Friday, January 20, 2006

Comment Moderation Enabled

Well, one of the first things that a parent learns is that children change things.

Turns out that there's a homo-loving child out there who takes joy in making specious arguments against the considered wisdom of 5000 years of human civilization, and in name-calling against those who defend the language and traditional values. Goes by the name "Willis." He has posted "Delete this comment!!" and other peurile and sophomoric postings not fewer than three dozen times. I've had to delete more childish Willis postings than spam postings.

Sooooo, from now on, I'll simply moderate the comments before they appear here. And Willis?

Yours go straight into the trash can. Look at the bright side: it's probably the first thing you've ever earned in your life.


Willis said...

good. Moderate this!!

Willis said...

Moderate this!!!

Virginia Centrist said...

This is classic.

Willis said...

Moderate This!!!

Willis said...

Moderate This!!!!

James E. Martin said...

So we are moderating things now....just wondering, is your real name jay seculo or maybe samuel chase....

James Young said...

Well, it's "Jay Sekulow," for one thing.

Privilege of ownership, ND. I know you modern-day Dems have a problem with private property, but it still exists here in the Commonwealth.

James E. Martin said...

Don’t take my position on the issues personally. I've never written anything inappropriate, and i wasn’t complaining.

James Young said...

And BTW, it's my real name. I don't believe in anonymity, or even pseudonymity. If I can't sign my name to it, it's not worth saying.

James E. Martin said...

College Democrat

I was joking :-) It was a comparison; by the way I'm James E. Martin of Arlington, VA. Born in 1988, I attend Bishop O'Connell High School also in Arlington. Next year I plan on attending the University Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, after which I plan on either entering law school or becoming a history teacher.

So everything out in the open.

Willis said...

I never said anything inappropriate either.

If I did, I'm sure lawyer man here would be all over it!!!

Willis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Willis said...

I guess the comment moderation is over already.

Willis said...

In retrospect, and after further reflection, I don't think I can be amicable with you, James.

You are just too insane for that to be an option, I think.

Elle said...

saw you had your own blog and just wanted to use this space to comment on your faulty observation on TC: "It's sad that she's not had the talent or ambition to make better use of the economic opportunities available to her."

what economic opportunities have you assumed were available to her? you know nothing about my mom--where she lives, this job was portrayed as a "better" economic opportunity. how dare you attack her talent or ambition, knowing so little? her "ambition" was to earn enough secondary income to help my father rear the three of us in rural, economically disadvantaged louisiana. her "talent" lies in being an excellent mother, wife, choir member, deaconess, eastern star, seamstress, and just about whatever else she chooses to do outside the paid workplace.

now, knowing who you work for, i'm not surprised at your callous comment--any perdues or pilgrims secretly paying you? but still, i felt compelled to defend my mother. she's reared three children--one a phd student, one a masters student, and one a supervisor at a job he's held for almost two decades--commanded the affection and attention of her husband for almost 40 years, been a supportive and revered member of her church, and been a blessing to us all.

she does not define herself in terms of her paid work--it is unfulfilling, low status, and has caused her some physical wear--but just because she doesn't, please don't imply that she has a lack of talent or ambition. to quote sharon harley, my mom is an example of "when your work is not who you are."

i know willis will think i'm wasting my time, and perhaps i am, but i think it was my duty as a daughter. especially since my younger sister, terser and less patient, is suggesting i type a few more choice words. :-)

as far as my "silly" ideas, you know little about those either james young. i don't mind debating or arguing or whatever, but please attack me on things i say, and not what you assume and imply.

Elle said...

oh, here's an observation of my own:

right to work, indeed. why not right-to-be-exploited? or right-to-keep-this-job-because-this-is-all-you-can-get-and-you'd-better-not-complain?

too conservative said...

What kind of comment was that on CC about fudgepacking?

alittle crude no?

Willis said...

Crude is the least of your worries with Mr. Young, TC.

I'm crude sometimes; I don't have a problem admitting it.

This guy, Young, admits to supporting discrimination where he thinks it is worthwhile. He supports legislation to effectively enforce this discrimination.

