|
|
|
FORT LAUDERDALE 'BOOT CAMP'
Slew of calls drew police to school
Fort Lauderdale police confirmed they've joined welfare
agents in probing complaints that girls at a boot
camp-style school were abused.
BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER
cmarbin@herald.com
Fort Lauderdale police have been called eight times
since April to a Fort Lauderdale home operating as a
private military school, including two visits in recent
days to investigate allegations that a cadet had been
beaten by a school employee.
Since April 18, Fort Lauderdale officers accompanied
child abuse investigators with the Broward Sheriff's
Office five times to the military school, 3271 Glendale
Blvd., said Andy Pallen, a spokesman for the
department. In Broward, BSO conducts child abuse probes
under a contract with the Department of Children & Families.
Of the three other calls by police, one involved a May
13 trip by paramedics to check on a 17-year-old girl
who had passed out, one involved a 16-year-old girl who
was suffering an asthma attack May 11, and the other
occurred on April 9, when officers were called to
involuntarily commit a girl to a psychiatric hospital,
Pallen said.
Sister Soldier Military Academy abruptly shut its doors
Tuesday amid ongoing investigations into reports that
girls enrolled there had been physically abused.
Fort Lauderdale zoning officials also had been studying
whether the academy was in compliance with the city's
zoning code.
"I went into the hospital the day I found out about my
daughter," said Katie Bogle, a mother of two from
Winter Park, Colo. "They thought I was having a heart attack."
Bogle's 15-year-old daughter, Unyque, spent three
months at Sister Soldier, and told her mother she had
been beaten twice by caretakers. "She told me she was
not beaten as much as the others. She kept her mouth
shut. She kept her head down, and she did what she was
supposed to do. She didn't complain and she didn't whine."
MAJOR FIGURE
Denise Smith, who is identified in corporate records as
president of Sister Soldier's parent company, has not
returned several calls for comment. Smith insisted that
parents and children call her "Major Smith."
The army-style school enrolls girls considered
behavioral problems ages 8-17 at a cost of $2,800 a
month. The students at the school are called 'cadets'.
Reports on the military school in The Herald have
prompted calls by state lawmakers to close a loophole
in Florida licensing laws that allows private boarding
schools to operate without state regulation.
Two other parents, one from Pembroke Pines and another
from Tennessee, have told The Herald their daughters
told them they were beaten -- including blows to the
face -- by Sister Soldier's "major". The girls told
their mothers they were struck after trying to call
home for help.
The most recent visits by police to Sister Soldier were
on May 28 and May 30, Pallen said, when officers
accompanied BSO child protective investigators looking
into complaints received by the state child-abuse hot line.
BEATING REPORTED
Sources have told The Herald the May 28 visit followed
a report to child welfare authorities that a girl at
Sister Soldier had been beaten by a so-called "drill instructor."
A school instructor, who asked not to be identified,
said she had seen the girl the next day.
"She had swollen lips and sores in her mouth,'' the
instructor said. "She had scars on her face, scars on
her arm, and talked about her foot being sore."
The girl told the employee that another drill
instructor had dropped a "log" on her foot.
Cadets were forced to hold heavy logs in their arms for
extended periods as a form of punishment, the employee
told The Herald.
Bogle, the Colorado mom, said she saw the log during a
short visit to the home the day after her daughter's
birthday. When she asked another girl what the log was
for, the girl began marching in a circle with the log
in her arms. "She said we have to carry this around for
punishment," Bogle said.
WAIVERS REQUIRED
Murfreesboro, Tenn., mother Kim Powers said her
daughter, Jessica, claimed that she had been injured by
the log, as well.
Parents interviewed by The Herald said they were asked
to sign waivers giving up the right to sue Sister
Soldier's parent company, JAM Youth Connection, if
their children were injured.
A copy of the waivers, given to The Herald by Powers,
warned parents that their children could be harmed if
staff needed to restrain them.
"Physical action will be taken against your child, and
to whatever extreme the staff feels necessary at that
time, to protect anyone in harm's way," a "disciplinary
disclaimer" states. "Due to the level of force that may
be used, there may be bodily injuries to your child."
Parents who signed a liability waiver gave "permission
to physically handle and restrain their child during
any of the company's functions, as the company feels needed."
The parent "understands participation will subject the
child to risk and injuries, and companies will not be
liable for medical expenses or other claims for damages
or death," the waiver states.
