Recent Comments

Wednesday Open Thread

Tonight in my International Law seminar we’ll be discussing national security, collective security and humanitarian intervention. Blessed are the Peace makers. To keep the peace there first has to be peace.

143 comments to Wednesday Open Thread

  • Stephanie

    Morning peeps. Just getting ready to pack and head back for Mom’s memorial.

  • Kit

    This is an old story from earlier this year but it is worth revisiting. Omar Amin, a grandfather, was in the children’s section shopping for something to buy for his grandchild. He was soon kicked out when a woman told an employee that she was “uncomfortable with his presences” in the r bookstor

    After reading this story, is it possible, just possible, that in our desire to keep our kids safe from pedophiles we have gone too far and entered the realm of silly.

    • Texacalirose

      Good question, Skip (I wonder what your girl Megan would say about this). B&N should have the right to throw the guy out. And when the guy was asked to leave, he should have been a decent person, should have realized the implications of his presence, & moved to the World History or Computer section to finish his call. What if he was there to buy books for his grandchildren? (the article says he was at B&N to buy books & went to the children’s section because it was quieter there for his phone call). Different scenarios require different, applicable reactions. I go with Mom’s instincts. My Suns tease me about my diligence, but I know they appreciate it more by the day.

      • Tracy,txmom2many

        I’m still trying to figure out where he even had the chance to leave before being “escorted” out. The article only says he was there on the phone and was escorted out, it didn’t say he was asked and refused. The reason given was not that a woman was uncomfortable, the reason was that men are not allowed to be in the children’s section unaccompanied. My husband and father should be able to buy my children books without me as chaperone.

        I hate that my son cannot baby sit outside our home because most people are scared to death of a 16 yo homeschool boy who, by the way, can change diapers faster than I can, because of the “men are predators” meme that lives. I hate that my dad, who loves small children, is not allowed to serve in the 1 year old room at church because men are not allowed to change diapers. Period. Ever. My daddy laughs about it and serves in the 3 year old room with a great attitude and understanding. He is reacting like a gentleman and not complaining or punishing by not serving. It still bothers *me*.

        We (society) bitch and whine that men are not taking any active role in children’s lives but if they try, we tell them they are predators that must be watched at every turn. It’s not right and the children are getting the short end of the stick.

        • Kit

          “We (society) bitch and whine that men are not taking any active role in children’s lives but if they try, we tell them they are predators that must be watched at every turn. It’s not right and the children are getting the short end of the stick.”

          Men are in an ultimate Catch-22. If they try to be adults then they treated as pedophiles, if they don’t they are attacked as slouches.

        • OK… I do love the “I can’t change diapers” meme at church. :-)

        • Anonymous

          The article doesn’t state whether he was given the opportunity to leave before being “escorted out ‘firmly.'”

          Does it make a difference? Do you think Amin was escorted out firmly without having been given the opportunity to leave on his own? Or do you think Amin refused to leave after being told he couldn’t stay in the children’s section and was therefore, escorted out “firmly”? The articel doesn’t say. Would it have been OK with Amin if he was allowed to leave on his own after being told he can’t stay? Based on Amin’s statement, his only complaint was this:

          “I did not break any rules,” Amin told Fox News. “If that is Barnes & Noble’s policy, they should put up a sign saying men are not allowed beyond this point unless they are with children.”

          Based on what you and Floyd have said about the rigidty of your churches’ policies regarding male nursery attendants, it sounds as if there is a big civil lawsuit just waiting to be filed. Have either of you asked your church leaders why men are discriminated against at your churches, or do you just assume that your churches are ignorant of the facts surrounding men and blindly subscribe to the “men are predators” meme? Have either of you attempted to change the policy by providing counter evidence, statistics, etc.? I commend your father for his empathy and grace.

          • Texacalirose

            I really had my info input!! The web site ate it, promise!

          • Tracy,txmom2many

            Yes I have approached the church about their policies. They fall back on the fact that at least the men can never be falsely accused and they are keeping them above reproach, which is true. In other words, there’s no way round it, so deal. And we do. I just don’t like it.

      • Kit


        It was not because of the cell phone. He was told “‘You cannot stay. This is not an area where men are allowed to be by themselves.’”

        And what does MEGAN have to do with this?!

        • Texacalirose

          First, I referred to Megan because I thought it was you who once said you had a crush on her – correct me if I’m wrong – so I thought I would bring her into the discussion, facetiously, because she is known to have a seat at such discussions at Fox. Did this offend you?

          Second, I’m not sure of our point counter to mine. My point is that he should have left to children’s area. That he was on his cell phone indicates to me that even though the article said he had been shopping for books for his grandchildren, he was asked to leave because according to his own statment, “… he got a call on his cellphone, and he took it in the children’s reading area because it was empty and he didn’t want to disturb other customers, he said …” So, apparently he had not been in the children’s section shopping for books for his grandchioldren but rather moved to it to take a phone call. none of us know all the details. However, he did something that the woman thought warranted her report.

          Seems most, if not all, of Threedonia are assuming that the woman was hysterical, acting on a hair trigger without any reason or life experience; that the man was unjustly victimized. All we really know is that he was there and she was there. Was there any other behavior that caused the woman to react the way she did? (Maybe it was just her time of the month, afterall, hhmmm? Y’all know how we can get!). As for me, I stand by my God given instincts and sense and life experience and am not willing to condemn the woman for acting.

