wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

i use this as a guide (which contradicts what i said earlier.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_%28book%29#List_of_Generations

of course there is no official rule. i would say depends where a person feels a connection

hjs,
So you would consider someone in his/her mid-forties to be boomer? In some places I see boomer as ending in 1961, in others I see it as late as 1965.

What do you think Gen-Y is?

they do vary i would say boomer but might depend on the person.

I was actually asking for your opinion. Those vary online as well.

Hope it's a gorgeous long weekend in CA :-)

eva,
I do tend to be careful who I say that around, because I know that it will inflame some people. But I find it useful sometimes to use terms for their shock value, because what I find absent from the conversation a lot of times is the woman's right to determine what happens to her body. The enslavement may not happen at the time of conception, but afterwards, when for any number of reasons she may not want to, or it may not be a good idea for her to go through a pregnancy. I do not think it is a good idea for pregnancy to be punishment for bad judgment.

That said, I agree about ethics, I'm just very conflicted and unsure about how to legislate them.

mc,
all of those questions can be easily answered online, and much faster than I can type...
happy weekend!

eva,
What generation is someone in their mid-forties? That's too young for boomer, right? Is it Gen-X? Does Gen-X included people in their thirties? You referred to "Y" at some point. What is that age group?

mc,
it's a free country, you should of course use whatever language you wish, I'm just pointing out that some language, which might be seen as extreme, can actually work against your goals.
I think a lot of people might look at your equating an unwanted pregnancy brought to term as slavery and ask: "If so, and assuming the sex was consensual, who enslaved the woman?"
And in asking that, I think you're doing more for women's rights than in simply thinking of women as victims. Self-empowerment, to use a goofy, somewhat old-fashioned feminist term, can be a frighteningly simple act; the trick is getting women to understand that they have that power and autonomy and must preserve it. No doubt you think of abortion rights as self-empowerment, and I would agree to an extent. But self-empowerment is nada without ethics. So I would extend that self-empowerment, as I think you would, to include defining specific boundaries around one's body, when one does not wish to conceive.

eva #47
Absolutely no offense taken. I was just curious about what you based your assumption on, and as I suspected it was based on some erroneous information. I did refer to raising two boys; I did not say they were teen-aged. Perhaps you thought they were because of the nature of the conversations I waas having with them, but I started them early. I also never revealed my age in any of these posts; I tend to be very careful about the information I allow in a forum such as this which is why I will neither confirm nor deny your guesses. Again, I was not offended at all.

eva,
I agree that there are far too many abortions in urban areas and I would like to see that changed.

Re: my use of the word slavery, I chose it carefully. If a person cannot be a sovereign over her own body, whether for nine months or forever, in my mind that is a form of slavery. Again, a matter of perception, that perception being vastly influenced by one's own experience.

mc, Since you had earlier written that you're providing some kind of feminist awareness education to the two teenaged boys you're raising, I think it's fair to assume you're in your mid-forties? I think you had also specifically written in another post that you were in your mid-forties. This puts you in line with the demographics of a large number of the female HRC supporters. Given your vociferous support of her, I linked the two. Apologies if I am incorrect. Then again, no real reason to take offense at such a mistake?

mc,
Point taken about PP's accessibility, but the fact that pp is not as accessible to some people across the country does not account for the vast number of abortions taking place in urban areas, where pp is VERY accessible. And... FREE.
I do worry that your slave/slavery metaphor is an example of the hysterical language surrounding the issue (on both sides). Nine months of carrying a child is not slavery, nor does it make a woman a "slave in her own body" as, historically, and regardless of the persons enslaved, slavery was generally not a 9-month contract. I think it's this kind of hysteria (yes, I know the Greek root, thanks, and no, my use of the term is not intended to be sexist, nor is my explanation meant to be sarcastic) that's obscured the common ground that would otherwise be available to both pro-choice and pro-life people.

BTW eva, re: a previous exchange, I'm still curious what "generation" you think I'm in, and what you base the assertion on.

Also, Planned Parenthood is not as accessible to some people across the country as it should be, something else we need to work on.

eva,
How you feel about the slavery issue in your body probably is a matter of perception and whether or not you have ever experienced an unwanted pregnancy.