--
LP
"We are fighting today for security, for progress,
and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all
men, not only for one generation but for all
generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world
of ancient evils, ancient ills."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
State of the Union Address - 1942
|
| |
| |
The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
for fighting "sexism". This should be replaced by a nation that is for
manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
are different.
In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
to be protected by female policemen.
We don't have to have the kind of society we have now. The
government, and the media, and the schools, may all be leftist
enemies, but their ways are so contrary to human nature that it can be
changed.
The two main forces that reject the unisex society are religion
and nationalism. There certainly
wasn't much feminism going on in a Muslim country like Afganistan. And
it is no coincidence that the USA bombed Afganistan. The USA and its
masters the Jews are the enemy and that is the first thing we need to
be clear about if we are going to change things. There were also
Nationalist countries that were also bombed by the USA and the other
leftists. The media will tell us how terrible they say these countries
were. We must always remember that the media is the enemy and they are
the ones pushing unisex culture on us.
Feminism is something we must always fight against. But a normal
man who considers women his enemy must eventually go mad. Feminism may
be a major symptom of what is wrong with this country but it is only a
symptom. The Jewish control of the media and society is the disease.
And feminism is Jewish:
Gloria Steinem was a Jew. Bella Abzug was a Jew. Betty Friedan was
a Jew.
"THE JEWISH 100: A Ranking Of the Most Influential Jews Of All Time"
By Michael Shaprio
# 56 Betty Friedan (b. 1921)
Born Betty Naomi Goldstein to Harry and Miriam (Horowitz) Goldstein in
Peoria,
Illinois, educated at Smith College, married in 1947 to Carl Friedan,
the
mother of three children, divorced in 1969, activist, best-selling
author,
professor, a founder of the National Organization for Women (NOW), the
National
Women's Political Caucus, and the First Women's Bank, researcher,
journalist,
Democrat, clinical psychologist, and grandmother, Betty Friedan was
the most
influential feminist of the postwar era. Deemed by Marilyn French and
others as
an "initiator of the 'second wave' of feminism, " Friedan's writings
and
lectures, including the highly influential books THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE
and THE
SECOND STAGE, synthesized women's views on what equality meant and how
to live
and work...
When the war against fascism ended two decades later, four million
women lost
their jobs to returning GIs. Women were again told that their place
was in the
home. The freedom to work to build up and defend their nation was
over. Men
would earn the family's bread. What the boys needed was a warm place
to come
home to every night. Ironically, American soldiers had accepted some
of the
values toward women (Kinder, Kuche, Kirche - children, kitchen,
church) as the
Nazis they thought they had defeated...
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
|
| |
| |
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote:
Shut the @$#* up!
--
"It is ordinarily said that criminal law is designed to protect property
and to protect persons, and if society's only interest in controlling sex
behavior were to protect persons, then the criminal codes concerned with
assault and battery should provide adequate protection. The fact that there
is a body of sex laws which is apart from the laws protecting persons is
evidence of their distinct function, namely that of protecting custom."
~ Alfred Kinsey, W. Pomeroy and C. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human
Male,
(Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders, 1948)
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:18:41 -0500, Topaz wrote:
The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
for fighting "sexism". This should be replaced by a nation that is for
manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
are different.
What planet are you from? "Leftists" who rule America???????????
If you think Bush is a leftist then you're well to the right of Attilla
the Hun.
In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need to
be protected by female policemen.
We don't have to have the kind of society we have now. The government,
and the media, and the schools, may all be leftist enemies, but their
ways are so contrary to human nature that it can be changed.
Good idea, take their shoes away and keep'm pregnant. That'll work
wonders...
The two main forces that reject the unisex society are religion
and nationalism. There certainly
wasn't much feminism going on in a Muslim country like Afganistan. And
it is no coincidence that the USA bombed Afganistan. The USA and its
masters the Jews are the enemy and that is the first thing we need to be
clear about if we are going to change things. There were also
Nationalist countries that were also bombed by the USA and the other
leftists. The media will tell us how terrible they say these countries
were. We must always remember that the media is the enemy and they are
the ones pushing unisex culture on us.
The media is corporate controlled, not jewish. Dollars drive the media,
not jews.
