BlogHer - Politics & News - Comments

Funny, I must not be getting it.

LawyerMama — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:19:34 -0500

I've relistened to the call and I still think he's trying to make too much of a fine distinction. He, and his communications people, should know better.

Chilihead, you should actually read the post. Educational benefits are one of the biggest recruiting tools the military has. Already has. They already have to stay in 3 to 4 years to get them. The concern seems to be that those benefits are encouraging people to leave the military and *gasp* go to college.

Making people stay in *longer* (which is what McCain is proposing) to get those benefits may help retention, but it will hurt recruitment of QUALITY people - the kind that want to go to college and not wait 6 to 8 years to do it.

Lawyer Mama

http://lawyermama.com

http://momocrats.typepad.com

http://dcmetromoms.com

I thought McCain was perfectly clear.

rocksinmydryer — Fri, 16 May 2008 21:47:14 -0500

Erin, I was in on the call too, and I thought McCain's speech was very clear in the first place. There's a big difference between setting a cut-and-run withdrawal date (ala Obama and Clinton) and saying "we'll leave when we win, which I expect to be by 2013."

I think it's going to be very interesting to hear the debates in which Barack Obama tries to tell us all that he knows more about effective military management than a decorated and heroic soldier.

Shannon @ Rocks In My Dryer
www.rocksinmydryer.net
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Mommy and Family

I agree.

Asianmommy — Fri, 16 May 2008 21:22:12 -0500

It does set a precedent, and I'm glad that someone is taking it seriously enough to press charges. In a time when we are exposed to violence and rude language every day on TV, some people seem to lose sight of what's acceptable behavior in this world.

Conservative POV

chilihead — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:35:17 -0500

I think you did misunderstand Senator McCain--whether that was intentional or unintentional, or you just wanted to debate semantics. And I believe he also answered your question.

Clinton and Obama have both asked for a very specific timeline with dates for troop withdrawal at the earliest possible date--regardless of whether we have won. On the other hand, I believe McCain is projecting that within four years--no specific date--we will have stayed and won the war in Iraq. At that time we can start pulling out troops. We will not pull out troops to meet a timeline; rather we will pull out troops after we have won the war--and McCain sees the US winning the war by the end of his first term. These are two very different things.

I believe the Clinton/Obama and McCain views are this are completely different and Senator McCain answered your question in a no-nonsense matter. His tone was no more offensive to me than the condescension of Senator Clinton to the American public. What offends me more is that BlogHer is being completely partisan in their coverage of this election. I’ve not seen nearly as many pro-conservative posts as I have seen conservative-bashing posts. Yours is one of many, but it was the last straw for me.

To address MOMocrat’s quote in your article: Why shouldn’t extra educational benefits be tied to commitment or performance? Being in the military is a job. Every job I have had or have heard of requires a certain commitment from its employees, whether that commitment is a promise to stay for X number of years or meet certain goals. Raises, benefits, bonuses are all based on performance and commitment. The military is not an exception.

Chilihead
Don't Try This at Home

Blogging Basics 101

Going to toss...

nelle2nelle — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:29:54 -0500

this url on the board, and then ask a question.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24670474/

Are we coming to a time when an online site - such as BlogHer - will have core and equired registration information that is standardised by statute, and wilful misrepresentation will constitute a violation of law?

nelle

the more I realize that

nelle2nelle — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:19:01 -0500

the more I realize that technology is not morally neutral.

Technology is a tool we use to interact, whether passively (television) or more actively (like here.)

People will always find ways to use the tools developed to suit their own purposes. I would guess Lori was living in the myopia of her child's world, so intent on satisfying her child's wants that she left her brain away from the keyboard and mouse.

Picture a child who is getting beat up every day on the way home from school. If a parent beats up that child in order to protect their own, well... we won't look very favourably upon that act.

Cyberspace carries so many wonders, including the ability to interact with relative anonymity, that it becomes almost like video game abstract/disconnect. We don't see and feel the real consequences of an action that a real time physical presence all of our senses might otherwise trigger in our minds.

And to compound it all, there is no law against internet surfing and consumption of mind altering substances. So who the hell knows if she just had 4 martinis before acting stupid?

We have to remember to keep our brains relatively close to our actions. We have to remember the whole 'it takes a village' thing. (even if you curse the day Hillary wrote it.) I have a responsibility in society to do no harm to a child.I have a responsibility to mitigate disputes between children and adolescents, not fuel them. I have a responsibility to teach my own children how to interact responsibly with others.