If we are to get into personal opinion about this (in my last post I merely posed a moral dilema albeit one designed to start a debate), I abhor the idea of using abortion as a method of birth control and also as a method of selecting which baby you will have, boy or girl etc. Personal ethics do need to be discussed but it is very tricky to legislate on that. For me, the best common ground is to try to prevent as many abortions as possible and I applauded HRC for that even when others castigated her for it.

mc.
Off-topic, but since it's been brought up...I generally agree that a woman should have the right to choose, but I don't think the issue is necessarily as dramatic as "forcing a womwn to go through an unwanted pregnancy thus making her a slave in her own body".
The fact is that excellent oral contraceptives are available across the country for FREE from Planned Parenthood. So no one is exactly forcing the VAST MAJORITY of women to conceive (rape victims notwithstanding). With regard to abortion "rights", there is an aspect of personal responsibility (not to mention personal ethics) that needs to be addressed, and which is not. Along with some other Democrats, your candidate of choice, HRC, has finally come around from the extreme end of the abortion debate to trying to find common ground with the pro-life side. I think this is both rational and pragmatic. (Although not reason enough to support her in her quest for the presidency.)

barry #26
I think we have to consider both problems:
1) ending the life of a fetus - is it moral?
2) forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy thus making her a slave in her own body - is it moral?

Voter #38,
Has anyone seen the new Errol Morris film, "Standard Operating Procedure"? We saw it two weeks ago. I recommend it, if only to see what our tax dollars fund. And what they don't (in terms of adequate training and direction within the military.) The portraits of the individuals involved in the mistreatment of prisoners (much of it deemed 'standard operating procedure') was unforgettable, especially interviews of Lynddie England and one of the more senior interrogators.

Raymond & Voter
i'm glad people here still have a sense of humor, china is laughing all the way to the bank

#36--post of the day so far :-D

Yeah, yeah Raymond, and U.S. senators claimed they were stacked up into naked pyramids when pledged into the ole fraternity. It’s all in fun and games.
No one’s forcing you to do anything. Take a bus, walk, bike, drive, wait for another train… you have options. Someone being tortured has no options other than taking the torture or saying what the torturer wants to hear (and that’s assuming the torturer wants information and isn’t just doing it to make an example.) And, well… since you did pay for your subway experience, maybe you’re a masochist?
If taking the subway is making you pray for a quick death, then I’d hate to see how to take being sexually assaulted, electrocuted, or attacked by a worked-up guard dog.

Voter, I agree completely. But one argument I hear thrown in the face of anti-torture people again and again is that these tactics "aren't really torture". Well, if they don't think it's torture, then let's approach it from a different angle. Let's examine the morality of it from a different perspective.

If being forced to stand for too long in a crowded, uncomfortable climate, while subjected to loud music, and noxious air is by definition torture. Then the New York City Subway Sytem has been toruting me for the past ten years.

I see what you're getting at #19/Paulo, but I think the more important question is: Where is the line? Presuming American as hip to torture and aren’t ignorant to the fact that tax dollars will be used to pay for said torture and equipment required there in, how low are we willing to go? What isn’t the average American “cool” with paying for? It appears Americans have no problem taking the moral low ground, because it’s a post 9/11 world, so… why not rape (it’s pretty cheap)? Ripping out fingernails (good pliers only cost about six bucks)? (For Berry, #26, forcing abortions on their women to wipe out the next generation of terrorist… wire coat hangers are free with the dry-cleaning?) It’s a little more expensive but why not just go nuclear, then salt the earth for good measure?
I think there’s a point where accepting torture can easily slide into accepting terrorism and if that’s what America feel is necessary to stop THEM from “coming into our homes,” as caller Norm said, then we’re no better than them.

During the 9-11 Commision we got nothing but excuses and phoney apologies from the heads of the FBI, CIA, NSC et al. They should have all been prosectuted for deriliction of duty. Instead, men like Richard C. Clarke have gotten rich off of book deals and documentaries. If John Miller had done his job this whole discussion would be irrelevant. There is not even a shred of remorse to be found amongst this brood of vipers.

CIA- Regarding the days immediately after 9/11, I believe we are responsible for abiding by our morals, despite our hysteria. That's what morals are for. And yes, I believe were in a state of hysteria, partly due to our national conception of ours selves as an untouchable nation. We were shocked. In a way, that's our responsibility, not that of the attackers. So it's not a justification for poor moral judgement.

Despite the awfulness of that day. Those who survived were able for the most part to return to communities in tact. We do not live in a country in a state of chaos.

Barry,
There is a lot of controversy involving the torture and interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. Your version is the rosiest to the torturers. Other versions claim he was already talking and/or that he was a minor player with split personality syndrome (i.e. crazy).

I don't know which one is true, but what you assert as fact is not really certain (although possible).

barry
it's not as immoral as having children u can't support or don't want.

