The U.S. Sedition Act Are you stupid?: The U.S. Sedition Act

By spunky on Sunday, March 9, 2003 - 10:04 am:

    16 May, 1918
    The U.S. Sedition Act

    United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff. A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.SECTION 3.

    Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.

By Rowlf on Sunday, March 9, 2003 - 10:23 am:

    Enforced patriotism. How nice.

    So what do think of this act, trace?

By spunky on Sunday, March 9, 2003 - 11:14 am:

    that it is law

By trace on Sunday, March 9, 2003 - 11:25 am:

    OK here we go:

    You have the freedom of expression.
    You can stand on the street corner on a soap box and voice your opinion. That is without question, and that is exactly as it should be.
    However, according to the Washington Post,
    This is what is planned, and is already happening:
    "They have marched and chanted, hoping to use persuasion to prevent war. If that fails, though, activists are readying a more aggressive strategy of sit-ins and social disruptions, meant to restore peace in Iraq.

    Protest sit-ins, especially at federal buildings, defense recruiting offices and military bases, have been mapped out for dozens of cities in the first day or two of any war, anti-war organizers say. Some also foresee widespread walkouts at schools and workplaces. A smaller number talk of blocking roads and bridges."

    Those are actions, not speaking.
    There is a HUGE difference.

By Rowlf on Sunday, March 9, 2003 - 11:39 am:

    Why do you care? "Because it is law"? Do you care that people might go to jail? Or because you think civil disobedience might actually work?

By trace on Sunday, March 9, 2003 - 11:47 am:

    do what you want, I just agree with the law.

By dave. on Sunday, March 9, 2003 - 12:05 pm:

    did congress declare war recently?

    trace, you should be a cop. check it out -- a cool car, a whole array of weapons, a fuckin utility belt, paramilitary jargon, KEVLAR, all kinds of ridiculous power to abuse. . .

    dude, that is so you.

    then, you could go around all day and harass non-compliants. occasionally, you'd even be called upon to help someone.

By J on Sunday, March 9, 2003 - 01:02 pm:

By Ophelia on Sunday, March 9, 2003 - 10:13 pm:

    damn, so if i go ahead and protest in washington on saturday, sounds like i'm kinda screwed over in the afterlife department...yikes!

By Antigone on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 10:57 am:

    "Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military..."

    But, not false reports which "support" the military?

    I guess that makes psyops on Americans not sedition. Convenient.

    "do what you want, I just agree with the law."

    In other words, you mean, "do what you like, I have the power of the US government behind me, which will crush your ass."

    In the past two years, trace, I've seen you go from fearing government abuses of power to warmly embracing them. Nothing has changed in that time, except you THINK the government is on your side now. How hypocritical, and naive, of you.

    "did congress declare war recently?"

    No, dave. They gave Bush the power to do so back in October.

By semillama on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 12:01 pm:

    Great trace, now you want to lock up those people who disagree with you.

    THere are a lot of dumb laws on the books. That's one of them.

    Do you know the background of that law you love, trace? Here it is. Sounds sort of familiar, hmmm?

    Especially "The effect of such incessant propaganda was to promote hysterical hatred of all things German. Resident aliens, American citizens with German surnames, and those who taught German in the schools were hounded and abused as subversives and traitors. German books were pulled out of libraries and sometimes destroyed. Even foods like hamburgers, sauerkraut, and frankfurters were rechristened with American names, and towns with German-sounding names also underwent name changes. One German-born man was lynched by a mob of over five hundred people.

    Anyone who dared to criticize the war was assaulted verbally at least, often physically as well—and sometimes even murdered. Unionists, socialists, and radicals of all stripes were subject to the same sorts of abuse, even if they had nothing to do with criticizing the war effort. "

    and "With enormous popular support, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, prescribing fines of up to ten thousand dollars and prison sentences of up to twenty years for a whole list of vaguely defined antiwar activities. The Sedition Act of 1918 (also called the Sedition Amendment to the Espionage Act) was even more draconian, imposing heavy penalties on anyone convicted of using “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the Constitution, the government, the military, or the flag. Similar laws were passed in several states as well.