Feminism is something we must always fight against. But a normal
man who considers women his enemy must eventually go mad. Feminism may
be a major symptom of what is wrong with this country but it is only a
symptom. The Jewish control of the media and society is the disease. And
feminism is Jewish:
Ah, you're part of the American Taliband. Sorry, women are not your
slaves. Move to Afghanistan.
Gloria Steinem was a Jew. Bella Abzug was a Jew. Betty Friedan was
a Jew.
"THE JEWISH 100: A Ranking Of the Most Influential Jews Of All Time" By
Michael Shaprio
# 56 Betty Friedan (b. 1921)
Born Betty Naomi Goldstein to Harry and Miriam (Horowitz) Goldstein in
Peoria,
Illinois, educated at Smith College, married in 1947 to Carl Friedan,
the
mother of three children, divorced in 1969, activist, best-selling
author,
professor, a founder of the National Organization for Women (NOW), the
National
Women's Political Caucus, and the First Women's Bank, researcher,
journalist,
Democrat, clinical psychologist, and grandmother, Betty Friedan was the
most
influential feminist of the postwar era. Deemed by Marilyn French and
others as
an "initiator of the 'second wave' of feminism, " Friedan's writings and
lectures, including the highly influential books THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE
and THE
SECOND STAGE, synthesized women's views on what equality meant and how
to live
and work...
When the war against fascism ended two decades later, four million women
lost
their jobs to returning GIs. Women were again told that their place was
in the
home. The freedom to work to build up and defend their nation was over.
Men
would earn the family's bread. What the boys needed was a warm place to
come
home to every night. Ironically, American soldiers had accepted some of
the
values toward women (Kinder, Kuche, Kirche - children, kitchen, church)
as the
Nazis they thought they had defeated.
Don't forget to take your meds again.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/weird/political/dead.jpg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
The leftists who rule America
Gyuhh.... GOTTA be a Min Clone...
[Plonked - With EXTREME PREJUDICE]
Naughtius "Leftist Combatant' Maximus
|
| |
| |
Curly Surmudgeon <curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:18:41 -0500, Topaz wrote:
What planet are you from? "Leftists" who rule America???????????
If you think Bush is a leftist then you're well to the right of Attilla
the Hun.
He is. He's a self-admitted worshipper of Adolf.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:29:32 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon <curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote:
He is. He's a self-admitted worshipper of Adolf.
Without clarification, one can only presume you're implying Adolf Hitler? If so,
please provide you're evidence that the current POTUS is quoted as a
"self-admitted worshipper of Adolf." Not an Op-ed piece, but a quote from the
POTUS. Failure to provide such evidence implys a false assertion.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
|
| |
| |
Planned Parenthood Perversity
By Rich Lowry June 3, 2005
Can you say "perverse"? Planned Parenthood in Indiana
and Kansas is effectively fighting to protect child
rapists from potential prosecution in two high-profile
legal fights. That an organization devoted to the
interests of women finds itself in this position is a
cautionary tale of abortion-rights extremism.
In Indiana, the attorney general is seeking the records
of girls under the age of 14 who have visited Planned
Parenthood clinics. Let that sink in: We're talking
about 12- and 13-year- old girls. It is a crime to have
sex with a child under 14 in the state. Under law,
individuals with reason to believe a child is a victim
of sex abuse are required to report it to the proper
authorities. In Kansas, the attorney general is
carrying on the same fight (he is also looking for
evidence of illegal late-term abortions).
An Indiana judge has just upheld the Indiana attorney
general's request, although the case is under appeal.
"The great public interest," the county superior judge
wrote, "in the reporting, investigation and prosecution
of child abuse trumps even the patient's interest in
privileged communication with her physician because, in
the end, both the patient and the state are benefited
by the disclosure."
The loopiest free-sex advocates might imagine that
after sex-ed courses on how to put a condom on a
banana, 13-year-old girls blissfully explore their
bodies with 13-year-old boys. Put aside that this
vision will make most parents gag - it's not how it
works. Teen sex often involves adult men exploiting
teen girls. Estimates are that in 60 percent or more of
teen births, the father is an adult. A California study
found that the fathers in births to junior-high-school
mothers were on average nearly 7 years older.
Why would a feminist organization not be eager to
co-operate in a fight against the sexual exploitation
of young girls? Well, Planned Parenthood represents
that wing of the feminist billed as "sex positive".
