, hostility, fear, and brutality we inflict on those who don't agree with us, we're just rearranging the deck chairs as the ship sinks. And in my experience, more totalitarians (anti-abortion radicals among them) are driven by low motives than those who believe in individual liberties, regardless of their perceived political affiliation.

"If not here, where? If not now, when?"

>>I can only add that if one believes abortion is murder, and one is against abortion because it is murder, then one ABSOLUTELY MUST also be against capital punishment and war, as these are state-sanctioned murder.

You're trying to mix logic with religious beliefs. Which is much like trying to mix oil and water - hopeless.

>> And in my experience, more totalitarians (anti-abortion radicals among them) are driven by low motives than those who believe in individual liberties, regardless of their perceived political affiliation.

As stated that's hard to disagree with. In my experience, the problem is that many who claim to believe in individual liberties are in fact quite totalitarian. How did (or would) you vote when your state, city or county put an anti-smoking statute on the ballot? Do you favor individual liberty on that issue? Yes, I agree that it's legitimate to outlaw second hand smoke in certain public places. Private businesses are not public places. Restaurants are the best example. You have plenty of restaurants to choose from. Many of them are non-smoking. There is absolutely no valid reason to require ALL restaurants to be non-smoking. Where I live, many of the restaurants built in the last 10 or 15 years were properly designed into two distinct sections with two separate entrances in order to separate the smokers from the non-smokers. That was not enough to keep the electorate from outlawing smoking in all restaurants by a 70 to 30 ratio. A belief in individual liberty must extend to those who have habits we do not appreciate.

nylla

is necessary unless we want our society to revert to the strange absolute religion-based "proofs" of the Middle Ages where women dunked for being in league with "de debbil" were guilty if they survived, and innocent if they died. So religious beliefs must take a back seat to forms of rational proof. Some science, like Darwin, may still contain some inexplicable phenomena, but the alternative the religious extremists offer is unacceptable. Is that totalitarian? Not at all. It is a choice to accept that for all its flaws, what science we have is preferable to subjective beliefs that hurt the many while benefitting the few.

I vote against smoking because my wife's father died of emphysema. I used to smoke, but am not a totalitarian as to another's personal right to do so. I would never vote to make tobacco illegal, or curb a person's right to smoke in their private space, but you are not accurate to say a restaurant is a private place. In law, though privately owned, the physical building is a place of public assembly subject to the laws of public health. Would you also allow a tubercular to walk freely in crowds, coughing and drinking from public fountains? Or permit defecation in the public water supply, creating a cholera epidemic? If your local establishment allows rats to fester, you cannot just go elsewhere and not be affected by the rats. They have a way of getting around, along with the fleas that carry disease.

There must be reasonable curbs on individual behavior that affect the public health. Otherwise the next time you go through a green light and get hit you have no complaint or remedy. The absolute right of the individual to do as they please leads to anarchy, not stable society. And I also have lived places where they tried to mandate smoking sections in restaurants, but due to poor ventilation people could not bear it. Too bad that the cost of a vent fan or two was deemed too expensive by establishment owners to protect the rights of smokers to violate only their own lungs. It would seem that smokers should have lobbied the tobacco companies, who seem to have plenty of clout with lawmakers, to donate vent fans to all establishments who wanted to keep both smokers and nonsmokers happy. So smokers have only to look at greed and indifference on the part of the companies, not those people who voted to eat without it tasting like ashtrays.

"If not here, where? If not now, when?"

the ventilation fans are really not that costly and even if they were the government should supply them for the owner of the establishment. it would help greatly. I have been in a restaurant that had the ventilation fans and you could breath easily. I think it should be mandatory for them. I have allergies of the worst kinds (food, chemical, and airborn) and it would mean the world to me.

>> So religious beliefs must take a back seat to forms of rational proof

Not in the mind of the believer. And no one can give a rational proof of when life begins or ends. This was about anti-abortionists believing that abortion is murder.

>> I used to smoke, but am not a totalitarian as to another's personal right to do so.

You're certainly totalitarian when it comes to the rights of business owners. A restaurant is a place you freely choose to visit. You have other choices. You can rationalize your totalitarianism any way you choose, but the fact remains that basically you want to restrict the freedom of others to design the world you prefer to live in. Which is exactly the same attitude of the religious right.

>>There must be reasonable curbs on individual behavior that affect the public health.

Somehow I feel like we disagree on the what is reasonable. What is unreasonable about allowing a restaurant to cater to smokers? A big sign out front - Smoking Allowed. A big sign on the entrance door - Smoking Allowed. Why is it unreasonable to allow smokers to gather in a place of their own to suffer their misery together?

There was a time when most people smoked. If you watch some old movies on TCM, you'll see doctors smoking in hospitals. Due to that attitude, smoking was allowed everywhere. As societal attitudes changed, businesses changed. Smoking became more and more restricted. Restaurants were slow to change for whatever reason. But they did start changing, on their own, without legal mandate. By the time we had our smoking ban vote none of our local restaurants allowed smoking anyway. The pressure of the non-smoking public was all it took to change the attitudes of businesses. The only businesses that still allowed smoking were probably those owned by smokers. When you can accomplish your goals without using the powers of the police state, then I believe that is the moral course of action. You are against all killing. I assume then that you are against the use of force to get one's way. Using the power of the police state is a use of force. If you and I are attending a private party on private property and I am blowing smoke in your face, do you punch me or walk away? You have the same choice when confronted with a business that allows smoking.

to jeopardize the public health. You conveniently left out answering that part of the dialog. Restaurant owners have no right to allow any public health menace to be perpetuated on the premises. And if a community agrees on a taboo, who are you to say they can't? Should an entire population submit to the tyranny of one person?