    Those who spoke or wrote against the war were arrested in droves. Over fifteen hundred people were charged under these laws for the crime of expressing an opinion the government did not agree with. One socialist, Rose Pastor Stokes, was sentenced to ten years in prison for telling an all-female audience that she was for the people, while the government was for the profiteers. Eugene V. Debs, a prominent socialist leader, was sentenced to ten years in a federal penitentiary for a rather academic speech analyzing the economic causes of war."

    So that's what you want?

By patrick on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 12:44 pm:

    god trace, what an idiotic philopshy.

    there have been all kinds laws on the books, unjust, inhuman and immoral and its taken actions like civil disobedience to remove them, to reform.

    what a pedestrian take on it.

    "well...its the law. so be it"

    what do you think the civil rights movement entailed? what do you think the abolishment of slavery entailed? what do you think sufferage entailed? it required civil disobedience and outright law-breaking to propel to movement forward.

    you think social movements energize by writing letters to your congressmen and women?

    you really need go read some Ghandi and Thoreau about the role of civil disobedience because your philosphical core seems totally fucked these days.

    you can disagree with the protesters all you want, but at a certain point, you have to realize, with the growing momentum of the movement, more people, more protests and planned civil disobedience that MAYBE, just MAYBE there might be a little bit of legitimacy in it. We are not talking about a stagnant number of people here, say like the pro-life nuts.

    We are talking more and more people willing to take greater and greater risks. Eventually you gotta wake up and realize there might be something to it.

By trace on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 01:49 pm:

    Just an honestly friendly warning:

    Please do NOT attempt to physically block any US Military anything from getting to it's destination if/when the war does begin.

    Please, I am dead serious

By trace on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 01:50 pm:

    This is not what I want, this is LAW.
    Jesus Christ

By patrick on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 02:13 pm:

    so what.

    so thew fuck what. the LAW.

    so the fuck what trace.

    fuckoff with your alarmist bullshit.

    do you remember the video of the chinese student uprising from about a decade or so ago?

    remember that student standing in front of a tank?

    that kid had more balls than you could ever dream of fucko.

    you deserve to be oppressed. you bend over and ask for it. pussy.

By trace on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 02:22 pm:

    So, now you are comparing the US government to the Chinese governemnt?
    Tell me, if you can, what were they protesting in China then?

    Calm down and think about what you just said.

By patrick on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 02:29 pm:

    i wish you could see the expression im making.

    its a combination of "what the fuck are you talking about" and "you have a big nasty booger hanging off your chin" look.

    I didnt compare anyone trace did I? Did i say anything to the sort. No.

    I just cited an incident in which students in China were protesting, advocating Democratic reform in China. They were met with the Chinese military.

    NOW, i'll compare.

    Its an infamous video of courage. Its the kind of courage this country needs.

    Lobbing cruise missles from hundreds of miles is not courage. Its downright pussy.

    standing on the sidelines and warning us not to get in the way of anything the military is doing to protest the war is pussy.

    Standing in front of a tank for democratic change in one of the last communist countries in the world is courage. Obviously the students were beaten down, but its one of the starkest images I have in my mind of civil disobedience, social protest and balls out courage.

By trace on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 02:40 pm:

    "I just cited an incident in which students in China were protesting, advocating Democratic reform in China. They were met with the Chinese military. "

    Um, the US has been advocating for a Democratic Reform in Iraq....
    The Bush-Protestors are protesting it....

    Wait. You think the Iraqi's love living under Saddam don't you????

By trace on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 02:50 pm:

    besides, you advocate murder.
    You advocate for the murder of thousand of Iraqis each year.
    You advocate murder of innocent unborn babies.
    Where is the reason for thier deaths?
    What have they done, what law have they broken, whom do they threaten?