          And the clerk? Is it being assumed that he/she holds the “men are predators” meme or he/she intentionally sought to violate Amin’s civil rights? Or is it possible that Amin’s actions also gave him/her justification to act as he/she did?

          We (society) bitch and whine that men are not taking any active role in children’s lives but if they try, we tell them they are predators that must be watched at every turn. It’s not right and the children are getting the short end of the stick.

          (I’m really lovin’ the “blockquote,” ain’t I?)

          Tracy, this is quite the extrapolation. Maybe the radical feminist women’s libbers bitch and whine about men and their unevolved roles in their children’s lives, etc., but the traditional role of fathers as coach, mentor, desciplinarian, teacher, role model, bread winner, etc. does not include advocating for 16 year old boys to babysit or for men to change diapers in the church nursery. I fail to see your point.

          • Tracy,txmom2many

            That’s extrapolating but 12-15 Bronies isn’t? And you’re assuming Amin did do something, so why aren’t our assumptions fair?

            Men not being allowed in areas where there are children or having their activities limited just because they are men, which is what he was told, it the topic. My comment was about how my family personally is effected by those things. I know I’m not fully understanding your point here either, as I’ve read it several times and it still doesn’t make sense to me.

          • Kit

            Oh, Megan Kelly, I thought you were referring to someone else.

            For some reason.

    • Yes Kit, there is diligence and then there is this lunacy. By all means let’s slander men to calm the fears if others based on no evidence other than his sex.

      There is a very real problem of course, but it’s way overstated by the media and that woman could have monitored the man.

      This men can’t hang out in certain parts of the store is bullshit and could be a violation of law. Now if we can return to no wimmins saloons I might alter my views. :-)

      • Texacalirose

        So, Floyd, if a chapter of Bromies, say 12-15 of them, decide to hang out in the B&N children’s section & spend their time browsing books, sitting on the cushions together discussing Encyclopedia Brown’s latest adventures or Barbie’s newest babysitting job, and purchase a book or two now and then in the same quantities as the children do, that’s OK with you? They don’t talk to or touch the kiddies, but they meet your criterion for inclusion: they are just men.

        B&N receive complaints from moms & grannies (I’m first in the complaint line); the Bromy dudes refuse to leave, citing their civil rights to wear lipstick and fuzzy manes wherever they damn well please; their lawyers talk to B&N’s lawyers; the Bromies are allowed to stay; the kiddos are driven out; the children’s section is closed; and society loses another one. (but the PC beast is fed)

        I support the “He Man Women Haters” saloons, too, and even its right to allow a feller to have a cocktail and a smoke if he damn well pleases.

        • David Marcoe

          That’s the problem, isn’t it? What if I’m not cognizant of the effect my actions are having? With every mother and grandmother on a hair trigger, I’m screwed. Yes, your duty as a mother is to guard your children, but we all have a duty to our fellow man to be just.

          • Texacalirose

            What problem? As I said above, Marcoe, the man should have reacted properly once his effect was made known to him. It’s called “empathy.” Being cognizant of ones effect and presence on others is part of the social contract. Does a “looky-loo” have the right to stand around the crime scene and gawk? Yes, as long as he doesn’t interfere with the investigation or the rescue. Is it better for everyone involved if the “looky-loos” leave the area and put their curiosity aside? Yes.

            Mother and grandmother on a “hair trigger” screws you? Perhaps you (and I mean the universal “you”) need to reevaluate what it is you might be doing to scare the children.

            Yes, your duty as a mother is to guard your children, but we all have a duty to our fellow man to be just.

            (P.S. Thanks again for the “blockquote” tutorial)

            What is justice for our fellow man? What injustice has the nice man in the bookstore suffered? I’m sick up to my ears of the whiny “social justice’ meme that would have me lay down my innate, human virtue called “discrimination,” a tool of survival, in order to allow any huckster, pervert, lowlife to have access to me and my surroundings.

            One night a few years ago, I was at my suburban grocery store loading my bags in my car. It was about 9:00 p.m., dark. Out of the corner of my “hair trigger” eye, I saw a man walking toward me from across the parking lot. I knew he was heading right at me & thought he was going to take my cart. I turned and said, “Here you go,” & pushed the cart toward him. In that instant, I realized that he was a lowlife, panhandling bum. He started in with the beggar’s spiel; I pushed the cart gently into his mass (in order to keep him away from me) and told him to get the f%k away from me. He was incredulous. He scolded me, “Hey, you need to be nice.” I told him to get the f&k away from me, again. He took my cart and walked away, all the while giving me the “hard” look. Well, he was stunned that a nice, middle aged woman in the nice SUV in the nice liberal suburb would be so heartless to a nice protected member of the “homeless” class. To him it was my duty to be compassionate, to allow a complete smelly, bedraggled stranger approach me in a dark parking lot without reacting so savagely. I should have asked him how his day was going, open my purse, and give him five bucks, right?

            I was damned if I was going to work in beautiful San Francisco amongst his ilk all night and then come home to find that I couldn’t even go buy some ground beef and eggs without having being harassed by a dreg. I saw him around the store for a few more days, hanging on the curb, looking for an opportunity (as long as it wasn’t gainful employment). He finally disappeared. I surmise that the good liberals didn’t like him in their nice suburb either.