And I wonder... is Lori out there now, pondering why she was so damn stupid and dysfunctional? Lord knows I know that feeling.

nelle

This is why

heivilinj — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:13:17 -0500

"Drew's conduct may have been reprehensible, but state prosecutors in Missouri could not conclude that it was criminal."

This is why I tell people I'm not from Missouri, I only live here.

I read of this when Nordette reported it initially and I'm glad this woman will be made to pay for her Evil behavior. I worry for her daughter and hope that nurture will trump nature and she'll turn out to be a decent person.

Jim Heivilin

So, how will 2013 be different from now?

MMarquit — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:01:29 -0500

So we're winning now, but we won't have won until 2013? Is that what it means? Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't think he did anything to "clear it up."

Props for the great question, Erin!

Good call, @PunditMom: Playful and humorous? Like when he referred to his wife as a "cunt"?

Indicative

heivilinj — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:59:09 -0500

And this is just the sort of president we want, isn't it? Someone who's condescending and rude to us. Who tells us we don't understand when he "flip-flops".

Jim Heivilin

Makes me think about the ethics of technology

Ronnica — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:38:35 -0500

I hadn't heard of this story yet. So sad. What kind of a world do we live in that a 13yo kills herself? That a mother of a classmate harrassed the girl? Such a petty thing that had huge consequences.

The more time that I spend learning about the moral consequences of technology (I wrote a paper about the ethics of virtual worlds specifically), the more I realize that technology is not morally neutral. Not all of it is bad (I love blogging, facebook, and email), but not all of it is okay either.

Gossip and Innuendo Goes Viral

Writer-Mommy — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:38:30 -0500

I posted about this story here when I was discussing the boundaries we bloggers have to create when sharing our private lives in the very public manner that is blogging.

I'm glad to see that Lori Drew, an adult and a mother who should have flat out known better, will face charges for her irresponsible and slanderous actions.

What will come of those charges - who knows? No matter what happens to Drew, a child is dead because she believed she had no value in this world. A prison term pales in comparison to the loss of Megan Meier and the the suffering her family will endure for the rest of their lives.

My hope is that there will be more discourse and discussion on the power of words. The right words can inspire and uplift us as humans; the wrong words can erode and destroy our very humanity.

Now, in the age of www.everything, everywhere, all-the-time, we as humans can combine those two opposites - one awesome and one fearsome - with the power of the internet to reach every corner of the globe.

We're treading on new ground...

Interesting side note ...

PunditMom — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:34:53 -0500

I was on the call, as well. McCain's people followed up with me afterwards -- probably because I got to ask a question, too -- and when I told them I was somewhat dismayed at how Senator McCain had spoken to you and thought it had been rude, I was told that McCain was just trying to be "playful" and humorous!!

Call me crazy, but it didn't seem that way to me!

PunditMom, Contributing Editor, Politics & News

Also at MOMocrats and Huffington Post

You're a better woman than I am!

LawyerMama — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:16:50 -0500

I don't know that I could have been so diplomatic! Your question was a great one.

Lawyer Mama

http://lawyermama.com

http://MOMocrats.com

http://DCMetroMoms.com

"The big, bad wolf liveth..."

rocksinmydryer — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:00:20 -0500

Yes. Well-said.

Shannon @ Rocks In My Dryer
www.rocksinmydryer.net
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Mommy and Family

One of the ugliest stories of the decade

nelle2nelle — Fri, 16 May 2008 12:09:44 -0500

There is precedent to be set here, and in more than one way.

Words alone aren't usually sufficient to warrant charges unless libelous or slanderous.

Yet an adult for heaven's sake - a parent - knowingly bullied an adolescent. Excuse me? Would we be kewl with this if she got in the child's face and screamed indignities at them? Can you say 'restraining order?'

In this case, how could one eliminate the contact, when the threat was in disguise? My gosh, the big bad wolf liveth. How could any parent reasonably interfere and protect their child, when their awareness might have been only on a level of peers are mean to peers?

IMO, this opens the door to looking at law from yet another adult/child perspective. We have to presume greater ability to deal with issues, greater knowledge, greater responsibility to an adult. If it isn't already written under paedophilia laws around the nation, we need to address the adult/child interaction on more than just a sexual level. Should it be ok for an adult to *ever* misrepresent themselves to a minor? I think not.

When it comes to being pragmatic and prescient in writing such law, what an incredibly difficult line to invision, to walk. Something tells me we will be setting precedent in this regard some distance into the future.

nelle