    You call yourself a feminist, but you are turning a blind eye to the treatment of women in Iraq and Iran and all muslim states.
    Yet you boaste about how corrupt I am and tell me I need to examine my values, but I reject that the instant it comes out of your mouth.
    How can you defend Hussien staying in office (and dont deny it, what did you mean by there is no cause to go to war now, then?) because of the posiblity of loss of innocent lives when out of the same mouth you defend the right to murder babies?
    You are the one who needs to figure a few things out, buddy. You are the one who is all over the map.

    On this very board we have argued the right of a person to spray their own yard to kill misquitos and the right of a woman to kill her unborn child.

    YOu stand on the side of protecting the mesquito and abandon the unborn child.

    I will not accept your moralistic comparison of your values to mine.

By patrick on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 02:53 pm:


    I was talking about civil disobedience to your dumbass remark "warning" us to avoid interefering with military movements or whatever.

    im not impressed with the Bush regime "advocating" democracy in Iraq. So what.

    The Bush regime protestors arent protesting democracy in Iraq dumbass. They are protesting the Bush government making an American satellite democracy out of Iraq.

    Further, i was talking about natives standing up to their own government. Not the worlds only super power taking down some 3rd world. trace.

    please try to stay on track.

By patrick on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 02:56 pm:

    "besides, you advocate murder................."

    i wont even address this nonsense trace. you've lost your fucking mind.

By trace on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 03:04 pm:

    "They are protesting the Bush government making an American satellite democracy out of Iraq. "

    No, simplify that.
    "They are protesting the Bush government."

By trae on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 03:06 pm:

    I was simply pointing out the hypocracy in
    protesting a war in Iraq that would remove a murderous dictator
    Advocating the right of women to murder innocent children.

    Oh wait.
    They are the same.
    Its ok if it's just iraqis or unborn children.

    Sorry, i guess I did get confused.
    Thanks for pointing that out for me.

By trace on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 03:18 pm:

    One last thing.
    I will go slowly so there is no room for misunderstanding:
    g i v e
    saddam is.
    I will stand behind it even if it just that he uses red ink to fill out forms instead of black.
    He is a dangerous, deadly, ruthless dictator that has to go. Period, he has supported and trained al-quaida. This knowledge was widely shared 5 years ago. He has sold chemical and biological weapons. This was also released years ago.
    He has unmanned aerial vehicles with chemical tanks outfitted for spraying into the atmosphere that can reach as far as egypt.
    This has been shared years ago.
    He is a clear and present danger.
    There is no disputing this fact.
    He must go.
    He is the next step in this current war.
    Not the last, and not the only one that is being taken at this moment.

By semillama on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 03:19 pm:

    There is no hypocrisy in that at all. You can't even begin to compare a women's reproductive rights to an unjust war being ramrodded down an entire PLANET's throats.

    I take that back - you can in one sense, as it is an outsider dictating what a sovereign entity must do.

    (Besides, spunky, you should be pro-choice - you are a libertarian after all)

    There is hypocrisy in a government that yells about removing one murderous dictator but has a known track record of propping up other murderous dictators and subverting democratically elected leaders in the process (not to mention is seeming to currently ignore another murderous dictator who keeps lobbing missles in the general direction of Japan).

    Basically, what it boils down to is that your political views are based on what has been personally taken away from your life -
    you were denied the chance to serve in the military because of your ankles, you were denied the chance to be a father because you are a male, and that's reality. You want an SUV because you like them, and nevermind they are among the most dangerous vehicles on the road. You probably would have argued against mandating seatbelts back in the day.

By trace on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 03:25 pm:

    I'm not talking about "women's reproductive rights."
    Wisper shared hers, not to have any.
    I respect that, very much so.
    I suspect that that means she is using some form of birth control or had a hysterectomy or whatever form she chooses.
    That is her right, and more power to her.

    There are plenty of choices and plenty of rights.
    And there are responsibilities for those rights and those choices.

    I am talking about the right of the baby to live.

    I am talking about your quick dismissal of those rights.

By trace on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 03:58 pm:

    "(not to mention is seeming to currently ignore another murderous dictator who keeps lobbing missles in the general direction of Japan)"

    We are ignoring them.