            Did he have the right to be in my parking lot? Did he have the right to approach me? Did he have the social responsibility to “read’ what effect his presence might have on a lone woman in a dark parking lot? What kind of decent, conscious man doesn’t know how to act?

            I’m sick of this: “Huh? What did I do? I didn’t do anything. I was just standing here” crap.

            of “homeless and ee

            • Tracy,txmom2many

              “Mother and grandmother on a “hair trigger” screws you? Perhaps you (and I mean the universal “you”) need to reevaluate what it is you might be doing to scare the children.”

              Again, a lot of men don’t even get the chance to scare children because the women in their lives won’t let an unaccompanied man within 15 ft of them. What they are doing to scare them is being male. My daddy didn’t scare anyone. He was told from the outset, you are a potential predator who must be contained. The people who actually get to know him love that he is with their children.

              A homeless man approaching you in a parking lot at 9pm is very different from what was described in the story. I agree he should have left when asked, but I see no indication he was given the chance to leave before being escorted.

              • Daniel Crandall

                “He was told from the outset, you are a potential predator who must be contained.”

                The Islamo-fascists didn’t win. The Left-wing, Communist inspired, Politically Correct Thought Police did. There used to be a day in America where a man, was seen as a potential defender and ally of the weak, the less powerful, women and children.

                Now he’s “a potential predator” until proven otherwise. In other words: GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT!

                This is so messed up, I’m having a hard time containing my outrage. And that I’m seeing some here at Threedonia, whom I’ve taken to be generally reasonable on other issues, going along with it disgusts me.

              • Kit

                “A homeless man approaching you in a parking lot at 9pm is very different from what was described in the story. I agree he should have left when asked, but I see no indication he was given the chance to leave before being escorted.”


              • Daniel Crandall

                I have to share this, because I think it appropriate concerning the homeless guy at night. It is something that condemns me as much as everyone else who thinks that guy is just a piece of refuse who should be shunned.

                “…We need prophetic witnesses. We need people who in their way of life challenge the prevailing false ideologies bearing upon the production, distribution, and use of material goods. We need lived prophecy.

                “Let me be concrete. The best paid fifth of American white workers earn five or six times more than the worst paid fifth. Those who offer pat solutions to complex problems would probably call
                on Congress (or Parliament) to make laws to force greater equity in the distribution of the fruits of production. If a legislative body were to try to establish equity by law, it would have a revolution on its hands. The basic presuppositions of the population must change first. Ideological structures undergird and support laws and other structures.

                “We therefore need pilgrim witnesses. We need joyous, loving men and women to show in their lives that one can live a sparing-sharing lifestyle and still be happy and fulfilled. We need to induce conversion into the masses first by example, then by word—really, by both simultaneously.”

                —Fr. Thomas Dubay

                From his book “Happy Are You Poor” –

              • Texacalirose

                Of course the bum in the parking lot is different from the man in the bookstore.

                My point in telling that story was to illustrate the human survival instinct.

                I have picked up too many pieces of the victims whose only flaw was to trust a huckster, a predator because it was the compassionate thing to do. Too many of my former “clients” chose to ignore common sense, instinct, whatever you want to call it, because he/she didn’t want to seem uncaring, uncompassionate, racist, sexist, ageist, you name it & ended up dead or worse. PC gone wild.

                And if anyone thinks that I think that there are no women who are hucksters, predators, evil beings, then that person doesn’t know me and hasn’t seen what I’ve seen or arrested whom I’ve arrested.

        • 12- 15 men is different than one 73 year old grandfather isn’t it? Context. A flat prohibition on men is both wrong and insulting. I already put up with that shit at church.

          How many women abuse children? a LOT more than men. How many sexually abuse kids? We don’t know because no one studies that assuming men only commit sex crimes.

          • Texacalirose

            How do you discern the difference between the individual rights of 12-15 vs. one? So, what about 5-6 Bromies? Is that the magic number?

            (Sounds like you need to change churches. “Shit” in church is not a good thing).

          • Texacalirose

            And further more … “context” you say? The B&N children’s reading section is the specific context.

            How many women abuse children? a LOT more than men. How many sexually abuse kids? We don’t know because no one studies that assuming men only commit sex crimes.

            (I’m really diggin’ the “blockquote’ thingey. Thx again, Marcoe)

            “A LOT” is really a bunch!! Do you have the stats on percentage of abuse in relation to duration of time each sex spends with children? Do you have any studies that explain why “we” assume men only (did you mean to say “only men”?) commit sex crimes? Can you support your assertion that “no one studies [women who sexually abuse children]”? And last question: You’re not married to a Marine are you? Oh, one last question: Are your assumptions based on fact or woman’s intuition?

            [obligatory smiley face goes here]

            • Kit

              ” The B&N children’s reading section is the specific context.”

              A friend of mine just had a baby girl. I have another friend who has a daughter of toddler age. If I want to go into the B&N children’s section to buy a book then I have to call my Mom and ask her to chaperone me like I’m some 8-year old kid?

              Or let’s say there is a charity drive. A “Books for Tots” sort of thing at my local church or college where we buy children’s books to donate to underprivileged kids, if you will.
              In order for me to buy a book at a children’s store then I must enter it with my Mom or some woman as a chaperone???

              REALLY?!?!?! Is that what you are saying? That all men, no matter how grown, should be treated like parolees? Because that is EXACTLY what it sounds like!