Federal Bureau of Incompetance

I'm reminded of a quote by a US general in 1862 who said: "would that this army were in Washington to rid us of ruinous incumbents..."

Peter 20
agreed

Torture is despicable, but not as despicable as those in power who gave the ok. This is a national disgrace. Those who approved it are no better than Hitler and Sadam.

I'll drop this bomb:
Is abortion immoral? It is certainly legal.

Paulo 19
the obvious answers is go ask larry craig, mark foley & trent lott

If these techniques were considered legal then why are Lynndie England and Charles Graner in jail?

The FBI did nothing to stop the first terrorist attack on our soil in 1993. They did nothing to stop the 2nd attack on 9-11. At a time their efforts should have been focused on stopping the next possible attack, they were gathering dirt on other agencies. This is a tactic that goes all the way back to J Edgar Hoover.

One Problem is Waterboarding does work exmple below:

"The controversial interrogation technique that simulates drowning also was approved at the highest levels of the government, former agent John Kiriakou, a leader of the team that captured al Qaeda’s Abu Zubaydah, has told network news interviewers. And that water-boarding, Kiriakou has said, produced instant results: Abu Zubaydah started talking in less than 35 seconds.

It is really about good judgment on behalf of the interrogators.

This is simple and the American people don't want to realize this:

America is the WORST terrorist organization in the world.

The most organized, funded and armed.

We will continue to terrorize the rest of the world until we're stopped.

We should take a stance like our founders, and be willing to put our lives on the line for our freedoms and human rights:
I would rather perish in a terrorist attack then support a government that tortures prisoners and spies on citizens, in order to "protect" me.

Well, the question is... if you're cool with torture, are you cool with your tax dollars being spent turning government agencies into dens of bizarre sexual deviancy carrying out strange S&M practices and on top of everything else making whores out of our intelligent, competent female agents by using them to get sexual arousal out of terrorists?

Republicans have repeatedly stood by this, and I really have to start to wonder if they support this kind of deviancy with naked man piles and strip teases in government institutions how committed they can really be to family values.

Winston
maybe but that's never going to happen. after the election it will be forgotten.

caller - finding our way? is this new??

I think we can suspect that it does happen domestically to foreign prisoners held in places in the States. There have been some really alarming articles about this recently in the NY Times, and probably in other places as well.

14--Love it!!! (your name and location, that is)

DISCLAIMER: To all agents monitoring this forum, I am a loyal American. God bless George W. Bush.

These are obviously impeachable offenses. They are violations of US law and international law such as the Geneva Conventions, of which the US is signatory.

US must rejoin the I.C.C. and extradite and support the prosecution of members of this administration.

OOPS!!! Fogot to add to my last comment:

DISCLAIMER: To all agents monitoring this forum, I am a loyal American. God bless George W. Bush.

10--just some anecdotal accounts from both perspectives. These accounts come from the South. I'm certain it holds true in other regions, but I know more people in the South.

This was political double talk at its best!
Did he actually say anything???????

david what is your source of insight on your comment? i am not doubting but don't have a direct source myself.

Former crusading investigating reporter John Miller has apparently gone over to the dark side, and is now obfuscating on behalf of a government agency. Shame on him!

I don't know about the guards, but the tough Commander of Gitmo - a certain Miller, who replaced a commander that was hesitant about the abuse - was sent from Guantanomo to head up the detention team in Iraq in the latter part of 2003 as the insurgency started messing with our plans.

Anyone who would like to know more about this conversation will want to see the Oscar Award winning Documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side" that will be airing on HBO Saturday, February 23rd, 2008 at 3:02 PM - PST
This is a documentary about the clear complicity of the government in illegal interrogation techniques.
To see a trailer watch:
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=WX0MPcN08Zc

and these guards were then sent to Abu Ghraib right?

I don't think it was top to bottom policy, but it is a disgrace that this was going on.
It is pretty accepted that it is, for the most part counter productive as well as morally dubious.

Bryan is trying!! Go Bryan!

It is odd that one part of the Justice Department, the FBI, was very aware of the issues and objected seriously to the torture and illegal behavior going on in the interrogations in Guantonomo. Meanwhile, another branch of the Justice Department, the Office of Legal Counsel via John Yoo, was basically enabling such illegal behavior in such interrogations.

hjs,
It likely happens more than you would like to know.

DISCLAIMER: To all agents monitoring this forum, I am a loyal American. God bless George W. Bush.

This was a top to bottom policy and the American people bought the propaganda hook line and sinker.

A disgrace.

considering the fact some of these guards work in domestic prisons, I wonder how often this happens at home.