As per your example, you have no inherent right to jeopardize my health, or anyone else's, by blowing smoke in my face. I might walk away, or I might sue you. Both are nonviolent ways of enjoining you from violating my rights. Of course, again you mix the issue of an individual's right to do their own thing with a nonexistant right for an individual living within collective agreements we call "law" to violate that agreement. Why should I accept the burden to walk away if you violate my lungs in a public place, or a private place either? Will you also accept the responsibility for my medical bills if I develop a disease proximately caused by your actions? To argue differently, you have no remedy if someone hits you even if the light is green. Or kills your loved one. If you are violating my boundaries, a legal wrong, there must be a remedy or we will revert to the law of the jungle. So how do you propose to stop those who violate another's boundaries? What of the public health? That is not totalitarianism. No one has the right to cause ill to another. And I have the right to sue any public establishment that jeopardizes my health through violating the collectively accepted law. While I agree it's always an option to walk away, there are places where one cannot walk away. What do you do in those places, and what is your remedy for those who are damaged by those who violate the agreement?

Again, let's go back to an owner's right to hire someone with hepatitis. Are you saying they have that right? Or to allow filth that spreads vermin? That's why we have the right to sue. Welcome to the American system of law. You may not like it, but you have no right to violate anyone else's health. Neither does a restaurant owner. And if a town decides they don't want a public health menace, they have that right to decide collectively, and the restaurant owner can choose to leave, or join the collective agreement. Again, does anyone have a right to defecate in the public water supply? Do they have the right to release poison gas into the air? If you are damaged by the actions of another, what is your remedy?

"If not here, where? If not now, when?"

...nor do business owners have the right to expect their employees to endanger their health. As I understand it, that has been the real driving force behind the votes for banning smoking in all public places in some cities. Whether there are other jobs available or not, is not at issue. Regardless of how desperate a person is for a job, or maybe exactly because of that, we have rules and laws governing employers' treatment of their employees. I doubt anyone would want to return to the good old days, before such laws, even though so many of them are not enforced well enough now.

As for dictating a smoke-free environment, I have been subjected to 2nd-hand smoke for more than half of my life (and I'm 52), and I really didn't have any choice in that, unless I wanted to live as a hermit-- something I couldn't do as a child anyway-- but I had to work, to interact with others, spend time with family members, attend at least a few social gatherings, and always with red eyes, a scratchy throat, and the chronic appearance of so many people who used to seem allergic to everything... because they were surrounded by smokers.

And the medications I was referring to, are ones that most companies actually stock; yet some pharmacists refuse to dispense them. I think it is perhaps mildly irresponsible for a drug store to employ someone who finds him or herself morally incapable of performing the required work. However, if accommodations are made, by ensuring that there is always at least one other, fully-functioning pharmacist on duty, then that would be a reasonable compromise. Expecting a customer, who probably already has their prescription on file at a particular store, and may not have a car, but have to rely on public transit, to suffer the "inconvenience" of going to another store, because the pharmacist on duty is unwilling to help them, is not acceptable.

An interesting point that I never see in any MSM stories, although I have written letters/comments/posts of my own on the topic, is that there are a large number of women who take BCP for reasons other than contraception. Should these women be inconvenienced, even to the degree of not being able to fill a prescription on time, because of someone else's pre-conceived (sorry, pun!) idea of why they are taking it? A technical point, but an important one to me, since I am in that number, and had struggled with severe anemia for some time previously, until I read of the beneficial effects for some women with both GI and ob/gyn symptoms. Nor am I suggesting that pharmacists should give the 3rd degree to every woman filling a prescription for BCP, but that because such an interrogation would be inappropriate, perhaps they should withhold their judgment, and just fill the prescriptions, since the woman on the other side of the counter may be just trying to stay alive.

[Part of the problem, I realize, is that for too long, medicine was centered-- research, treatment, everything-- on the male subject. It is only just beginning to change. So, one must make allowances for a lack of understanding that women's bodies are not just like men's, only softer. We have profoundly different needs.]

As for Plan B, which some pharmacies do not even stock, ... it does not, according to scientific evidence, even remotely resemble an abortifacient; however, as in so many other things, many people prefer to ignore the evidence. [I'll have to look for the link to that story.] The larger issue there, though, is that the Bush administration has pulled the plug on science once more, in order to pander to their religious base (what, maybe 20%), and refused to allow Plan B to be dispensed without a prescription-- even by willing pharmacists. This is no small inconvenience, as anyone who has ever spent a day or two on the phone just trying to get through to a live person at an ob/gyn's office, much less get an appointment, or a prescription phoned or faxed in, during the small window of opportunity. I'm just glad I've missed that experience!

We can keep going back and forth on these issues, with you trying to win the argument and prove me wrong on my facts or logic, but I get the sense (tho' I could be wrong) that it's more abstract for you than for me. As I said before, I have more time and skin in the game. None of this is really abstract for me, or for any other woman I know. Most everything I've written is from my own personal experience or from that of the women I know. Instead of trying to prove why so many women's real-life experience must be wrong, why not try to understand it?

But, if you prefer to hear a man's perspective, instead of a woman's... then, go and read Digby's blog, "Hullabaloo." He writes most definitely from a man's perspective, but he totally "gets" women's political issues, as well as almost everything else he writes about.

Or, there's Lucille Clifton's poem, "Wishes for Sons."

Now I would have to agree with you, alot of women depend on BCP's for other reasons other than to keep from getting pregnant. I to am one of those women, they need them to regulate periods, to stop hemmoraging, oh just a bunch of reasons. This is a serious matter when a woman cannot fill her perscription, she could ultimitely die. Or she could be severly dammaged. I am really losing my patience when other poeple think they have the right to make my decisions for me, I am a grown woman and I will make my own thanyou very much. Frankly it's none of anyones business but mine, I am not hurting anyone. Next people will be saying NO MORE VASECTOMIES EITHER. Now there is a topic and also a form of birth control. What say you?
Children are a blessing, but you have to be able to provide for them and keep them safe. I love my children more than life itself but I am so glad I stopped at having 2.
I can remember when My ex husband walked out the door and said to me "Don't ask for anything because I'm not giving anything." I had a 12 month old child from him and he wasn't willing to take care of him. And do you know who was critisized for it? ME (The woman). MY own MOTHER wouldn't help me, I have a wonderful sister who did, but still it wasn't her job.
I almost wish the poeple who are saying these things could walk a mile in my shoes so they can experience what I have. I am sick to death of self righteous people who think they have all the answers. Sometimes there are no answers.