              “Sounds like you need to change churches. ”

              Why should she? You seem to be of that opinion that men are an existential threat to the safety of young children.

              • That’s what occurred to me. I’m single and middle-aged, but I have nieces and nephews who are starting to have kids. Should I be barred from the kids section of B&N, or, say, Toys ‘R Us?

              • Texacalirose

                My statement regarding changing churches was to Floyd, not Tracy, in response to his statement:

                I already put up with that shit at church.</blockquote?

                You have quoted me out of context, also. This is what I actually said:

                (Sounds like you need to change churches. “Shit” in church is not a good thing).

                And BTW, contrary to your assertion, I never said, nor do I believe, that “men are an existential threat to the safety of young children.” Alas, I have no control over how you hear what I say, your opinion, or your ad hominem insults.

                I am 100% certain that I have not accused any man in Threedonia of the things you contend I have said.

            • -fritz-

              I’ve got a blockquote for ya!

        • Tracy,txmom2many

          So a man dressed as a pony *might* invite his friends to take over the children’s section so my son can’t buy a book for his sister without a chaperone? There’s a long way between those 2 scenarios.

          BN has the right to ask him, and anyone else, to leave. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with a blanket rule that doesn’t allow men into the children’s section. That’s taking an elephant gun to an ant.

          • Texacalirose

            Obviously there is a difference between a group of Bronies and your son being in the children’s section of B&N. See my other responses re: discretion of the rules.

            I am confident that B&N would have a problem with a group of Bronies in their children’s section; I don’t agree that your unaccompanied son would be asked to leave the children’s section of B&N.

            Amin and his associated circumstances as reported in the article do not fit either scenario.

            Reasonable people can understand and agree. I agree that B&N has the right to ask anyone to leave their store.

        • JimmyC

          Tex, I think we can all take a lesson from Batman in how to deal with bronies:

          • Texacalirose

            JayCee! I just now was able to watch the video. You have provided the comment of the day, the week! Batman knows!!

            SOmeday I’ll tell you about the time I took my older Sun to see a My Litle Pony movie matinee in San Francsico when he was 3 years old. He and I and a single, unaccompanied 50 year old man were the only ones in the theater. Man hater that I am, I reported the gentleman to the ushers. I just told them that it would probably be prudent to keep an eye on him. They were young dudes but they “got it.” It’s a momma grizzly thing, I guess.

        • Kit

          “So, Floyd, if a chapter of Bromies, say 12-15 of them, decide to hang out in the B&N children’s section & spend their time browsing books, sitting on the cushions together discussing Encyclopedia Brown’s latest adventures or Barbie’s newest babysitting job, and purchase a book or two now and then in the same quantities as the children do, that’s OK with you? They don’t talk to or touch the kiddies, but they meet your criterion for inclusion: they are just men.”

          “that’s OK with you?”
          It depends, how long do they stay in the children’s section? If a group that large remains in that area for that long a time and treat it as a meeting without previously asking (which is what usually happens in such cases) then they should be told to leave. They are being a disruption. If they go there, buy their books, and leave, then now.

          First, if this is a group meeting that is going to last a while then they typically have to tell the staff ahead of time.

          • Kit

            If the group has taken over the place then they ARE BEING A DISRUPTION.

            I don’t see how a solitary 70-yr old man talking on his phone in an EMPTRY children’s section is being a major disruption. In fact, he remained in the children’s section because it was Empty so he wouldn’t disrupt the other customers.

            • Texacalirose

              I didn’t say the Bromies “took over” the place. I said they act exactly like a group of children who patronize the children’s section do. Both groups act the same. Is that OK then?

              • Kit

                Good point. But a group of Bronies is a different thing from a single man in an empty children’s section talking on his phone.

                • Texacalirose

                  Obviously it’s different. The question is, how does B&N handle each situation? How does B&N articulate its actions? On what grounds is one allowed to stay and the other forced to leave?

                  Answer me these.

      • Texacalirose

        Who’s slandering men? Are you drawing that conclusion from Kit’s article? That’s quite a leap. Is it that the clerk discriminated against a specific single man during a specific single incident? (I suspect he/she was not well trained at $5.60 an hour and could have handled the situation better and could have gotten Amin out of the children’s section without incident).

        My conclusion is that B&N should be allowed to remove from their premises anyone they deem to be suspicious.

        • Tracy,txmom2many

          Removing anyone they deem to be suspicious is very different than a blanket ruling that men cannot enter areas of a store. I agree on the first. If the only suspicious thing he did was have a penis then they are wrong.

    • Daniel Crandall

      “He said, ‘You cannot stay. This is not an area where men are allowed to be by themselves.’ ”

      In Islamo-fascist countries women can’t go out in public unescorted. In America, it’s the men who are required to be escorted in public places.

      Great googily moogily, what is the world devolving into?!?

      • In America the answer is clear… repeal the 19th Amendment. 😉

      • Texacalirose

        The clerk seems to have not handled the situation very well. He should have been better trained at $5.60 an hour. What B&N needs, just like every business in our country, is more regulations, more signs, more sensitivity training.

        Brave and bold is the nice man who stood his ground in the section of the store that is clearly intended for children. Common sense and simple decency has been repealed.