Although that phrase doesn't quite capture it. Planned
Parenthood is developing the "statutory rape-positive"
wing of feminism.
These feminists are unwilling to pass judgement on any
sex in any circumstances, don't care if parents are cut
out of the equation entirely, believe the right to an
abortion trumps any other consideration, and embrace a
notion of privacy so sweeping it includes men who have,
under law, raped their young sexual partners. If only
Michael Jackson were interested in girls instead of
boys, he might, in the right circumstances, have a
friend in Planned Parenthood.
Privacy is a mere excuse not to provide the records. It
is not at all unusual for criminal prosecutions to
involve medical records. And no one is going to make
public the names of the girls involved, which are being
provided to the authorities, not the news media.
"We've been doing these investigations since the 1970s,
and there's never been a case where we have not
maintained the confidentiality of records," Indiana
Attorney General Steve Carter told a local columnist.
In Kansas - where the case is pending before the state
supreme court - Attorney General Phill Kline authored
the state's rape shield law when he was in the
legislature. It is not the girl in any of these cases
who will be in jeopardy, but her adult abuser (if there
is one).
This fight is so important because our culture
relentlessly sexualizes children. The message, for
instance, of Britney Spears's act before she came of
age was "teen girls are hot." Pop culture won't change,
but the law can at least try to send an opposite signal.
Key Democrats from Hillary Clinton to Howard Dean have
of late said their party needs to become more moderate
on abortion. They could add substance to the rhetoric
by opposing Planned Parenthood's position in these
cases. Of course, that will never happen. The abortion
absolutists control the Democratic party, a sad fact
for those Americans who have moral qualms about
abortion, but a happy one for men who impregnate 13-year-olds.
Rich Lowry is editor of National Review, and author of
Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.
2005 King Features Syndicate
--
LP
"A little sunlight is the best disinfectant," Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis commented. "Never
more so than when it exposes towering hypocrisy."
|
| |
| |
The problem is that what the attorney general is doing is a fishing
expedition. There are, in fact, entirely legal scenarios in which a
14-year old girl might be pregnant. (14 year old boys typically capable
of impregnating a girl, for example. So are 13 year old boys.)
And how does anyone know that the girls in question are, in fact,
underage? Has someone requested birth certificates?
As for late-term abortions, they are legal under certain circumstances
(ie, if carrying to term would endanger the life of the mother).
Therefore, under US law, there is certainly a case to be made that
Planned Parenthood is, in fact, taking solid legal ground AND the moral
high ground when they refuse to give blanket permission to give up
medical records.
If a specific record is requested in a specific case, that's different,
and would likely be upheld by any judge. But just saying "let me into
your house, I want to see if you're breaking some law or another" is
probably NOT grounds for a legal search. (See your Bill of Rights for
details.)
Planned Parenthood may not win this case, but there's no reason to
vilify them for trying to make sense of the law.
--Beth Kevles
bethkevles@aol.com
http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner.
NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the AOL one if you would
like me to reply.
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 09:50:00 -0400, LeMod Pol <modpol@igs.net> wrote:
Planned Parenthood Perversity
By Rich Lowry June 3, 2005
In Indiana, the attorney general is seeking the records
of girls under the age of 14 who have visited Planned
Parenthood clinics. Let that sink in: We're talking
about 12- and 13-year- old girls. It is a crime to have
sex with a child under 14 in the state. Under law,
A general "must provide all records" deal? C'mon. The current
situation is that such people must contact law enforcement if they
have reason to believe a crime has been committed.
I'm certainly not recommending young teens have sex, but we know it
happens. Making it illegal by arbitrarily setting an age affects
nothing.
In another issue, you can have two 17 year old high school seniors,
who can have sex legally, but as soon as one turns 18, they have to
stop until the other turns 18. Silly, eh?
An Indiana judge has just upheld the Indiana attorney
general's request, although the case is under appeal.
"The great public interest," the county superior judge
wrote, "in the reporting, investigation and prosecution
of child abuse trumps even the patient's interest in
privileged communication with her physician because, in
the end, both the patient and the state are benefited
by the disclosure."
But this whole thing is a fishing expedition with the assumption
anyone under 14 is subject to abuse.
Why would a feminist organization not be eager to
co-operate in a fight against the sexual exploitation
of young girls?