    Not everything makes it to CNN

By semillama on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 05:22 pm:

    Yes, you are talking about women's reproductive rights. I don't care if it's a "baby" "fetus" or "horrible alien parasite" - if it's in the woman's body, it's her right and her duty to determine what happens to it. Not yours, not anyone else's, and certainly not the government's. Maybe if you believe that fetii have souls, you shouldn't have an abortion, or have sex with someone who might not want to be pregnant. And what if someone believes that human infants only recieve souls after birth (a la Aquinas, unless I am mistaken)? What if someone doesn't believe in souls, period? Than you think that the people who have religious beliefs that say different should have imminent domain over another person's body?

    Not that I have anything to do with women's reproductive rights, other than to wholeheartedly support them.

    ps. I said we are ignoring them - like you ignore US-supported contra death squads).

By trace on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 06:07 pm:

    i meant we are NOT ignoring them.

    What US supported contra death squads?
    Seriously, I want to know what you are talking about.

    You forgot someone in the reproductive rights list, the father.

By wisper on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 06:45 pm:


By patrick on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 06:57 pm:

    im tellin you.

    he's lost his mind.

By Rowlf on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 07:07 pm:

    noone is pro-abortion, they are pro-choice.

    as for the father, it is not a 50/50 split on the decision, and never will be. Unless of course you agree to some sort of 40 pound sack on your chest, eating non-stop, induced vomiting, stiches from your balls to your asshole, a large pair o' boobs, and having your urethra slowly ripped open for about 30 hours.

    Sounds like a new reality TV show: "Joe Pregnancy"

    If the woman has her choice taken away, there should be the option for the woman to be able to completely dump the kid on the father, and make him pay some flat rate to the woman for having his child, plus whatever money it costs her (loss of work, food, hospital). After all, you pay the pizza delivery man...

    Don't forget to tip.

By trace on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 07:20 pm:

    my view on the father goes both ways.
    Or maybe just one?
    He presumably stuck his uncovered dick in her, and shot the load, that is where the choice was made.
    The rest is consequence.

    If she was raped, then I think it is a horrid thing to force her to carry the child full term.

    My view on abortion has really changed.
    I think there should always be an option, when the mother's life is in danger, when it is the product of rape, or something horrid like that.

    My sole opposition is to the ones that use abortion as some form of birth control.

    I had a fiance before Eri.
    We were planning our life together. She got pregnant. She was 18.

    We were planning on getting married anyway, so I thought "well, early start on the kid part of it, but I will have to work more to support us, no big deal."

    Her mom took her to the abortion clinic.

    They were surprised when I choose to break off the engagement...

    Not all men are worthless scum. I realize we are not the ones who carry the baby or go through the hell that is birth, or even imagine what it is like.
    I can tell you what our last pregnancy did to me.
    I may not have had the labour pains, but I did go through the wringer. Because I care about Eri.

    To automatically discount our say is really wrong.
    Dead beats to take off the instant he is told she is pregnant, who gives a fuck what they say?
    But there are those of us who, when we took the choice of unprotected sex, also made a commitment to the ones we were with.
    To cut us out automatically is unfair.

By patrick on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 07:20 pm:

By patrick on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 07:41 pm:

    trace you are mixing emotions into the matter.

    your reproductive rights end, as you seem to be aware of, the minute to dive in unsheathed.

    sorry, biology is just that way.

    everything else you cite is emotional and circumstantial.

    supporting a woman's 100% reproductive right has nothing to do with deadbeat dads or anything of the sort. And has everything to do with recognizing that no one but the woman is in control of her body, at anytime, especially when pregnant.

    you can carry emotional stock in the matter, but at the end of the day, you have no rights.

    regarding going through the ringer during pregnancy....why midwives rule is because not only do to treat pregnancy as it should be treated, they are more sympathetic to the emotional and physical impact it can have on the father. its hard seeing the one you would die for go through that kind of pain. we arent used to it.

By eri on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 08:58 pm:

    "Dead beats to take off the instant he is told she is pregnant, who gives a fuck what they say?"