        • Tracy,txmom2many

          B&N already did the too many regulations and more signs by not allowing men in the children’s section. The sensible thing to do would be to have a case by case ruling instead of a blanket rule that starts with the idea that no man on earth could possibly have a reason other than pedophilia to be in the children’s section.

          • Texacalirose

            The fact that Amin was asked to leave only after the clerk received a complaint indicates to me that it is not a blanket policy that solo men unaccompanied by children are not allowed in the childrens’s section.

            The article is ambiguous in this way: Amin said he was in the book store to buy books for his grandchildren. However, he wasn’t in the children’s section until he got the phone call. Then he went to the children’s section not to look at books for his grandchildren, but rather because he didn’t want to disturb the other customers:

            Then he got a call on his cellphone, and he took it in the children’s reading area because it was empty and he didn’t want to disturb other customers, he said …

            (I grow more suspicious by the minute)

            I conclude that the clerk acted on a “case by case” basis, specifically upon a customer complaint. That he/she stated that the store had a “no men allowed” policy was likely the fall back response his/her $8.20 an hour supervisor taught him/her to invoke in such situations. Of course there is no sign prohibiting unaccompanied men from being in teh children’s section; the “policy” is only invoked as necessary. B&N has the right to do so.

            It is unreasonable to think that unaccompanied Dad or Granddad or Uncle would be thrown out of the children’s section if they exhibited those behaviors that a reasonable person would discern to be those of shopping for children’s books. Is there any evidence in the article otherwise?

            • Tracy,txmom2many

              Sorry, was going by the clerks word that B and N had the policy. If the kid made it up….well, he was wrong but there’s no law against that either. The only evidence is that a grandfather was kicked out and the men in my life have experienced discrimination. Other than that, you are right; BN has the right to deal with their customers in the way they see fit. No one was harmed in the case, it’s a dumb ass thing that happened to someone I don’t know, so I’m done arguing about it

              • Texacalirose

                Hey, Tracy, thanks for the chat. It’s good for our souls and our brains to flesh these issues out. I truly enjoy the challenge and am disappointed when discussions devolve into catty repartee. All the gals today done good: point & counterpoint (some of the fellers, not so much – I think someone’s head exploded, actually).

                Let’s do it again real soon! We don’t have to agree; we only have to pay taxes. *o^

                • Tracy,txmom2many

                  Good night friend! If nothing else, it distracted me from teaching phonics….I hate teaching phonics. Tomorrow lets discuss religion 😉

                  • Texacalirose

                    I still owe you one on the “Outlander” sex vs. pron. We’ll have a time when Mrs. M.D. and NJF are present. We’ll sort that one out, too! Nite!

      • David Marcoe

        I think Daniel and Kit have pretty exposited what I meant by justice. I didn’t think my statement was that opaque, ladies.

        • Tracy,txmom2many

          Ladies? You know I’m on your side right?

        • David Marcoe

          Sorry, didn’t have time to read through the whole discussion, so I skimmed and I think I mixed things up.

        • Texacalirose

          Marcoe, see my responses to others.

          Also, it is being assumed here that the woman and/or women have hairtrigger reactions to unfounded beliefs. I strongly advocate for discernment and good judgment. And nothing in the article has convinced me that the woman didn’t use good judgment based on the information she had at the time. I think the clerk could have handled the situation better,as I’ve stated above ad naseum

      • Texacalirose

        DC, see my response to Floyd above re: the clerk’s mishandling of the situation. Comparing it to Islamo-fascist countries’ policy on women, however, is extreme.

        Another commenter here compared the Tea Party to the Taliban, also extreme.

    • Texacalirose

      Sorry, Kit. I typed “Skip” in error. I knew it was you who loves Megan.

    • Mrs.Make.Do

      I’m a bit afraid to jump into this conversation, but I do have a couple of questions. Please don’t anyone dump on me, I don’t have any answers here – it’s a little bit devil’s advocate-ish, and just a plain genuine interest in your opinions. (So far I’ve seen valid points on both sides.)

      Aren’t children supposed to be supervised in this store? So if a parent/relative/trusted adult is supervising his/her young charges, does it really matter if there is another adult there without a child?

      Also, since when is the Children’s section the quietest part of the store? Our B&N used to have a train table where toddlers flocked at all times of day. You wanted quiet you headed for the history section.

      Our previous public library had a rule about “no adults w/o kids” in the kids’ area. It wasn’t specific to men. I broke the rule all the time since I often stopped at the library in the evenings w/o my children, but wanted to get books for them. No one ever called me on it, ever. Perhaps because the librarians recognized me. But then again, I wasn’t sitting at the study desk in the corner leering at anyone from behind the stacks, or sleeping on the beanbag chairs. I was perusing the collection and usually carrying an armload of books.

      • Tracy,txmom2many

        Yeah, that “no adults w/o kids” thing would be impossible for me, or for any of my teacher friends who happen to need library materials. I like taking my kids to the library, but if we need 3 books on castles and movie to watch for family night and I’ve only got 20 minutes, there’s no way on earth I’m loading my hellions, er, children up and taking them.

        So far I’ve thought the conversation has gone pretty well and haven’t seen anyone dump on anyone, but then I’m in the majority ;). It’s easy to be nice if everyone agrees with you. Ha! But I’m open to the possibility I have been less kind than I meant to be. Was it something I said?