...and I find it ironic to be my age and taking BCP for several reasons, none of which have to do with contraception.

I doubt that vasectomies will be going away. Some men will still want them. Especially because, as I've read in numerous comments around the blogosphere on the current reproductive issues... that the last time abortion was illegal there was no DNA testing.

[Commenters were trying to point out that not only women would be affected by repealing Roe v Wade.]

I'm sorry Karen that I do not have the time to give you the thoughtful reply that you deserve, but Bob requires a lot of attention. ;-) And I should also say thanks to M for some very insightful comments and enlightened attitudes. Anyhow, short and sweet -

For the record, just this very week my wife went on BCPs for reasons other than contraception. If she had gone to a pharmacy and tried to buy the BCPs and been turned away, then we would no longer do business with that pharmacy for anything at all. When it's easy enough for me to change my action, then that is what I would do rather than trying to force other people to act the way I want them to act. No this is not always possible but when it is possible, that is the non-violent course of behaviour.

>>And the medications I was referring to, are ones that most companies actually stock; yet some pharmacists refuse to dispense them.

If a company stocks any product and an employee refuses to sell said product, then the company should fire the employee. I believe most companies would. Who would allow someone to work in their business who refuses to sell certain products?

>>As for Plan B, which some pharmacies do not even stock, ...

Some pharmacies stock porn magazines some do not. It's a matter of the owner's choice. Let freedom ring.

>> the Bush administration has ... refused to allow Plan B to be dispensed without a prescription--

It's most likely that the AMA and the pharmaceutical companies are the root cause of that. It's all about the money. For my money, practically all patent medicine could be sold without a prescription.

>>We can keep going back and forth on these issues, with you trying to win the argument and prove me wrong on my facts or logic

Absolutely not. My only objectives are to get people to reevaluate their opinion of those who have a different moral compass (eg, the religious right) and to think about the concept of granting freedom to all adults on all issues. The later would do away with all the special concerns and factions over single issues. If we were willing to grant freedom to each other, so many of these issues would be resolved. Furthermore, a campaign championing liberty and freedom should be a lot more palateable to the American public than some of the single issues will ever be. We could use the pledge of allegiance to our advantage and tell the religious right to put up or shut up.

>>Business owners have no right to jeopardize the public health

Then how come McDonalds, Coca Cola, Dow Chemical, etc are still in business? ;-)

Obviously I'm not going to convince you that allowing freedom of choice on the smoking issue is the better choice. You're certainly not going to convince me that mob rule is the better choice. The original point of the tobbacco discussion was to illustrate that each of us has some arena of human activity where we are willing to use the power of the police state to control the behavior of others. I tried to illustrate that progressives and the religious right are no different in that regard. When you justify your opposition to freedom of choice on the smoking issue, you believe you have reasonable and honorable standards for doing so. I just want progressives to understand that when anti-abortionists justify there opposition to freedom of choice on the abortion issue, they are just as convinced that they have reasonable and honorable standards for doing so. It drives me up the wall to see people who claim to be spiritual, peace-loving people attack the religious right with epithets that would get me thrown off this site if I used them against blacks or hispanics or gays or women.

>> You conveniently left out answering that part of the dialog. (that would be the part about defecating in the public water supply, etc)

I left that out because it was too absurd to respond to. You're wanting to equate unseen dangers with obvious danger. Yes, we do need regulations that protect us from unseen danger. Something obvious such as tobacco smoke is easily avoided without government intervention. But for the record, I have no problem with a restaurant using excrement as a food additive as long as I am fully informed about such use.

And by the way, you conveniently didn't answer my question about what is so unreasonable about allowing a business to cater to a specific clientele, eg, smokers. I had a further thought about this after posting last night. Here is a new way for localities to raise revenue: Sell special permits for "smoking allowed" businesses. They could let the local businesses bid for the permits. There would be a limited number of permits. Take my state for example - the smoking ban passed 70/30. So if a city has 100 restaurants, they could sell up to 30 smoking allowed permits. What is so unreasonable about an option like that?

>> Restaurant owners have no right to allow any public health menace to be perpetuated on the premises

Even if all employees and customers are fully informed and agree to take the risk? It's called Freedom Of Association and it's supposedly protected by the first amendment to the constitution.

>> And if a community agrees on a taboo, who are you to say they can't? Should an entire population submit to the tyranny of one person?

So now you don't even think I have the right to argue for my beliefs? When speaking up for liberty is labeled as tyranny, my opponent has reached the end of his logical arguments.

What if a community agrees that black people should ride on the back of the bus? Our society has evolved into one that tries to accomodate the rights of minorities as much as possible. This is a good thing. If you truely believed in personal freedom, you would not have such a hard time understanding that the oppression of a minority because of a lifestyle choice is wrong.

>> Why should I accept the burden to walk away if you violate my lungs in a public place, or a private place either?

Because you claim to be a man of peace. Having the police state force me to act in a manner you find acceptable is an act of violence against me.

Of course you are correct in that my blowing smoke in your face is wrong for me to do and of course I would never do such a thing. My point was that a man of peace would choose to distance himself from such a situation rather than resorting to violence to stop it. And the further point was that you have that same option when confronted with a business that allows smoking. You have free will. You can choose to avoid the smoking place. There are signs alerting you before entry. Upon entry there is a cloud of smoke alerting you. You can choose to allow the smoking idiots to dwell in their den of sin and go your merry way. However, you prefer to use the power of the police state to enforce your values on the idiots. Kind of strange for someone who seems to dislike the police so much.