Because those asking for the records are proceeding on the assumption
that an arbitrary setting of age proves exploitation. (These, BTW,
are the same sorts of people who want to go on fishing trips in
libraries to see what books we've checked out, so they can find the
subversives).
Privacy is a mere excuse not to provide the records. It
Privacy is the principle. Too many people want selective principles.
They want them to apply when they accomplish what they want.
is not at all unusual for criminal prosecutions to
involve medical records. And no one is going to make
public the names of the girls involved, which are being
provided to the authorities, not the news media.
Yep. Just like my library records, eh?
This fight is so important because our culture
relentlessly sexualizes children.
Children? How above everyone?
How does this possible solve that problem?
|
| |
| |
ohn Bean on some absurd manifestations of sex equality dogma
Go to any sports ground, town or country, at the week-end and here you
will see male testosterone in action. It is a biological fact that
women could not compete with the pace, nor the dominant mental desire
to win! Nor do they seem to work as a team as efficiently as men -
part of the primordial hunter instinct.
Teenage boys at Britain's comprehensive schools are now used to being
told that compared to girls they are thick. It's the girls who show
better concentration, better clerical skills, and produce more
consistent termwork that gain them higher GCSE results. The boys, who,
where some discipline still exists, often produce better exam results,
have in the main accepted this lower status. They are more concerned
with impressing their male peers with their "street cred" and trying
to "pull" the girls. For many, their last male refuge is sport - and
particularly football. Now, political correctness is trying to spread
sexual egalitarianism into this final male bastion.
Is it any wonder that many boys have been conditioned into believing
they have no role in society and have opted out? From a BBC Blue Peter
programme I was watching recently with one of my visiting
grand-daughters, it would appear that even boys' long-held career
aspiration of being a train driver is out of bounds. A girl standing
on a steam engine footplate at York Railway Museum talked learnedly of
the mechanical requirements of the train of the future. Back in the
studio a slightly embarrassed young man of nineteen or so showed us
how to make a chocolate cake in the shape of a locomotive engine. Full
marks for the programme producer's political correctness!...
Similar concern has been expressed in the Army, as a result of
left-liberal egalitarians agitating for women to undertake front-line
combat roles - which rule in theory now exists in the US Army and
Marines. Imagine such a gender-mixed force, acting as individuals
rather than as a team, trying to storm the Normandy beaches in 1944
against the battle-hardened troops of the Wehrmacht! They would hardly
have got off their landing crafts and the slaughter would have been
unimaginable. Can anyone possibly deny this?
My argument on these matters is certainly not motivated by misogynism.
It is simply that the normal mental make-up of a woman is meant for
the more caring aspects of life, necessary in bringing up children. A
soldier must be prepared to kill: to kill at close quarters with the
bayonet as well as at a more comfortable distance from the enemy. It
simply is not in women's nature - that of normal women anyway - to
carry out the first and most men have to be trained for it. Our
Paratroopers had to do this at Tumbledown in the Falklands, and many
suffered psychologically for it afterwards. That is the nature of war.
The Israelis have learnt this lesson. In the early sixties the media
had a field day with glamour photos of Israeli women soldiers ready to
fight alongside the men. This was quietly dropped after the '67 Yom
Kippur War. The Israeli soldiers and police you see today suppressing
the Palestinians are all men.
Much media attention was given a couple of years back to women being
trained as RAF fighter pilots. If one had made the grade and flown
over Kosovo, let alone Iraq, surely we would have heard all about it
by now. The American Air Force has some women pilots two of whom were
the centre of much media attention following a recent mission over
Iraq. I cannot better Kevin Myers comment on this in a recent issue of
the Sunday Telegraph:-
'I don't know how many women fighter and bomber pilots there are in
the Gulf, but I would wager not many: yet two of them both named are
the subject of what we may term a propaganda photograph. But clearly
the purpose of this propaganda is not the war in the Gulf but that
other gulf war, between the sexes back home. The picture has a job to
do, and that is to tell the sisters in the US that all is well: the
feminist agenda proceeds through US life even in bombing far-away
places with strange-sounding names. How jolly comforting; how
politically sound; and how utterly meaningless.
'For the squadron the two women officers belong to is known as "The
Raging Bulls" not "The Raging Cows" or "The Raging Heifers". There is
an obvious reason for that, and that is testosterone. Testosterone is
what makes the herbivorous bull so very dangerous and it is its
absence that makes his mate such a sweetie.'