        • Mrs.Make.Do

          Nobody’s dumping on anyone much so far – it just seems like one of those conversations where it *could* happen, and with my luck I’d step in just as the truck driver opened the gate and turned on those hydraulics.

      • Tink in Cali

        Ah yes, the old “properly supervised children can’t cause trouble or be harmed (usually)” school of thought. Now, don’t go saying people need to be responsible for their own children, that is the government’s job. :/

        I would say, there is a difference between conducting business and loitering, whether you are a busy parent or a Brony, or anyone else. But it is still a (mostly) free country and people will loiter sometimes. And there is also a marked difference between someone who is hanging out talking/waiting/whatever and someone who is spying on others or leering. I think the patron who complained was a nervous nelly. If they were uncomfortable that he was in an empty area on his cell phone, they should have left – not had him forced from the store.

        • Mrs.Make.Do

          I have such a hard time with the supervision thing. How on earth are kids supposed to learn to be independent if you’re hovering over them all the time? Does it tell them they’re dumb or can’t be trusted? And yet, the world is not a safe place and kids do need protection. Heck, even as an adult I sometimes would do better with a Texicali around to tell the creepies to get lost. I’m entirely to friendly and trusting, even when my inner voice says “run for it.”
          I’m grateful to have a mother who prays for me.

          • Tink in Cali

            Yes, I know. It is a line that can be hard to find these days. And then you see kids not supervised at all, ever, and usually there is not a problem (that we know of, anyway). This parenting business is always tricky in one way or another. Who knew? :)

          • Mrs.Make.Do

            I am hating that I left out an o in too.
            Good thing I have kids to remind me there are more important things to do like PLEASE FEED US, MOM.

            Scalloped potatoes and ham tonight. Mmmm.

          • Tracy,txmom2many

            I struggle with that too. I keep going back to something I heard from Henry Cloud and John Townsend (of Boundaries fame) say on the radio. They said that in their experience, it’s not so much what happens to a child, but what happens after that makes it life altering. In other words, I can’t protect my kiddos from everything, but how I react to the things the world throws at them will make a huge difference. That’s moderately reassuring. I wonder if ripping the heart out of the offender is something that would be a positive or a negative? I should probably check that.

          • Texacalirose

            Mrs.M.D. You’ve made my point. PC and the ACLU are decimating our ability to survive. Our society is becoming one that wants no citizen to have a gun but to depend upon the police, the government, the State to protect us. Our society is becoming one that wants the State to make our thoughts illegal.

            Gone are the days when the men in the neighborhood would protect the corner where their children played by ensuring the ganga-bangas knew the hierarchy. Now, the single moms whose “husbands’ are the State welfare check, call the police to get the ganga-bangas off the corner, but the police can’t discriminate against the ganga-bangas ‘cuz the ganga-bangas are just standing on the corner like grandma waiting for the bus. Everybody on the corner, everybody in the houses, everybody in the town, and even the police know the ganga-bangas aren’t waiting for the bus. Everybody knows they’re dealing drugs and doing mischief, but the men cannot do anything about it anymore. And the police can’t do anything about it anymore.

            Be careful out there. And I’m glad you have a mom who prays for you, too.

        • Texacalirose

          Uh oh. I’ve been misspelling “Brony” all day and night.

      • Texacalirose

        Hey. Mrs.M.D.!! Come on in!! The water’s fine!

        Your point about unsupervised children is valid. They should not be unsupervised in B&N, even in the children’s section. But even so, I still do not want my children exposed to [fill in the blank] even though I know [blank] will not have physical access to them. In this case, I err on the side of the woman for the following:

        1. The woman believed Amin was “out of place.”
        2. The clerk believed Amin was “out of place.”
        3. Amin’s story has holes. I don’t beleive he is a predator. That was proven after the fact. However, he was probably a boor, at least. An unempathetic boor. (And your comment re: the quietness of a children’s reading section has merit).
        4. B&N has the right to ask him to leave the children’s section.

        Your library story underscores a point I made above. Rules, like many laws, are written to be enforced as necessary. That’s why police officers and librarians and store clerks have or should have discretion to use good judgment, to invoke rules as necessary, but not arbitrarily. In the ase of B&N, having lots of dads & grandads & uncles buying books for the kiddies is good business.

        Reasonable people will agree.

    • Dr. Schplatt

      So, what was wrong with the clerk saying, “sir, a customer complained, would you mind finishing your phone call in a different section of the store? Sorry for the inconvenience, thank you.”

      Why did this “no men” crap even have to be mentioned? Why wasn’t the manager the one to remove the man from the store? Why was the man removed from the store in the first place? I worked in retail for several years and worked for Borders before they went under, an associate would never be the one responsible for removing a customer from the store for this very reason. A manager is trained on how it’s supposed to happen and shouldn’t say something stupid and sexist.

      • Texacalirose

        Ta da!! A clear voice of resaon there, Doc!! Back to my point about the $5.60 an hour clerk and the $8.80 an hour supervisor being improperly trained to deal with people.

    • Matt Helm

      I go into the children’s book section often to buy books for my class. At times, the mothers’ looks can make you feel self-conscious as if you were going into the adult section at a video store. That does remind me of the tricks we used to pull on each other in college. We book illustrators would go to the bookstore near school to look at children’s book illustrators’ work. A couple of us would walk away leaving one of our friends by himself, and hide in the next row of shelves. When some mothers would come along nearby him, we’d loudly say, “Get security, that pedophile is back in the kids’ book section!”