>> If you are damaged by the actions of another, what is your remedy?

Call the police and hire a lawyer. But I don't believe a lifelong smoker has any moral ground upon which to sue tobacco companies. Likewise, I don't believe a nonsmoker who chooses to inhabit smoke filled bar rooms all his life has any moral ground upon which to sue the bar owner. You keep trying to direct this conversation towards what's legal. I have been talking about what's moral and ethical. Surely you don't claim that the law should define personal behaviour. Do you? I will violate any law that is in direct conflict with my moral standards. (Just like Martin Luther King did.) That does not mean I believe I have a moral right to smoke in a non-smoking restaurant. I do not have such a right. But if tobacco were outlawed, I would grow it and sell it to other people because no government has the right to stand between me and the herbs that Creation has provided.

Firstly: It is not apples-to-apples to compare the arugments used for 'who can/cannot tell a merchant that they can allow smoking on "their own property"' vs. the argument for 'who can/cannot tell people what they can do to/with their own bodies. "Land/physical property" does not spiritually, morally, legally, and/or ethically equate to "this is my own body/soul" property.

Btw, McDonalds, Coca Cola, Dow et al are still in business because globalization, corporatism, capitalism, and how to govern/assess all of the above is in its infancy. I will mention that all of those companies have had, or are in process of dealing with, lawsuits for their impact on public health. But again, this is to confuse two issues that may have some commonalities, but which are not exactly the same.

Secondly:

Robert says: "Why should I accept the burden to walk away if you violate my lungs in a public place, or a private place either?"

Nylla replies: "Because you claim to be a man of peace. Having the police state force me to act in a manner you find acceptable is an act of violence against me....My point was that a man of peace would choose to distance himself from such a situation rather than resorting to violence to stop it.

Even Gandhi said that violence is preferable to cowardice. Imposing a projection that a "man of peace" act in accord with whatever that means to you, may or may not be an indication of anyone's "peacefulness". If I remember correctly a certain Jewish carpenter was known to have flipped over a few tables inside a temple or two. Doesn't seem like a peaceful action as measured by your yardstick nylla, but I'm not ready to call Jesus a violent person for it.

Excellent post, caleb. I wasn’t prepared to have to think quite so hard. I don’t turn on my computer during week ends. But my wife left me at home alone tonight. Guess the universe still enjoys a good laugh now and then. ;-)

caleb said: Firstly: It is not apples-to-apples to compare … "their own property"' vs… “their own bodies.

It is in my philosophy. Which I understand does not have to be accepted by others, but it’s the way I understand life. There is one excellant book called The Law by Frederic Bastiat, written in 1840, 1850. The entire premise of the book is that it takes 3 things for an individual to be a complete person and these are “life, liberty and property.” None are worth anything if 1 of the 3 is missing. By property he doesn’t mean material possessions, he means the right to own property and do with it as you so please. As a society we do limit both personal rights and property rights. The only question in each instance is how far we want to go and how much freedom we want to permit.

Can we agree that the maximum possible amount of freedom that does not harm society is what we want? Surely, yes. Then the question becomes: what harms society? And with today’s culture what it is, you can make anything a harm to society. And that, we know, is a never-ending conversation. We each must decide for ourselves how much we’re willing to ignore in order to maximize freedom and when we must yell STOP because the harm is too great. I don’t think being inconvenienced is enough to yell stop.

caleb said: Btw, McDonalds, Coca Cola, Dow et al are still

Assume you knew my comment was meant to be humorous. Add a little levity to the conversation. ;-) is a smiley face to us old people.

caleb said: Even Gandhi said that violence is preferable to cowardice. Imposing a projection that a "man of peace" act

You’re correct. I did project that because, in that situation, I would walk away. I would not consider that cowardice. I would consider it intelligent. ;-)

Where's the Love? If you had life, liberty, and property but no love would you still be a complete person?

Just want to make sure I understand the statement.

This has been an amazing thread. Caleb, does this diary entry hold the record for the most comments in a thread? At least I managed to get my very Catholic mother-in-law unhappy with me. Why would I send her the original post anyway? I think I just wanted her to know what a firestorm the decision to outlaw abortion in South Dakota is causing. She is also against any form of contraception and would outlaw it if she could.

This past Friday over 300 people showed up in Rapid City in front of the Federal Courthouse to protest the new law. By Rapid City standards that is a massive amount of people. As you probably know there were co-ordinated protests all over the nation at the same time. The other side had about the same number of people out to protest our protest. They had a lot of children and American flags. I wasn't there, but would again want to ask them how many of them support the killing in Iraq and the death penalty. Remember the post that Robert put up recently about how humans make political decisions and reactions based more on emotions than on Logic? I'm afraid that Mr. Spock would have a difficult time influencing any of us when it comes to politics.

Caleb-someone who eats only fish is commonly referred to as a "partial vegetarian." Allyn (aka Nylla)-thanks for taking the time out of your busy day to post here. Your posts sometimes give me a headache. I have to re-read them several times and then think about it. I hope you do keep reading and posting here. I think you will find that most people who post here believe in libertarian principles. That said, I agree with Robert that I don't want anyone pissing in my drinking water. Thank you m for your ever thoughtful posts, and to you three ladies for all that you wrote. It was poignant that this issue has touched all of your lives in a real way.