How it all came about
Contrary to the impression the feminists try to give the bemused
public of today, in the forties, fifties and early sixties, if girls
had the necessary talent and enthusiasm they could virtually enter
whatever profession they liked. Admittedly very few were to be found
in engineering, but this was mainly due to their lack of interest in
the subject. In science, women have always been well represented. From
personal experience, in 1944 to early 1945 I worked as a junior
chemist at an ICl factory in Cornwall. Whilst the chief chemist in our
lab was male the place was really run by his two deputies, two young
ladies. (If I add that as a 17-year-old spotty youth I was so smitten
by their feminine attractiveness that initially it affected my
concentration I suppose this would invite the charge that I was a
sexist male chauvinist!)
How did this conflict between the sexes that has played its part in
the disintegration of society come about? It stems from the work of a
tiny minority of crypto-Marxist women aided by males of the same
political persuasion. The fall of the Soviet Empire may have removed
these people's principal flag-bearer, but the campaign to destroy the
old structure of the nation states of the West continues.
Veronique Shugg, writing in issue 23 of Right Now! magazine says:-
'And just who were these feminists, these beings with an apparently
self-conferred sort of divine right to sit in judgment on the lives of
all women en masse and declare them wanting. They were women who,
embittered by their own inadequacies, blamed the whole world in
general and men in particular for their own shortcomings.'
You can hardly find anyone with more shortcomings than Andrea Dworkin,
one of the American pioneers of "Women's Liberation". A grotesque
300-pounder (22 stone in imperial weight) she seems obsessed with how
bad sex is for women. She ought to try it (I'm not volunteering!). It
might cure her but it is unlikely to cure her Marxist views. Another
American founder was Betty Friedan who also stigmatised the whole
world as being a conspiracy by men against women, and in the process
attacked most of the things that real women find worthwhile.
Another feminist pioneer, and certainly an extreme-left one was Simone
de Beauvoir, a disillusioned French intellectual. In her book The
Second Sex she set out to destroy everything that made being a woman
worthwhile. We must not forget of course, Germaine Greer. It would be
unfair to label her a Marxist but this Australian pioneer of Women's
Lib can be guaranteed to uphold the liberal-left corner in her
numerous appearances on BBC and Channel 4 discussion programmes. Her
only saving grace is that she seems to regret having been a little
over the top in her accusations of man's perfidy given in her book The
Female Eunuch, although she can't quite get round to say
|
| |
| |
n Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:22:04 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
<curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote:
What planet are you from?
Earth
"Leftists" who rule America???????????
By Dr. William Pierce
"Last week I gave an interview to an English-language radio station in
Teheran. The program was "The Islamic Voice of Iran." We talked about
anumber of things, including Ariel Sharon's visit to the White House,
which was taking place at the time, and about President Bush's
popularity ratings. The Iranian interviewer asked me whether Bush
would
take a more sensible, pro-American policy in the Middle East or would
continue taking orders from Israel, to the detriment of American
interests, the way the Clinton administration had.
Of course, I explained to him that there was really no difference
between Republicans and Democrats in that regard. They both dance to
whatever tune the Jews are playing at the moment, and that George Bush
would no more dare to disobey the Jews than Bill Clinton would. I told
the Iranian interviewer that there are minor differences between the
Republican Party and the Democratic Party, with the Democrats
pandering
a bit more to the welfare class and the Republicans paying a bit more
lip service to things such as military preparedness and energy
production, but that on the really essential issues -- immigration,
racial policy, media control, foreign policy -- both parties do what
they're told and don't give the Jews any back talk.
The Iranian had a hard time understanding this. If one party -- the
Democrats, say -- were controlled by Jews and supported Jewish
interests, then surely there would be another party -- presumably the
Republicans -- representing the interests of the American people. He
couldn't understand how the Jews, making up only 2.5 per cent of the
U.S. population, could have the whole political process under their
control and in particular could dictate U.S. foreign policy in the
Middle East, regardless of who is in the White House and which party
controls the Congress. What about the other 97.5 per cent of the
population? They also have interests, and they can vote. Why aren't
their interests supported by some political party?