  • Texacalirose

    To keep the peace there first has to be peace.

    And as I’ve said before, to become disenfranchised, one must first be enfranchised.

    (I’m testing my “blockquotes”)

    • Daniel Crandall

      Oh, please, Oh, please, Oh, please, Oh, please, let there be an impeachment – the idiots that make up the majority of voters in this country deserve President ‘Slow-Joe’ Biden!

      • Yes – we’d be trading corruption for incompetence.

        • Daniel Crandall

          At least there’s the possibility that stupid can be corrected.

        • Stephanie

          Are you sure already don’t have incompetence? Petreaus is going to testify to a closed door hearing of the House and Senate. I can guarentee that he is striking back at this if Kraut is correct. Oh the political theater.
          If this goes and we discover Obama knew and told the troops to stand down and allowed Stevens etc to be murdered….Rice will not be SOS, Obama will most likely lose the trust of the Senate democrats…DiFei is pissed because she’s been left out of the loop. If they can indicate that little elf Valerie Jarrett knew and added her input, she’s out. But we have to see it play out. I pray it works. Biden can be a care taker till we get grown ups in. But this could end Chicago’s corrupt machine… we need to pray for that.

      • The senate would have to convict, which will never happen with this senate.

  • JimmyC

    Those of you who keep saying that we should just let the country go over a fiscal cliff, because then everyone will see that liberal policies don’t work, newsflash: it’s not going to happen. Oh, the fiscal cliff will happen, but no matter what, the GOP will still take the blame.

  • -fritz-

    Regarding the UN pic…Since the world, at large, seems intent on stopping smoking (Please refer to Loyal Goatherd for more info on this topic) The problem seems that there just isn’t enough, or any, smoking the old peacepipe anymore. If you are thinking “Hippies” and the smoking they did, I say “Nay, nay!” I’m thinking more along the lines of the American Indian. They would smoke the peacepipe and make a treaty. If that treaty was not lived up to by one of the parties, the others would go out and “make” some peace by kicking some ass! The wimpyness of the socialist world in general, has made war obsolete, at least a righteous war against the forces of evil. We don’t dare have a righteous war anymore because it is perceived to be for illicit gain of some sort or another, like Iraqi oil, or some such. Sometimes to be a peacekeeper one needs to stomp on the bullies of the world and say, “Here’s the line in the sand…cross it and we’ll MOAB your butt!”

    • Dr. Schplatt

      I struggle with the smoking issue. I personally can’t stand people who smoke and find it incredibly selfish that a smoker feels like they have the right to ruin my meal, or baseball game, or out door concert, etc by blowing their crap all over me. I also find it selfish that a smoker thinks they have the right to medically harm my wife through her asthma when they blow their crap in her face. So, on one side I’m perfectly happy with Taipei’s law banning smoking from inside public gatherings like restaurants, movie theaters etc.

      On the other hand, it bothers me that someone can’t open a smoker’s bar or restaurant if that’s what they want to do. If it’s a smoker’s place, I will choose not to go there and I’m happy.

      • -fritz-

        Not meaning to rain on your parade, Doc, but my comment really had nought to do with smoking, but was simply an intro into my thoughts about peacekeeping by the UN and/or individual countries. :-)

        I do, however agree that a lot of smokers are very insensitive to the wishes and needs of others. If one can’t hold their craving for tabacky for a couple of hours, they are indeed, very selfish.

      • Loyal Goatherd

        Now, I struggle with the smoking issue! I took yesterday off, smoked 8 cigarettes in 15 hours, a new personal best. Today, the great power that employs me demanded that I show up to a meeting, so I could avail myself of a three dollar bag of useless trinkettes and walk among tables of services offered and be allowed to have a tropical smoothie on my employer’s dime. Well, it was 38F this AM, I wasn’t thinking tropical smoothie thoughts. I really didn’t need a set of Employer emblazoned golf tees nor ice scrapper, nor did I desire a soccer ball key chain. What I needed was time to do the work routed in the timeframes in which it was routed. I was compelled to complete 3 trouble calls and arrive at a unwired install by noon. Every call was in a large rural area and I had 25 to 35 minutes of windshield time between calls. My employer is really good at math when it suits their purposes, but is more than willing to ignore what does not. So 4 hours -30 minutes average drive time, times 4 driving periods leaves 2 hours to do the work. Subtract the 30 extra minutes for the “Benefits meeting” and that leaves 1 and a half hours to complete 3 hours work. “Be sure to do a thorough job on each and don’t be late to any job.” This they refer to as a “competing demand”, I call it self-contradictory idiocy. No need to go on, but my day sure did. I’m having lunch now at 7:15 PM. Shall I remind any that today was “The Great American Smoke-out”? The 8 that I smoked all day yesterday, got me to 10:30 this morning. Thanks Employer!

        Dr.Schplatt, everything you refer to can be described as manners. I as a (quitting) smoker desire to not damage your enjoyment of all the events you have described. I don’t even remember when smoking was allowed in movie theatres. And smoking in restaurants is long since been taken from us. Most smokers do not wish to blow their crap all over you or in your beloved’s face. We do however feel that we have given more than our half in this regard. If we wish to smoke, some reasonable accomodation must be allowed. I have been told that it is unacceptable for me to smoke in their parking lot. I have been told that I may not smoke in my vehicle in their parking lot, unless and I quote “No smoke may leave the vehicle”. Someone can leave their vehicle running, spewing more pollutants than I will all year, but I must arrange an airlock on my vehicle to smoke on their property!