The satirical nature of the title of the original post was meant to 1)get peoples' attention, and 2)to show how quickly we can get absurd when we legislate based on religious beliefs. There is now talk of petitioning for a statewide referrendum. South Dakota has a pioneer history of having in it's State Constitution that the public can call a referrendum on a law that is passed. I'm sure that we can easily get the requsite signatures on the petition. The iron-jawed angels have just begun to fight. So there you have it-Political humor, news, and theatre of the absurd. Good night and good luck!
dcu

This has been very educational for me and also I got a chance to see what other people thought about this topic. I wish women a lot of luck, for this is a firestorm in the making.

is the record. So far. I suppose abortion is like that. Something we all have an opinion on, and lots of points to be made. In a poignant way, I wish it weren't such a hot button issue. You'd think we'd have settled the business of whether we have the right to do with our bodies as we please. At least one thing's for sure - come twenty years from now, I doubt this will still rouse so much contention. I suspect people will be having much different priorities, with much different things competing for their energies than whether someone in another state can or cannot carry a baby to term.

"If not here, where? If not now, when?"

>>I agree with Robert that I don't want anyone pissing in my drinking water.

I usually just ignore the absurd as the semi-reasonable takes enough time as it is. But since you’re originator of this thread, you can have special treatment. ;-) If allowing business owners to decide whether or not to allow smoking on their premises, leads to people pissing in your drinking water, then surely allowing abortions will lead to people eating their babies. Both absurd conclusions of course.

>> I think you will find that most people who post here believe in libertarian principles.

Let's find out. And I made sure to post it on your day off.

nylla

>> If you had life, liberty, and property but no love would you still be a complete person?
>>Just want to make sure I understand the statement.

You and me both! ;-) As often happens (at least with me), after posting I realized what an awful choice “complete person” was in that context. Mr Bastiat never intended any such thing. His book, The Law, is about the law not spiritual fulfillment. He would say (if you can trust my interpretation ;) that life, liberty and property rights are the basis upon which the law should rest. It’s a very short book. If you’re actually interested in it, I would imagine it’s public domain and available for downloading somewhere. The soft cover version I have is subtitled (by the publisher, not Bastiat) “The Classic Blueprint for a Just Society.” I believe the book fits that description a lot better than any I might give.

The book is well worth reading. Bastiat was the first to lay out the problem of using the power of the state to control the behavior of others. Which is the basis of libertarianism.

Though you make some good points I note you still deflect or confuse issues. Re: "Then how come McDonalds, Coca Cola, Dow Chemical, etc are still in business? ;-)" it is because we live in a capitalist society, where people are free to eat whatever will or won't destroy their bodies. Dow is another issue, and they have bought Congress to allow "permitted" amounts of toxins. I don't agree with the policy, but I'm not about to bomb Dow for their crimes against humanity. So I boycott Dow while suffering because of corrupt politicians.

I have specifically allowed for freedom to smoke, and legal tobacco. Your inference of my stance is misleading. Anyone has the right to choose to smoke. But a licensed business entity must be bound by certain common law, or we have anarchy. I never advocated "mob rule is the better choice." I am unwilling to use the police state to govern individual choice where it does not affect another autonomous human being. You say "progressives and the religious right are no different in that regard" when it comes to draconian enforcement. That's BS. Progressives have never had the power to decide that one. Again you misrepresent when you state I am opposed to freedom of choice on the smoking issue. People can destroy themselves however they want. And please stop equating smoking with abortion. It shows you are drawing extreme examples that do not correlate in fact.

Your response to my public health concerns dismissing it as "I left that out because it was too absurd to respond to. You're wanting to equate unseen dangers with obvious danger. Yes, we do need regulations that protect us from unseen danger." shows you also believe in regulation. My post on vent fans shows I also believe that "Something obvious such as tobacco smoke is easily avoided without government intervention."

As for your challenge to why I didn't answer your question "about what is so unreasonable about allowing a business to cater to a specific clientele, eg, smokers." They can. But if a municipality collectively agrees it is unacceptable, we live with it or we don't. Period. Your idea about permits for smoking only places is great, but this is not the forum to sell that idea. You should take it to the cash-strapped cities that have banned smoking.

You quote me:"Restaurant owners have no right to allow any public health menace to be perpetuated on the premises." and answer: "Even if all employees and customers are fully informed and agree to take the risk? It's called Freedom Of Association and it's supposedly protected by the first amendment to the constitution." You're wrong. Ex: The First does not allow us to scream "Fire" in a movie theater unless there is a fire. And there are legal definitions of "fully informed" that are somewhat more extensive than you allow. It could NOT happen here.

I said:"And if a community agrees on a taboo, who are you to say they can't? Should an entire population submit to the tyranny of one person?" To which you answered: "So now you don't even think I have the right to argue for my beliefs? When speaking up for liberty is labeled as tyranny, my opponent has reached the end of his logical arguments." Perfect example of you deflecting and inferring something not in evidence. I NEVER said you have no right to argue, and your final comment a conclusion not supported by fact. Please stay on point. My point is that one person arguing the right to pollute the land, water, or air does not have the right to disturb the common health. Nothing more.

Then you talk about black people on the bus (which has nothing to do with the public health). Then you make an inference (If you truely believed in personal freedom, you would not have such a hard time understanding that the oppression of a minority because of a lifestyle choice is wrong.) which is deflective, that being this discussion has nothing to do with a racist majority oppressing the civil rights of a minority. Again, an extreme digression from topic.

Then you quote me: "Why should I accept the burden to walk away if you violate my lungs in a public place, or a private place either?" while asserting that I support a police state to force you to do anything. Again, not supported in logic by anything I've claimed. I'm speaking of YOU violating my lungs. Either you are willing to accept remedy for wrongs or not. Are you for pedophilia? According to your claim "Having the police state force me to act in a manner you find acceptable is an act of violence against me." implies you are for anyone doing anything with no consequences in law.

