Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You are willfully missing the point. I am not complaining about CBS, or its advertisers, or the government. I am complaining that the conservatives who are threatening a boycott of this programming because they disagree with it are acting in a way that we all ought to condemn. They are trying to exercise a heckler's veto.

That's ridiculous. It's just the change the channel argument, though done up front so that the advertisers and broadcasters can factor this in to their decisions. They are saying "if you air this, we will not watch."

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think this is the Army screwing up, not family law. In family law, the focus is supposed to be on the kids and all the judge did was say, look, I've got one parent able to take them and another who is not, for whatever reason.

But the Army is saying, screw you guys and your family commitments; you women want to be in the Army (forget that this is his kid) instead of staying home, you have what you want, pay the price.

And that price is .... your kids.

While I agree that the Army appears to be fucking up by not, basically, either granting an emergency extension or throwing its weight around to fuck with this family judge (though it seems unclear that the couple has invovled all the appropriate authorities and that, therefore, the army is saying much of anything right now other than "well, you went AWOL, we need to discharge you"), I think your characterization is nonsense.

The Army isn't saying "the price of your serving in the army is your kids"; it is a judge (or, if you like, the principles of family law) that is threatening to take away a father's kids if he or his wife doesn't stay home. Or: you have the courts removing previously granted custody from parents who have made quite adequate provision for the care of the children by a loving family member in their necessary absence. That just seems fucked up to me. Frankly, if they both just had horrible work schedules and traveled for long periods and left the kids in the care of a full time nanny the decision would seem fucked up to me. But the fact that their service is to the entire nation rather than just Mammon makes it even worse.

I note for the record that a birth-parent is STILL not caring for the kid. The care-giver is the step-parent, who is now also without an income and subject to legal proceedings. That shouldn't add stress to the family at all. How this is supposed to be meaningfully better than a grandmother caring for them is beyond me.

I guess my real annoyance is twofold: (i) in a situation where any parents without a non-custodial blood-parent floating about to challenge them would be in an unassailable position, the divorced-custodial parents are getting fucked, and (ii) the whole thing seems to stand for the position that army parents are, by nature of their occupations which requires service away from home, inferior to non-army parents (and again I note it is NOT the army making that fucked-up conclusion).

This also seems the kind of thing that leads to legislation protecting service people along the lines of "no state court has jurisdiction over custodial matters relating to the children of active service people," which seems a bad blanket result.

BR(not clear, that, but I'm not going to bother to parse and edit)C

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's ridiculous. It's just the change the channel argument, though done up front so that the advertisers and broadcasters can factor this in to their decisions. They are saying "if you air this, we will not watch."

Wrong. If conservatives simply decided to engage in silent protest by changing the channel or spending quality time with their kids when the miniseries aired, I for one would have no problem with that. But such consequences are not why CBS pulled the show.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
This also seems the kind of thing that leads to legislation protecting service people along the lines of "no state court has jurisdiction over custodial matters relating to the children of active service people," which seems a bad blanket result.

This is the key thing, I think.

If you don't have a blanket rule, then someone needs discretion. In this case, that is the judge. I am enormously deferential to the fact finders in legal matters (for example, I generally trust that the OJ jurors did their job and regularly defend them in conversation), absent some showing of real prejudice.

In this case, these parents aren't just traveling, they are stationed overseas for an indeterminate period of time. Seems rational for a judge to decide to put the kids with the other parent rather than the grand parents. I will confess I don't know enough of the details of the case to decide it based on media reports -- I did not know the primary care giver would be the non-biological parent spouse, for example -- and that's part of why I'm deferential to the judge.

On the other hand, I'm not deferential to the army, which has leeway and could solve this thing. The article I saw indicated that they had sought permission for one of the two parents to stay home.

OK, so is my deference part of the problem with the system in your mind?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Wrong. If conservatives simply decided to engage in silent protest by changing the channel or spending quality time with their kids when the miniseries aired, I for one would have no problem with that.

were you in favor of the boycott of Domino's pizza?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
were you in favor of the boycott of Domino's pizza?