The difficulty my Iranian interviewer had in understanding how
politics
works in America has two facets. One of these is the dominant
influence
the mass media of news and entertainment, which are largely in the
hands
of the country's very small Jewish minority, have on public opinion
and
attitudes, on the mass culture, and on the political process. In Iran
tradition is much more important in determining public opinion. And
Iran
is a much more homogeneous country, at least in a cultural and
religious
sense, than is the United States. In America the media have to a large
extent weaned the people away from their traditions and from their
cultural and religious roots and substituted a made-in-Hollywood
trash-culture with ersatz traditions in their place. The media are
increasingly important in influencing public opinion everywhere in the
developed countries -- even in Iran, no doubt -- but nowhere has the
process been as thorough and as destructive as it has been in the
United
States.
A second barrier to understanding is the subtlety and indirection
which
is used by the media bosses in achieving their aims. They almost never
make a head-on attack against the traditions or values of the host
population. They look for conflict, for inconsistency, for vice or
hypocrisy or weakness, and they exploit it to gain a foothold. Then
they
use one facet of popular belief or tradition to undermine another. For
example, they will proclaim themselves champions of "fair play," and
then they will persuade the public that fair play requires that no
distinction be made between Asians and Europeans in setting
immigration
policy. If we let Englishmen and Germans and Swedes into America, then
it wouldn't be fair to keep out Vietnamese and Chinese and Pakistanis,
they tell us.
Or they will play on the average American's resentment of governmental
interference in his private affairs to promote the idea that
homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality and that neither
the
government nor individuals should make a distinction between the two.
What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no one else's
business, therefore the government should require landlords,
employers,
Boy Scout troops, and everyone else to treat homosexuals just like
heterosexuals: a bit of a non sequitur, but the media have been
remarkably successful at using such illogical arguments to shift
public
opinion on a number of issues.
And because the media are able to influence public opinion so
strongly,
all the politicians, Republicans as well as Democrats, dance to their
tune. The politicians understand that the tiny Jewish minority, only
2.5
per cent of the population, through their control of the media are the
single most important influence on the public's perception of issues,
of
government policies, and of the politicians themselves -- and
consequently are the single most important influence on the outcome of
elections. And it is for this reason that everyone can safely count on
George Bush's policy toward Israel being whatever the Jews want it to
be.
Anyway, although I explained this as clearly as I could to my Iranian
interrogator, I think he didn't really believe me. He was ready to
accept the fact that the Jews are a very bad influence on American
policy in the Middle East, but he couldn't accept the fact that
through
their control of the mass media of news and entertainment they have
made
irrelevant and meaningless the whole idea of mass democracy. He
couldn't
assimilate the idea that party politics in America has become just a
shell game to keep the rubes confused about what's really happening
and
who's running the country. He knew that Jews are bad news, but he
couldn't grasp the fact that the most powerful country in the world,
economically and militarily, is so totally in their malign grip.
And really, when I try to put myself in the Iranian's shoes, it's hard
for me to believe it myself: a mere 2.5 per cent of the population, a
historically despised and hated group who have been kicked out of
every
country in Europe, and there's not a single mainstream American
politician brave enough to defy them; a tiny, clannish group who have
astranglehold on the mighty American nation; a case of the tail wagging
the dog. How do they do it? It doesn't seem possible.
Well, of course, it is possible, and I'll tell you how they do it:
they
do it with images and myths. They do it by controlling the perceptions
that most people have of the world around themselves. The Jews create
myths about what the world is like and then generate false images to
match the myths. And they project these myths and false images of the
world into the minds of their hosts.
I'll give you a specific example of this. There is a new film out by
Universal Pictures. It's called The Fast and the Furious. It's a film
directed at White teenagers, a film designed to give them a particular
image of the world and instill in them a myth about the way the world
works. It's a film about modern, urban teenagers -- specifically
street
gangs in Los Angeles -- and cars and street racing. That might seem
harmless enough, but the street
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 13:33:41 GMT, bondrock@ifx.net (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:29:32 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
Without clarification, one can only presume you're implying Adolf Hitler? If so,
please provide you're evidence that the current POTUS is quoted as a
"self-admitted worshipper of Adolf." Not an Op-ed piece, but a quote from the
POTUS. Failure to provide such evidence implys a false assertion.
I say Heil Hitler.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
|
| |
| |
y Kevin Alfred Strom
....The May 18th meeting of the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or AIPAC for short) in
Washington, DC... AIPAC is the most
influential lobby in Washington, and is totally focused on
maintaining and increasing American taxpayer support for Israel,
both financial and military, and in destroying all critics of
Israel or of Jewish supremacism...