As for your assertion about "a man of peace would choose to distance himself from such a situation rather than resorting to violence to stop it." may be true, but you cannot infer the next statement: "And the further point was that you have that same option when confronted with a business that allows smoking." Sorry, that's the smoker doing violence to the public health, a la my rather extreme example that is not absurd to me re: a TB person compromising the water supply and so forth. And in fact I don't really care if an establishment allows smoking, since I don't patronize those places by choice. But again, smoking is not a valid equivalent to the right to abortion, which was the original theme of this thread. Again, your assertion that "However, you prefer to use the power of the police state to enforce your values on the idiots. Kind of strange for someone who seems to dislike the police so much." is digressive, accusatory, and dishonest. I have never claimed this. You are inferring something I've never said. Straw man? Troll? Superficial? Too much time on your hands thinking abstractions born of your own frustration at not being able to do what you want when you want? This thread has already gone way off track due to you stating inferences and conclusions to statements that were never made. That's trollish.

On that note, I conclude my part of this time expenditure addressing your final assertion: I said "If you are damaged by the actions of another, what is your remedy?" To which you answered what I have maintained all along: "Call the police and hire a lawyer." This shows that your stance so far has been dishonest and insincere, if you are in fundamental agreement that there is recourse to law and police powers. I also "don't believe a lifelong smoker has any moral ground upon which to sue tobacco companies. Likewise, I don't believe a nonsmoker who chooses to inhabit smoke filled bar rooms all his life has any moral ground upon which to sue the bar owner." Again, extreme language. "All his life" is extreme.

And yes, I do "keep trying to direct this conversation towards what's legal. I have been talking about what's moral and ethical." You speak of morals and ethics. Morals and ethics are subjective. Law is agreed upon standards for societal co-existence. And yes, I do "claim that the law should define personal behaviour." I don't want you molesting my child. I do not want you defecating in the lake where my water comes from. I do not want you believing you can run red lights putting others at risk. As far as you stating "I will violate any law that is in direct conflict with my moral standards. (Just like Martin Luther King did.)" then you will pay the price for that defiance, just like many have, myself included. I don't care about your moral right to smoke. I care about your right to jeopardize the public health. And if my town says that I cannot do something, I walk away or take the consequence if I'm caught. That's the way the rule of law works, theoretically. And I agree we all have the right to grow what we want, including herbs forbidden thanks to the predatory and fascist AMA and their lackeys in the FDA. On that note, I am done with this discussion, since I have expressed myself clearly and been accused of positions no one of logic and attention could accuse me of.

"If not here, where? If not now, when?"

I think not. Caleb and Robert are pretty accurate in what they say and I happen to agree with them. I use to smoke and now when someone smokes around me I get very sick because my poor lungs just can't take the smog. I grew up with both parents smoking (chain smoking) and I am now paying a price and I also blame myself for smoking too. I don't want anyone polluting my air.

Hi, Robert. You sound frustrated. I don’t blame you. I can empathize with that real easily. I’ll make this as quick and painless as possible. ;-)

“mob rule” is libertarian slang for “democracy”. It’s meant to point out the fact that “majority rules” is the type of situation that puts black people on the back of the bus.

I never made any attempt to equate smoking with abortion. I had two basic points in my original post. More tolerance/understanding of others with different belief systems and “liberty for all” instead of focusing on single issues. From there the conversation drifted. I replied. You replied. And there we went. If you’d started your first reply about smoking with “I do believe in smokers being allowed to assemble. I'm even for smoking only restaurants and bars, BUT the legal facts are …” then this conversation would have been over a long time ago.

Many of my points weren’t made clearly enough for the readers. That is obvious from the response. Sometimes a follow-up is needed. As in your “tyranny” paragraph. It was far from obvious that you were not speaking about my right to argue since you used the pharse “who are you to say they can’t?” No problem, but be willing to take a good hard look at how you worded the original and accept some of the blame for any miscommunication. Communication is a two-way street. It is possible the use of the infinitive “to say” might make the reader think you meant verbal communication.

Black people on the bus. We’re back to mob rule. You’d said something about when the majority decides we have to obey. I was just pointing out that we don’t really want to let the majority rule without respecting the rights of others.

And then

Robert said: And yes, I do "claim that the law should define personal behaviour."

and later in the same paragraph, Robert said: And I agree we all have the right to grow what we want, including herbs forbidden thanks to the predatory and fascist AMA and their lackeys in the

And here we end up with OUR ultimate miscommunication. Because basically, all I was saying during the whole smoking section of this debacle was that we do have rights above and beyond the law. And you agree. If we’re both in agreement, then what in the world was that about?

I’ve also been assuming all along that you know who I am. But after that last revelation I don’t want to leave anything assumed. nylla is just my first name spelled backwards.

later, man. have a good one. ;-)

If the concern is for the public health, then perhaps alcohol should not be served in public places. Significant numbers of people are killed, injured and suffer property damage as the result of such public drinking through vehicular and other accidents, fights, murders, etc. Certainly more damage is done by this practice than done by any amount of second hand smoke inhaled in restaurants and bars. It would be more efficacious to close all bars, and prevent restaurants from serving alcohol than to stop such public smoking.

So, why prevent smokers from peaceful assembly, when allowing alcohol users the freedom of not always so peaceful assembly? The action is certainly not one based on pure health issues.

As you no doubt read, I believe nylla has taken positions even he doesn't believe in. The public health issue is mine, given the original premise of this thread was the rights of the individual re: abortion v. the rights of a business to do as they please. I own that's my concern and rationale for my position.

You're probably correct that we should have curbs on the "right" to get plastered and become a public menace. That's why many states have mandated the breath lock on the ignition. Good idea to me. I doubt we can stop people wanting to become belligerent once drunk. I do believe in smokers being allowed to assemble. I'm even for smoking only restaurants and bars, as well as well-ventilated sections for those who don't want to be smoking only. I've never thought outright prohibition on behavior that affects only oneself works well for many things, as it's fairly unenforceable.

"If not here, where? If not now, when?"

I was not arguing for a ban on the use of alcohol, public or otherwise. We had one once, and we know what the consequences of that experiment were.