    Honey, you have to know that this isn't necessarily true. Look at my ex. He didn't leave the moment he found out I was pregnant,but instead did everything in his power to make me feel trapped to him since he was the "father" of my baby. It turned out horribly, and even though, being the dead beat that he is, he now begs for us to pay for his rights to be revoked and for you to adopt Hayley, he was still there being a total ass for the first year and didn't leave me alone until we got married. He didn't dissapear right away. He didn't dissapear until we left Missouri to go to California.

    Dead beat parents, both mothers and fathers, are out there all over the place. Some even still have custody of their children. Resenting them. Wishing they never had them. Not having the guts to give them to someone else who will love them. It happens all of the time. Every day.

    Bottom line is that it is none of the government's god damned business what a woman does with her body. Although I don't personally agree with using abortion as a form of birth control it is not my right to tell any woman what to do.

    As far as what Joy did to you, killing the baby that you desperately wanted, well that was just fucked up. You also know that we question whether or not Joy actually did that after that day voluteering at that baloon thing for the blind when you thought you saw her (That chick who kept stopping and staring at us and talking to some guy about us) with a child that would have been the same age as your baby would have been. It's all a big fucked up question mark, but at the same time, that doesn't make it allright for us to tell someone else what to do with their body.

    I believe that a man should have a certain amount of say when a woman is concidering aborting his baby, but at the same time, then there should be a man held completely responsible if the woman doesn't want that child. I am not for having children if you don't want them, because if you don't want that child then you won't be a good parent to that child.

    There is only one form of abortion that I am agianst no matter what. Late term abortions, also called parial birth abortions. My problem with that is simply that the child could survive outside of the womb and doesn't deserve to be killed. If it can live outside of the womb, then let it live and let the mother/father give up all rights to this child and let it be adopted. With all of the families looking for babies, let them have one. My reason for this belief is personal. I gave birth to a one pound baby and watched it grow into a normal child. I had a baby that has been killed in a partial birth abortion and look at her today. I looked at this tiny little thing that looked like it would die and had to face the fact that I didn't believe my own daughter would live to see tomorrow. I see her now the amazing 3 year old that she is and know that she has a right to live and if I didn't want her that someone would. Someone is waiting for a Micki.

    I will shut up now.

By Platypus on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 11:21 pm:

    Uhm, yeah.

    I think that very few women are using "abortion as a form of birth control." Abortions are painful. They are emotionally distressing. They can damage your ability to have children ever again. It's not something that most women take lightly.

    The fact of the matter is that shit happens, condoms break, and the pill doesn't always work. I don't think that pro-choice activists are advocating abortion as a form of birth control, people.

    Oh, and, fuck you, you ass.

By trace on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 12:07 am:

    yes, i am an ass.
    I care about babies.
    i am an ass.

By trace on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 12:09 am:

    my first baby was killed.
    as a form of birth control.
    what an ass

By Rowlf on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 08:10 am:

    yes, therefore all abortions must have been done as a form of birth control, right?

By semillama on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 09:47 am:

    and therefore all partial-birth abortions are done as a form of birth control?

    No, what I think you guys actually are, from what you talk about in detail, is pro-choice in general, but against abortion as a thougtless form of birth control. That's fine, there are many pro-choice people like that. The problem is that you can't really legislate against that without taking away abortion rights from women who really need them.

    What if having your baby would have killed you, Eri, Trace? I mean, really? If it were me, I would be arguing strongly for the procedure. I mean, if i had to choose between a baby, even mine, and Kazoo, it's no question. There are other ways to have a child. And sometimes there are really difficult choices and none that you can make will have the happiest outcome - you just need to choose the best one.

    THAT'S what being pro-choice is about.