He is currently trying to pressure anonymous posters on blogs to reveal their true identities. For what exact purpose, I don't know, but I suspect he is considering physical intimidation, or some surveillance of his own, since he is a lawyer and can probably procure some access.

TC, you have already experienced his off-the-wall hostility at you for not being conservative enough (in his mind). To me, you are far right already, but to him you are almost as liberal as me. Think about how twisted a viewpoint that is.

So anyway, TC, those are some of my thoughts. I'll save this post, and maybe post it over at your blog too for posterity.

too conservative said...


Don't worry about Jim Young.

Willis said...

I don't worry about him, I just don't like him.

James Young said...

Of course, you did, Willis (2:15 a.m. on a Friday night; get a life, kid!). You insulted me (the host) and my family. Act like a jerk, and you get treated as one.

Poor willis! So ignorant and ill-educated that he chooses to DISCRIMINATE against those who have ideas he doesn't like. Oooooh, that evil discrimination. God forbid people and society should make choices about good ideas/behavior and bad/perverse ideas/behavior. FYI: I also "discriminate" against pedophiles, rapists, burglars, and murderers. You support discrimination, too, willis: discrimination against devout Christians and those who respect the considered wisdom of 5000 years of civilized societies on homosexuality. "Discrimination" is a perfectly fine word that has gotten a bad rap, and is now being used in the service of legitimizing perverse sexual behavior.

And BTW, I'm not arguing in favor of "legislative discrimination" against anyone. I'm arguing against enacting special rights for homosexuals, i.e., redefining marriage as something it's never been.

As for "currently trying to pressure anonymous posters on blogs to reveal their true identities," I have LONG taken the position that anonymity is largely cowardly, and that people who don't have the guts to put their names on their posts (apparently, unlike you) should be called on it. Many agree; some don't. And "off the wall hostility"? You're more of a "lunatic" than you accuse me of being. Have I had disagreements with TC? To be sure. Do I occasionally twist his tail? With relish. But hostility? In fact, TC and I had a very cordial introduction at Tom Davis' Christmas party. No blows were exchanged. And please spare me your ridiculous assessments of my views of him. In fact, I think he seems to be a pretty nice kid.

And "crude," willis? Maybe, when it's called for. Humor (it was a reference in CC's caption contest) is sometimes crude. But in the case to which you refer, in reference to a movie about homosexual cowboys (John Wayne must be turning in his grave) and a sexual act popular among male homosexuals, accurate. And a little dose of reality for those who romanticize homosexuals and their "cause."

James Young said...

Well, elle, your attacks on capitalism seemed so close to invoking the "running dogs of capitalist exploitation" that I thought I'd be a little preemptive. After all, it didn't take long for you to assume that my comments were based on who was paying me, rather that independent thought.

As for the "economic opportunities" that I "assumed were available to her," they're the same opportunities available to virtually everyone in America; sounds like her children have made better use of them. You seem to want to blame the "system" for the fact that she's "been slaughtering chickens for over 20 years now and still doesn’t make $10 an hr."; I believe in individual responsibility. God bless her for her other activities. Sounds like she made quite a few good choices. But "callous"? It's not callous to attribute one's position to one's choices; it's patronizing to blame everyone but the one who has made those decisions.

And you were the one who brought her into the discussion, not me. You can't be surprised when people make judgments based on your comments. In a capitalist system, people are paid what they're worth. Maybe that's why you're so defensive.

And you feel free to attack Right to Work all you want. It simply means the Right to Work without paying tribute to a union boss, a position supported by a vast majority of Americans. But your comment is, unsurprisingly, straight out of the union boss lexicon.

And as TC observed, if you don't like it, don't read it. I'm sure it's disturbing to read things so close to the truth, since they poke holes in what appear to be your little socialist fantasies, apparently developed because of the blessings that this Evil Capitalist System has bestowed upon you.

Of course, there's another "crude" observation that I'll clean up a little here: Don't befilth the place in which you eat.

Elle said...