Rather, I was attempting to state that the basis for the smoking ban was not purely one of health. I only offered up the alcohol issue as one of contrast. To demonstrate that if the issue were truly health and life, then the public consumption of alcohol would have to be banned first. I was not speaking for a ban on either, though I don't have a problem with limiting activities pursued while under the influence. Certainly, using a 28 gauge shotgun should be banned.

The history of substance control has been a disaster. From execution by stoning for the use of coffee and chocolate in th 1500s, to the Harrison Act of 1914, to present day atrocities, the sequels of these attempts far outweigh the already considerable damage done by the drugs themselves.

Yes, I know nylla was some wandering far afield, but that is sometimes the way of discussions.

m, I’ve appreciated your well delivered thoughts and sage insights. Sorry I haven’t had the time to reply to any. I don’t have the time for this. I’m doing it at work. I work at home, but it’s still work. This was the third thread about which I received an invitation to come comment on. (For their own protection, the inviter shall remain nameless. hmmm, images of flying cow dung ;) So I came.

>> while under the influence. Certainly, using a 28 gauge shotgun should be banned.

rofl. laughter is the best medicine.

btw, misocapnism is not in my 2 foot thick dictionary. However, misology. Maybe I’ll wear that label. Well, for a day or two anyway.

As a matter of fact, I might agree with you on cigarettes being more benign than fast food, for the persons ingesting either, given the transfats, salt, etc., and that when tobacco was originally used more moderately, it might have done less harm than fast food does now. But these days, most smokers use tobacco like fast-food. (Privately, I wonder if the French Paradox is really chocolate, and whether its anti-oxidants might mitigate against tobacco.)

However, smoking is less easily contained within its boundaries than fast food, unless smokers agree to begin wearing personal air filters. And, as for workers signing releases... I really doubt that an infomed consent is possible in this case, especially if said worker is already addicted to tobacco. Taking advantage of a worker being both desperate for a job, and addicted? That's potentially two strikes against the ethics of such an employer.

MacDonalds will, deservedly, be facing a new type of lawsuit soon, given the lies about their fries being free of wheat and dairy.

>>I wonder if the French Paradox is really chocolate, and whether its anti-oxidants might mitigate against tobacco.)

I’m sucking on a Dove dark chocolate as we speak. And it has an additional advantage to anti-oxidants: you don’t smoke and suck chocolate at the same time so each vice at least postpones the other.

And I’ve enjoyed talking with you, Karen. I don’t think I said anything to offend you. I hope not. It certainly was not my intention if I did. As I said in my last reply to you, my actual intent was to encourage understanding and more encompassing issues. I did a lousy job with my opening statement which I can’t help but notice since I’ve had to go back and reread it several times. I shouldn’t be doing this between tech support calls. I get too wound up when I’m solving problems. Then when you turn from the machine problem to the people problem, sometimes …

btw, how many hail mary’s are you doing for bringing up the smoking issue? ;)

A lot of human behaviors go through fads of perception. Smoking was once perceived as a male vice, only to be indulged in away from women and children. Then tobacco use became socially desire able, and nonusers were generally forced to suffer silently. Years of research demonstrated the association of smoking with a variety of diseases, and tobacco use has fallen in disdain amongst many of the population. Now, the social attitude is that tobacco use is for the most part unacceptable.

Having had a seat for intimately observing the banning of tobacco in public places, I can only say that it was done for the most part, without interest in health, medicine or even law. Decisions were made which depended more on political expediency and personal bias than having any real basis in science. Or any real attempt to balance rights of users and nonusers.

First, smoking/nonsmoking sections in the jurisdiction were required in restaurants, but this really didn't work very well. Then, at a significant expense, restaurants that permitted smoking were required to install ventilation. Although this was effective, two years later all smoking in restaurants was banned. This last banning had nothing to do with health issues or subjecting nonusers to unpleasant odors. It was misocapnism pure and simple. It is personally known to me that the governing body was dominated by a few such individuals, whose vote had no other basis. Now, even smoking outdoors is being limited in that jurisdiction..

The Bush group is not the first to abuse the scientific process in molding policy to fit its ideology. The EPA under Clinton behaved in a similar manner with tobacco. To find secondhand smoke to be a carcinogen, the EPA had to both cherry pick the evidence, and then still had to use statistical limits that are not otherwise acceptable in science. So found a federal court decision. All too much like the "proofs" offered in "Refer Madness".

There has been a lot of money to be made in tobacco. There is also a lot of money to be made in the antitobacco field as well. Attorneys working against the tobacco companies billed at rates of $200,000 per hour. The last major round of antitobacco litigation resulted in what was called "the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy ever."

Like Robert, I once smoked. I quit when the health effects became apparent. I would hope that all others would stop the habit. But I see fascism in the over control of others "bad" habits. Yes, nonusers have a right to freedom from smoke, but I think that doesn't extend to not having to see others smoke.

The trivia question of the day:

Which vegetarian World War II leader was a misocapnist, and waged large public health wars against smoking?

I really love expanding my vocabulary...

Now, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess... Hitler?

[If I'm right, I owe it all to google!]

I have to agree with you about effective ventilation and that it should be enough. Seeing others smoke does not really bother me. Screwball comedies, film noir? It looks glamorous... I'm just want to be able to breathe and not feel like scratching my eyes out.

Lewis Lapham, of Harpers (but soon to leave), is a big smoker (which worries me), and has a similar reaction to efforts to control smoking. Perhaps he has been privy to some of the same insider information you have...

Anyway, I am not a vegetarian (any more), and I have similar reactions to people's reactions to diet. Now there's an area just ripe for some fascism! Although I was, and still am, sympathetic to vegetarianism, my body just couldn't take it. Turns out... I really have an intolerance for wheat and dairy, and that diet was my tipping point.

Yes, it was Hitler. An interesting dichotomy.