By patrick on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 11:50 am:

    you know......this idea of "abortion as birth control"....

    its so.....jerry falwell...stinks of religious fundamentalism....

    its bullshit propaganda that has never really materialized into anything significant.

    sensational material used in the 80s by pro-lifers based on the few cases of crackladys having repeated abortions.

    its about as moronic as saying you can buy carrots, or rather carrot sales should be regulated because some women stick them in their cooch for pleasure. well yeah, that may be a fraction of a fraction of percent of the case, but its no basis for judgement.

    trace in your instance, your girlfriend/fiance whatever used her freedom of choice to abort the baby, very early on (it sounds like) and you know, there is nothing reprehnisble about that other than the emotional damage it had on your relationship, you, her. But you know, she was 18, what did you expect. she didnt use "abortion as birth control", thats sensational. otherwise you could say any use of abortion other than life or death is "birth control"

    how did this dumbass conversation get back into the fray.

By Antigone on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 12:02 pm:

    To get the thread back on track:

    Seymour Hersh writes an article in the New Yorker about Richard Perle, showing how Perle has a conflict of interest because he's advising the administration on war while at the same time working for a company which stands to profit from that war. On CNN Perle calls Hersh, "...the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist..."

    Should Hersh be prosecuted for sedition?

By eri on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 04:06 pm:

    "What if having your baby would have killed you, Eri, Trace? I mean, really?"

    What if I already had to face that decision~really~ more than once? Seriously. I have posted on here about my abortion. It was something I had to face again, when I had Micki. I couldn't get a fucking doctor to listen to me and take me seriously and by the time they realized that something was wrong my grandmother was crying because she didn't think I would make it, and neither did I. I totally believed I was going to die on that surgery table and I would have two children who have no mother. Even Trace didn't understand how bad the situation was until they wheeled me away for surgery and he didn't know what was going on. Trace didn't realize what he was facing until it was too late to change his mind and then after that he did whatever it took to ensure that this situation could NEVER happen again.

    Being that I believe in abortion in general and am personally against it as a form of birth control (and yes, I do realize that isn't the majority of women), I don't believe in legislation against abortion. Frankly I don't believe that the government should have any fucking say in the whole matter. I don't think it is the governments job to tell women what to do in regards to abortion, even though I am TOTALLY against partial birth abortions, I do not support legislature making them illegal. That is what I believe, and I have to put that into the decisions that I make, no one else. Just as I don't think it is the governments job to tell women they can or can't have an abortion, I also don't believe it is my job to do that either. I will state how I feel about it, but it is NOT my decision to make for any other woman. Don't read me wrong on this one. I have my beliefs and feelings based on my experiences and that is fine for me, but I am not going to tell someone else what to do. It's not my place to tell them anything more than how I feel if they ask. The decision is up to them.

By Pug on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 04:16 pm:

    Seig Heil, motherfucker.
    I know I'm backtracking---but doesn't the U.S. Sedition Act date back to Wilson and WWI?
    No matter----the USA Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act are worse, and have technically abolished the constitution.
    Seeya behind barbed wire, folks (except Trace---he's a good boy)...
    (Yes, I'm buzzin')

By Spider on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 04:23 pm:

    I think that one way to reduce the number of "casual" abortions, if there are such things, is to get rid of the stigma surrounding adoption. There are too many idiots who think that adopted kids are (what the hell is the word I'm looking for?) worth less than your own biological they're not your *real* kids or something.

    I remember watching Days of Our Lives with my mom when I was a kid and some character was having a fertility crisis, and I asked my mom, "why doesn't she just adopt?" And my own mother said, "because it's just not the same." Fuck that shit. I've got two cousins who were adopted, and they and their parents have had to put up with that ignorance from our extended family for too long. It's sickening.

    So if adoption looked better and was thought of as a great thing to participate in, more kids would be born and allowed to live with parents who have the means and the will (but not the physiology) to raise them. Win win.

By Spider on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 04:24 pm:

    Hey, Pug. :)

By semillama on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 05:11 pm:

    Amen, Spider. Kazoo and I are going down the adoption road when it comes time for that.

By eri on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 05:18 pm:

    I agree that adoption shouldn't have as much stigma on it. I have considered adopting before as well, since Spunky and I can't have any more kids, but I also know that I barely have the patience for the two monkeys I have now and a third one would be much harder. Besides, I don't want another baby, I prefer kids to babies.