"In a capitalist system, people are paid what they're worth. Maybe that's why you're so defensive?"

another slur? hmm, i could be like you and respond with a comment like "then you must have no income at all," but my talent-less, ambition-less, worth-less-than-$10-an-hr mother reared me better.

so let me just ask, if that's true, then why are some of the most important jobs, e.g. mothering/parenting and other forms of caretaking, largely unremunerated?

let me also ask if you are capable of having a discussion without insulting or belittling anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly endorse and accept every word that springs forth from your keyboard? if not, i suggest we quit wasting each other's time.

James Young said...

That you think it's "another slur" --- or that there was a "slur" in the first case --- tells me a lot about where you are coming from. You can't even recognize praise --- for what you apparently think it's worth, from me --- when you see it.

Act like me? Honey, my income is a matter of public record, given the requirements applying to 501(c)(3)s. And in my extremely limited private practice, my hourly rate is $350.

As for "having a discussion without insulting or belittling anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly endorse and accept every word that springs forth from your keyboard," sure, I have plenty of them. But you might want to read the part in the header about "not suffering fools gladly." When someone who enjoys the fruits of a capitalist system as thoroughly as a doctoral candidate does attacks that system --- and misidentifies slavery as one of its elements --- don't expect a tea and krumpets discussion. Ingrates don't impress me.

James Young said...

And as for suggesting that "we quit wasting each other's time," this is my space. Feel free to absent yourself from it anytime.

Charlie Fugate said...

I would submit to you elle that right to work laws are the ultimate form of political protection. These laws give both employer and employee the right to terminate employment at anytime and for any reason. Yes, they protect both the employer AND the employee. If there's something that the employee disagrees with (behavior, business practices etc), he/she has the right under these laws to terminate employment immediately.

Also, because many people of conscience are able and choose to work, these laws forbid closed shops in Right to Work states. I don't believe that in all cases it is proper for collective bargaining to be in place. Personally, I believe that an individual knows what is best for himself or herself than a union boss.

Charlie Fugate said...

Unless I am misunderstanding these laws (which I am very prone to do).

James Young said...

Charlie, you are overstating the effect of Right to Work laws. All that they do is protect employees from requirements --- negotiated by unions and employers --- requiring that employees join or pay dues to a union as a condition of continued employment. They have no effect on the "employment-at-will" doctrine of the common law.

As for "collective bargaining," the more accurate phrase is "monopoly bargaining," since a labor union is permitted, under federal law, to obtain the monopoly to bargain for a bargaining unit of employees, including those employees who may not want union representation, upon a vote of a majority of those voting in a representation election.

And thank you for giving me the opportunity to bring a little of my professional life to these private ruminations.

Charlie Fugate said...

Thank you for your correction, James and I apologize for interjecting myself into this.

James Young said...

Charlie, no apology is necessary, and certainly, thanks for reading. It was a mistake in labeling only, and the logic of your commments advanced the conversation.

criticallythinking said...

Hey, this is a cool thread.

Elle, in one of your posts, you said:
so let me just ask, if that's true, then why are some of the most important jobs, e.g. mothering/parenting and other forms of caretaking, largely unremunerated?

I could argue that, within the field of those getting paid to do this, the renumeration is not insignificant.

But I'd rather point out that for many, mothering, parenting, and caretaking has a great reward of its own, regardless of any payment for services. Jobs that offer great self-fulfillment often pay less than what they seem to be worth, because if they paid more everybody would be fighting for those jobs.

It is a fallacy to suggest that anybody is paid what their work product is worth. People are paid what their time is worth for the task they wish to perform. And in a "perfect" application of our economic system, each employee would be pretty much guaranteed to be making exactly what they could hope to make for a job -- one penny more, and someone else would take the job from them.

If it seems teachers make too little, it is just that if you paid them as much as, say, engineers, all the engineers would quit their jobs, waste a year in college pretending to be educated in teaching, and then swamp the education field. Heck, many of them do it already once they have saved up enough money, because the work is more rewarding, and they like the summers off.

That despite the fact that it could well be argued that teaching our children is more important.

But if we really paid based on the importance of work output, Barbra Striesand would be singing nightclubs trying to scrape together enough money to live in Culpeper.