My diet is primarily ovo-lactarian. My wife has long had such inclinations, and finally decided to jump the fence on this issue. Easy for her to say, because I do all the cooking :^) I primarily follow along. At first it was because I didn't want the extra work, but now it has become accustomed habit. I probably eat less than 8oz of meat a month now, primarily crustaceans.

I must agree with you, habits of diet, and methods to induce an alternative conciousness, are amongst the greatest of fodders for control and punishment memes.

set-up at our house. My boyfriend is an ovo-lacto vegetarian; has been for years. I tried, very enthusiastically, to go along with the program, but eventually had to start eating meat again, and forgo wheat and dairy (his two main food groups) and a few other things.

It was a bit of an adjustment for us. It has evolved that we each do most of our own cooking. I really have no choice, though he can eat various take-outs and convenience foods, but we do shop together. We're just not usually hungry at the same times.

As for the prize: bragging rights?

What else?

allergies and so I am a carnavore whore lol. Have to have to meat. Besides I would waste away to nothing and I can't afford to lose any weight. lmao

...what to call myself before. I don't eat any meat except for fish/crustaceans. Will eat diary and eggs. What does that make me???

Eating eggs and dairy, but eschewing other meat, usually mean that one is called a lacto-ovo vegetarian. However, eating fish complicates things... how about ichthyo-ovo-lactovore? ;~)

I'll have to try and remember that, if for no other reason than laughs. Could you just imagine if I could keep a straight face and tell someone I was a ichthyo-ovo-lactovore, what their reaction would be?

But I think the "correct" prefix for fish including would be pesco, poultry including is pollo.

caleb is a pesco-ovo-lacto vegetarian

Some one who added poultry would be
pollo-pesco-ovo-lactarian

Pesco-ovo-lacto vegetarian does have a ring to it. :-)

of course! pesco is more keeping, linguistically, ovo and lacto. Still, ichthyo does have it's own resonance.

First Sassy, now Karen M. I feel like a school marm.

that you just don't eat mammals!

I don't think Caleb eats chickens, either... ;~)
[wish I had an animated graphic![

Cute icon by the way hella.

The reply indentations are pushing us off the edge of the page.

Karen,

Here's a link for them
a link for them.

I'm just learning how to use some of the HTML tags. Not really sure what they are all for, so I just kept using different ones till I got the result I wanted! (All the while hoping I don't end up just annoying you guys!)

Thanks, Hella! Now, I can also leave amusing images behind...

had way too much work the past two days and tomorrow. Will probably see you in a day or two.

"If not here, where? If not now, when?"

I had to download realplayer in order to watch it, but it was worth it. I have always been perplexed by people who fervently fight for the rights of the unborn, but can't seem to make the connection that killing thousands of innocent women and children in Iraq is also murder. I agree with Robert that murder is murder. I don't consider myself a "leftie." Thank you m for your always thoughtful and insightful comments. It's not about left or right. As I have said in previous posts here, I do not personally approve of abortion. I would never counsel or encourage anyone to have an abortion. But the issue is not what I believe in personally. The issue is what are the limits of government in a free society. I do vote libertarian. I don't believe that the drug laws are proper. I am a chemical dependency counselor working in a residential treatment program for teenagers. The most abused and dangerous drug in our nation is alcohol. How many people were killed in domestic violence last year due to consumption of marijuana? None. How many people were killed due to alcohol related violence? Thousands. Where is the logic? Why is the consumption of alcohol actively encouraged in our society? We all know the answer. It is about the Benjamins. I encourage the young women with whom I work that they need to get into recovery because chemical dependency is a disease, just like diabetes. It is not healthy. It will destroy your life. But I don't propose that we lock up diabetics who choose to eat donuts and ice cream and not take insulin. It is their choice. If you choose to sit at home and smoke crack, then it is your choice. If you choose to get in a car after drinking and kill my loved ones, then you have committed a serious crime for which you need to receive the most serious punishment. If you choose to have an abortion, I do not support that decision. But the State does not have the right to make that decision for you. It really does come down to the old Patriarical Society which sees women as chattel. It is mideavel. And yes, unfortunately, many people in my state of South Dakota and all across this country are very actively lobbying for abstinence only sex education, and to outlaw all forms of contraception. I wish that it was an exageration, but it is sadly not. My heroes are Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Helena Blavatsky, Mahatma Gandhi, and John Lennon. I don't think that any of them would send a woman to jail for having an abortion. Nylla-thank you very much for taking the time to post here. I do agree with most of what you said. I strongly believe that everyone has a legal and ethical right to make decisions that affect only them, whether it is consulting herbalists instead of going to the pill pushers, or sitting at home and watching TV. Disclaimer-My statements are strictly my own personal opinion. They do not in any way represent the opinions of the agency or employees with whom I am professionally affiliated. dcu

>> It really does come down to the old Patriarical Society which sees women as chattel.

It should not be necessary to demonize those with whom we disagree if we have confidence in our own ethics. While the above statement is undoubtedly true of a few it is not true of most. When I have had occasion to drive by an anti-abortion rally, the crowd is generally 70 to 80% women. With absolutely no scientific proof, my belief is that 95%+ of anti-abortionists are primarily motivated by the desire to save the life of the unborn.

>>And yes, unfortunately, many people in my state of South Dakota and all across this country are very actively lobbying for abstinence only sex education, and to outlaw all forms of contraception. I wish that it was an exageration, but it is sadly not.

NAMBLA's stated purpose is to do away with all laws governing the age of consent so that adult men will be allowed to have sex with young boys. Should I use that fact as a way to demonize people with progressive sexual mores? Extremists exist but by definition extremists are not mainstream.

nylla

how can anyone be for the death penalty and against abortion at any point in a pregnancy? The right to own one's body is not a choice - it is a necessity. I am against state-sanctioned murder by war, by cop, by chemical injection, but I am for a woman owning her body. Period. I want to own mine, so I have no right to take away someone else's ownership of theirs.

"If not here, where? If not now, when?"