    My cousin was adopted and was treated when she was a child as "the adopted one". We all knew who her biological parents were, except her. They were friends of the family. When she found out who her biological parents were (she already knew them) everyone kept asking her if an empty hole inside her had been filled by meeting them and she got pissed off. Because she has a mother and a father and who gives a shit who pushed her out of their hole when she was raised by my aunt and uncle? Of all of my family on that side, she is the closest one to me. She is the one who has the same family traits that I do. She may look like my polar opposite, but if it weren't for that it would be hard to tell us apart.

    Family is what you make it, not what blood flows through your veins.

    I have a cousin who did all of that crazy fertility shit. She was messing up her body in big ways just at the chance that she might get pregnant. She was truly hurting herself, when she was already diagnosed with polycystic ovarian cancer. It was insane. We all beggged her just to adopt and two of our cousins offered to be a surrogate mother for her, but she wouldn't have any of it. She is due to have her baby in the beginning of July I think. It is somewhere near either Hayley or Micki's birthday so it is either June or July. I don't remember which. Here's hoping that after this she stops fucking with her body and decides to adopt further children.

    I also think the adoption process is hard to get through and expensive as hell and if it weren't for those two factors I would probably have a son. I would adopt if it were easier. There are tons of children who need homes out there now.

By wisper on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 06:09 pm:

    fertility clinics... now THERE's the evil.
    If all was well in the world, they'd be the ones with protests blocking their doors.

By eri on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 06:24 pm:

    My cousin pays $10,000 per session plus doctor visits plus prescriptions for every time she went to the fertility clinic. She had to get a second on her new house to pay for it. She had all of her appointments made and had filled all of her prescriptions and was just waiting to start her period before she went last time. She never started her period because she was pregnant already. She did it without drugs and this is the only time she has done that since her tubal pregnancy and this is the only pregnancy she has ever been able to carry. She isn't even concidered high risk anymore and is having a perfectly normal pregnancy now.

    I wonder how much sooner this would have happened for her if she hadn't been pumping her body full of all of these insane hormones and shit. If she hadn't been trying so damned hard this may have been easier for her and happened sooner, and think of all of the money she would have saved!

    Then again, I think she is lucky she didn't get pregnant with 8 babies at once with all of the drugs she was on!

    Well, I have ranted about fertility clinics enough.

By patrick on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 06:27 pm:

    im in the wrong business

By trace on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 08:16 pm:

    "fertility clinics... now THERE's the evil. "

    Shouldn't the same reproductive freedom apply?

    One wants to be pregnant, the other doesn't.

    Seems fair to me.

By trace on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 08:16 pm:

    hey, it really fired up around here....

By heather on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 03:33 am:

    when it comes to adoption, people usually only want 'good' babies

    cute ones, ones that 'look like the family'

    that always made me sad.

    everyone has their own thing to overcome. i have to think that sometimes growing up with your own parent/s is far worse than being raised by the state.

By patrick on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 11:48 am:

    yes trace, and generally you dont see people protesting outisde of fertility clinics, not fetility clinicians getting shot.

By semillama on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 04:27 pm:

    Kazoo wants some cute brown babies. I don't think I have a preference, really.

By eri on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 06:16 pm:

    I did some research on children available for adoption out here. It's suprising how many people want to adopt, but won't adopt outside of their race. There are tons of beautiful brown babies and toddlers out here that aren't being placed in homes! The only white kids are the ones with developmental or severe emotional problems.

By wisper on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 06:12 pm:

    that's so sad.

By eri on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 09:03 pm:

    I found a little boy I wanted to adopt, but I don't have the money to pay for the homestudy. If I had that kind of money Trace would have adopted Hayley by now. I don't really need another kid anyways. These two tire me out. Also when you have a homestudy done they want letters of reference from 3 friends who know you well and see you interact with them and have known you for at least a year. We don't have 3 friends who can give references. We have 1 maybe 2 tops. We run with a very small circle. Our focus is on our kids and not partying, so we don't have lots of close friends that we party with and see us with our kids a lot. A lot of people won't write letters of recommendation because they don't know what to say.