I don't remember a specific boycott, but my general rule has been to avoid Domino's pizza, both for the obvious gustatory reasons but also out of a desire not to subsidize the Detroit Tigers (although lately they need all the help they can get).

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
The Army isn't saying "the price of your serving in the army is your kids"; it is a judge (or, if you like, the principles of family law) that is threatening to take away a father's kids if he or his wife doesn't stay home. Or: you have the courts removing previously granted custody from parents who have made quite adequate provision for the care of the children by a loving family member in their necessary absence. That just seems fucked up to me. Frankly, if they both just had horrible work schedules and traveled for long periods and left the kids in the care of a full time nanny the decision would seem fucked up to me.

I think there was a case a couple of years ago in which a Rich Ex-Husband, who had remarried, brought a change-custody case against his Working Ex-Wife on the ground that the court should revisit the dissolution custody order since his Working Ex-Wife, the mother of the kids, had to put them in daycare to go to work. Rich Ex-Husband, by favorable comparison, had a New Spouse who was home 24/7 and could therefore provide "better" care.

I remember thinking it was truly shitty that it had come to that.

What I don't remember is what the court actually did with it; I think the reason it made the news is that the court originally seemed receptive to granting custody to Rich Ex-Husband on that basis, and the women's groups went sideways with rage.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by sgtclub
They are saying "if you air this, we will not watch."

Not just that. "Boycott" means they are also saying "we don't want to do business with companies that financially or otherwise support this type of thing."

Not that I have a problem with that. Counter-protesting persons are also free to contact non-rev-pulling entities and say "I am impressed with your unwillingness to be cowed, here is my lucrative corporate account."

BR(I, myself, am on a personal anti-protest-protest against PETA, because, though I am ambivalent about the morality of wearing unnecessary animal skins, I am totally unambivalent about the need for civil discourse on matters of public conduct to be CIVIL; therefore I now wear fur at every opportunity I can justify because of my rabid hatred of PETA's methods. I have a vested interest in believing that counter-protesting is just as effective as protesting)C

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
In this case, these parents aren't just traveling, they are stationed overseas for an indeterminate period of time.

I've known consultants in similar positions (single parent sent to bumfuck Africa for indeterminate stint but not less than 8 months) who haven't lost custody of their children.

Actually, I wonder if the custodial army parents could have moved the kids onto a military base somewhere vaguely nearby (or not, for that matter, if it would remove jurisdiction). That would not, in my opinion (FWIW, which isn't much), be a preferable outcome, but I'm curious. I have a few friends who spent several years growing up in Thailand & Guam while their parents served in Vietnam.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I think there was a case a couple of years ago in which a Rich Ex-Husband, who had remarried, brought a change-custody case against his Working Ex-Wife on the ground that the court should revisit the dissolution custody order since his Working Ex-Wife, the mother of the kids, had to put them in daycare to go to work. Rich Ex-Husband, by favorable comparison, had a New Spouse who was home 24/7 and could therefore provide "better" care.

I remember thinking it was truly shitty that it had come to that.

What I don't remember is what the court actually did with it; I think the reason it made the news is that the court originally seemed receptive to granting custody to Rich Ex-Husband on that basis, and the women's groups went sideways with rage.

These cases happen all the time and hinge on your basic neanderthalic view that the only good mother is a stay at home mother.

I think the army case, being posted overseas, is different. From the kids' perspective, the people you rely on most are now there for one phone-call a week or so, and are in constant mortal danger. That is very serious.

And why is the custodial parent who is overseas so focused on the kids not being in the other spouses' custody while he is gone? I don't think this decision was focused on custody on the army spouse's return.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I've known consultants in similar positions (single parent sent to bumfuck Africa for indeterminate stint but not less than 8 months) who haven't lost custody of their children.

Actually, I wonder if the custodial army parents could have moved the kids onto a military base somewhere vaguely nearby (or not, for that matter, if it would remove jurisdiction). That would not, in my opinion (FWIW, which isn't much), be a preferable outcome, but I'm curious. I have a few friends who spent several years growing up in Thailand & Guam while their parents served in Vietnam.