        People, and we can draw -fritz-‘s line here and also drag in the men are predators crap from above, need to exercise civility. If someone smoking (talking on the cell phone, or panhandling, or leering at children or changing diapers while male) is discourteous to those around them, then those around them effected must politely ask for mannered behavior from the rude. The first stop is the offender, not congress, not the president, not the police nor judges, nor the store owner nor employee. A polite society (used to be armed) can still be had (but it’s easier with guns backing the demands).

        • -fritz-

          Well put LGH! As a former smoker, still on occasion, I have never lit up in the presence of anyone without checking for their OK first…even back in the dark ages of 4 years ago in Vegas when smoking in designated restaurant areas still existed. Things in Vegas are still a lot different than the rest of the country, with most casinos being open to smoking, as well as bar & grill type venues within certain parameters. People today are, as a rule, not very civilized in their interactions in a public area. I’ve seen people shoving others out of the way to get to items on grocery shelves, and to get a place in checkout lines. In that regard, it’s probably best that everyone here doesn’t follow the “open carry” firearm law. Yes, we do have “open carry” of a lawfully registered pistol. Hey…it’s the wild west! :-) My weapon of choice in a public venue has always been the baseball bat. I leaves more of an impression on the one needing an attitude adjustment! :-)

        • Texacalirose

          Well said, LG. See my response to Mrs.M.D. above re: our society devolving into a bundle of people who can no longer set or enforce their community standards. Call the police. That’s their solution. We are becoming a society of “you can’t look at me that way, you can’t say that to me, you can’t make me move, I know my rights” responses to calls for common decency, common sense, basic respect for others. The legislature, the police, the State have been given the authority to be the dad. And when Dad shows up, the PMS-ing ACLU is there to tell him, “You can’t do that!!”

        • Dr. Schplatt

          By struggle I mean that I agree with you for the most part. I’m ok with people choosing to smoke. It bothers me at a freedom level that smoking is not legal, but on the other side of the coin, I’m very happy I don’t have to deal with it.

          My opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. I live in Asia where everyone and their freaking mother smokes and are jackasses about it. It isn’t as big a deal in the States where people are a bit nicer about it.

          I guess I equate smoking to a noise ordinance.

        • Matt Helm

          The sad thing is that a lot of smokers don’t care. I agree on being able to have bars and restaurants that smokers can go to, and not outlawing it. The thing I disagree with is people thinking that because they’re outside that their smoke won’t bother anyone. I hate being behind a smoker in traffic because I have to inhale it unless I’m the one who closes his window and vents. That onus I believe belongs to the smoker. If the smoke is so great, why don’t they roll up their window and enjoy it all? Ditto for people smoking in their yards or have open windows with their smoke blowing into the neighbor’s yard. There are houses that I walk by here where a lone person smokes, and you can smell it from a 100 ft. radius. I have a student from a smoking household and feel bad for him because his clothes reek with smoke, and when he opens his bookbag, the room fills up with the stench. And of course, he gets picked on for it. These are things even condiderated smokers don’t take into account.

  • Scott M.

    Gee,this is interesting:

    Wonder if the bloodhounds at the NCAA will go at Iowa the way they did Penn State?Just asking the question answers it,I think.

    • Maybe the NCAA will go after Johnny Football, he was arrested before the season for having several fake IDs and fighting with some guy in College Station. Word on the street down here is, the reason tu (the school he claimed he wanted to go to) didn’t offer him a scholarship is he was arrested for shoplifting while in high school and is still banned from the Wall Mart in his hometown…way to fit into the SEC A&M!

  • JimmyC

    So as expected, Hollande and the socialist government is doing everything they can do destroy the private-sector economy in France. “…a group of 98 CEOs published an open letter to Hollande that said public-sector spending, which at 56 percent of gross domestic product is the highest in Europe, “is no longer supportable.” The letter was signed by the CEOs of virtually every major French company.” This is where class warfare will get us if we continue down the same road. But hey, the important part is that we’re sticking it to all those filthy rich, right?

  • Texacalirose

    Even nutty San Francisco has a nutty Park Code.

    Anyone care to discuss age discrimination? I’m game!! And no more “Father/Daughter” dances, either!!! No more “definition of family” discrimination!!

  • Mrs.Make.Do

    Did I miss where one of you posted the video of NFL Kickoff doing all the Princess Bride quotes?

  • Stacie — that’s at AceHQ too.

    Just saw the Jake Tapper interview on Hannity. I’ve known this guy since he once wrote about dating Monica Lewinsky (one dinner date, pre-Bill). Cute but conflicted. I think he wants to be a conservative, but feels it would be betraying his own kind.

    • Tink in Cali

      I saw that interview too (actually just listened – I was stitching up the daughter unit’s skirt for her first FFA meeting tomorrow and cleaning the lamb snot off her blazer left behind by the last kid). I think he is a pretty good, straight reporter but I feel he is always a little more circumspect than he would like to be – he knows on which side his bread is buttered. I actually enjoyed the Lindsay Graham segment for once too, my “RINO Alert” hairs didn’t stand up as much as usual. :)

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>