    Adopting children is a pain in the ass. A huge pain in the ass. If it wasn't, we would have cute little brown boys running around here to go with our blonde haired blue eyed daughters.

By Rowlf on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 05:28 pm:

By Antigone on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 04:58 pm:

    Speaking of the Espionage Act...


    Is Rove in hotter water than we think?

    As Karl Rove's defenders are fond of noting, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the law that prohibits officials from disclosing an undercover operative's identity, sets a high bar for criminal violation. In order for Rove to be convicted of breaking that law, investigators would need to show that he was aware of Valerie Plame's undercover status at the time he disclosed her identity to reporters. But now there may be a new twist in the case: In Newsweek, Michael Isikoff reports that the CIA never mentioned the 1982 law in its "crimes report" to the CIA. And as the National Journal's Stuart Taylor pointed out on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the case, may be looking instead at another law -- the Espionage Act of 1917, which makes it a crime to disclose any classified information, even if the disclosure is accidental. Under this law, Rove may be in more trouble than his defenders are willing to let on.

    This new theory has to do with that top-secret State Department briefing memo we've been hearing about for a couple weeks now. The memo, which was produced by the State Department in June of 2003, laid out Joseph Wilson's role in examining claims that Saddam Hussein sought uranium in Africa. The memo was a topic of much discussion among administration officials in the week after Wilson went public with what he'd found in Africa. According to Newsweek, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, the memo identified Wilson's wife -- it called her Valerie Wilson, not Plame -- in a paragraph explicitly marked as classified. Specifically, reports Isikoff, the section was labeled "snf," meaning "Secret No Foreign," which specified that the information was secret and not be shared with foreigners.

    For Rove -- or Lewis Libby, or any other government official -- to be found guilty under the 1982 law, the prosector would need to show that Rove knew that Plame was undercover. But to find him guilty of breaking the 1917 law, you might only have to show that he learned her identity from a classified document -- i.e., the State Department briefing memo -- and then disclosed what he'd learned to people not entitled to secret information. In this scenario Plame's undercover status doesn't matter -- only the fact that Rove (hypothetically, of course) learned her name from a secret document.

    But let's leave aside the prospect of Rove's criminal prosecution for a second. As we and many others have been asking for a while, why isn't anyone at the White House worried that Rove was talking to reporters about information that we now know to be classified? You can click here to see a PDF document of the kind of nondisclosure agreement Rove and other White House employees are made to sign when they begin their jobs. Section 3 of the document states (the emphasis here is our own): "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone..... I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it..... I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information."

    Even if he didn't violate the law, and even if he disclosed the information accidentally, why is it not clear to people in the White House -- say, President Bush -- that Rove violated this agreement when he spoke to Matt Cooper and Bob Novak? The White House, of course, won't answer any questions about this. But John Arovosis of AmericaBlog notes that on ABC's Sunday show "This Week," George Stephanopoulos asked Republican Sen. John McCain whether he believes the White House should stand by the agreement Rove signed.

    McCain started to say, "I do, but that also implies that someone knowingly revealed...." Stephanopoulos then cut in to point out, "This covers negligent disclosures."

    McCain responded, "Again I don't know what the definition of 'negligent' is." If Karl Rove is to survive this thing, somebody at the White House is going to have to come up with a better defense than that.

    -- Farhad Manjoo

By semillama on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:09 pm:

    McCain needs to be thrown to the dogs.

By patrick on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 05:21 pm:

By Rowlfe on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 03:23 pm:

By kazu on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 03:30 pm:

    tucker carlson has bad lips.

By TBone on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 06:43 pm:

    I'm having a bad lip day, myself.

By V on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 12:04 pm:

    ...but its not as bad as an "Albert Einstien" bad hair day.It happens to me if I use the wrong shampoo or get struck by lightning.

The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS . torturechamber . . receipts . contact