The availability of space for kids might have to do with whether they are officers or enlisted and whether or not they are in a war zone or not.

The consultants I've known who have gone overseas have often brought the kids along. If they truly are leaving for a year at a time, I would not be surprised to see that become a custody issue.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic

This also seems the kind of thing that leads to legislation protecting service people along the lines of "no state court has jurisdiction over custodial matters relating to the children of active service people," which seems a bad blanket result.

BR(not clear, that, but I'm not going to bother to parse and edit)C

I'd look for companion legislation that allows the military to help take care of kids left behind in this situation. These can't be the only kids with both parents off fighting abroad and a non-custodial parent wanting to reassert some parental rights. At the very least, an order like this one should be written as temporary until the parents come home. Parents come home, satus quo restored.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I don't care.


Yes, of course CBS made this decision entirely on economic grounds, notwithstanding the fact that they had previously approved the script, as reported by Drudge. The outrage of Nancy Reagan had absolutely no influence on CBS' decision that this was not for them. Because, as we know, it's the liberals who control the media.


Okay, I'll admit that was a Dennis Miller moment. You got me there.


For Chrissakes, you're posting on a chat board during work hours. How is that not wasting your time? Unless you have nothing else to do...


Cause if it's not...what?

Nancy Reagan's outrage? Try the outrage of millions of us, and CBS's advertisers. Which part of that part of the story are you missing?

I'm a little ill today, so I have medicine head. Can you explain how this economic veto would refute the studies that conclude the media is liberal? I mean, it was based on a representative sample that admitted to being liberal in large numbers. Does this strongly refute such evidence? If so, how?

Ahh well, I went home and slept. This is 3 minutes that I'd rather have spent sleeping some more.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Cite, please. I just can't believe that a CBS miniseries could come anywhere close to libel of a politician.

I don't know . . . I read a report that one of the controversial scene edited had Nany urging Ronnie to increase research funding, etc. to help find a cure for AIDS, and Reagan responds "let those who live in sin die in sin." When the network asked about it, the producers acknowledged that they had no source for the statement, but had made it up for the scene. That seemed pretty low to me, to make stuff up that would make RR seem positively shitty by today's lights.

[Although, as I recall, the Regan admin. did dick for AIDS.]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You are willfully missing the point. I am not complaining about CBS, or its advertisers, or the government. I am complaining that the conservatives who are threatening a boycott of this programming because they disagree with it are acting in a way that we all ought to condemn. They are trying to exercise a heckler's veto. [/QUOTE]

Ar they threatening to boycott the programming? Or the advertisers and the network? If the latter, I agree with you. If the former, I agree with Club.

Anyway, I am constantly puzzled and annoyed by the cult of Reagan, but it is ceratainly no worse than what the DEMS did with JFK , and Reagan had many more accomplishments and a more lasting legacy.

S_A_M

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Right -- conservatives never get upset about the PC crowd at private institutions like Ivy League schools -- it's always limited to public schools.

Give it up. Markets don't usually function with a heckler's veto.

Ty, this is so sad. Private schools vetoed the ability of the military and the CIA to recruit on campus, right? So the G threatens to take any and all G money away. Guess who falls in line?

Similarly, college's constantly monitor and regulate the use of their resources based on content. Why do you think that is? I mean, its surely not their customer's (parents) screaming about the use of their resources, is it?

But, once the college and audience have made a decision, the "heckler's veto" isn't really analagous to a market reaction. Or is it? I mean, a market reaction would involve writing a letter and pulling your kid out of school (or something like that), right?

And, of course, the heckler's veto is meant to override the choice made by the content provider/enabler. Not to mention to disrupt the immediate choice made by those in attendance. In this case, CBS hadn't made their choice yet, so this is just a move to help them with their choice. In fact, this is pro-choice.

So what's next from you? Is this book burning or banning? Is this film burning? Do we all have a right to have whatever garbage we want put on someone else's private network? Whose rights were violated here?

Which is to say, can you show me why this is properly characterized as a "heckler's veto"? I mean, that is an attempt to draw some kind of moral equivalency here. And that's not good.