When Bush ascended to the AIPAC podium, flanked by leading Jewish
supremacists on both sides, behind him was a huge new flag
design, probably 50 feet long, consisting of American stars and
stripes interspersed with huge Stars of David. Bush, interrupted
by wild applause and several standing ovations from the Zionist
audience which included Ariel Sharon, referred to the leading
Jewish supremacists on the platform by their first names:
"I'm honored to be here at AIPAC, thank you for such a warm
welcome. It's good to be with so many friends -- friends of mine
and friends of Israel. ...I want to thank Amy for her leadership.
I appreciate you taking time to serve a cause that -- in which
you believe deeply. I want to thank Bernice for her willingness
to serve, as well. I've known Howard for a long time. He's
effective. I want to thank the AIPAC board -- AIPAC board members
for their friendship and leadership. I'm honored to be in the
presence of my friend, the Ambassador from Israel, Danny Ayalon.
I appreciate you being here, Danny."
How cozy. The president went on in this vein for about forty
minutes, acting more like an Israeli cabinet minister than an
American president. He congratulated himself for his unwavering
support for Zionism, justified the horrible terror-war being
waged on Israel's behalf in Iraq, and engaged in some
saber-rattling against other Muslim states that don't want to
have a government supervised by Jews.
Bush also repeated the catch-phrase that has a hidden meaning to
Jewish supremacists, the phrase I've spoken about before on
American Dissident Voices -- "committed to the security of Israel
as a Jewish state," which is repeated almost word-for-word again
and again by Israel's sycophants and Capitol Hill puppets. and
which means much more than seems. [
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1282 ] The words 'as
a Jewish state' are crucial: they mean support for Israel as a
racial state for one people alone, something that the Jewish
power structure denies to every White nation -- yet White
politicians must express their "commitment" to Israel. Bush
stated:
"The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly
committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state."
Identical to the catch-phrase, with only the addition of the word
'vibrant.' Bush is not committed to America as an American state
-- in fact, he supports amnesty for illegal invaders.
All that is to be expected from Bush, considering his dependence
on Jewish favor, Jewish money, and Jewish media for his election.
But what I found most chilling about Bush's groveling speech
before his masters was this section, in which he makes reference
to a recent meeting of the so-called Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which is working with American
and European governments to outlaw free speech by "monitoring"
and outlawing criticism of Jews [
http://www.natvan.com/pub/2003/053103.txt
http://www.natvan.com/pub/2003/062803.txt ]:
"The Jewish people have seen, over the years and over the
centuries, that hate prepares the way for violence. The refusal
to expose and confront intolerance can lead to crimes beyond
imagining. So we have a duty to expose and confront
anti-Semitism, wherever it is found. Some of you attended a very
important event in Berlin last month, the International
Conference on Anti-Semitism. You understand that anti-Semitism is
not a problem of the past; the hatred of Jews did not die in a
Berlin bunker. In its cruder forms, it can be found in some Arab
media, and this government will continue to call upon Arab
governments to end libels and incitements. Such hatred can also
take subtler forms. The demonization of Israel, the most extreme
anti-Zionist rhetoric can be a flimsy cover for anti-Semitism,
and contribute to an atmosphere of fear in which synagogues are
desecrated, people are slandered, folks are threatened. I will
continue to call upon our friends in Europe to renounce and fight
any sign of anti-Semitism in their midst."
[ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040518-1.html
]You'll notice two things here: 1) Bush is conflating negative
feelings about Jews, and 'rhetoric,' with actual violent acts and
a supposed 'atmosphere' that 'creates' them, thus setting the
stage for the legally-required 'monitoring' of all critics of
Jewish power and the criminalization of the free speech of these
critics, and 2) the redefinition of criticism of Israel or
Zionism, making them into just another form of so-called
"anti-Semitism," so they, too, can be 'monitored' and eventually
criminalized. Both of these are something that Jewish pressure
groups worldwide have been pushing hard for recently, and Bush
promised to give them exactly what they want.
Meanwhile, at yet another meeting, John Kerry, who is actually of
Jewish ancestry himself, tried to out-promise Bush with his
protestations of love for Zionism and hatred of any who would
criticize Jewish supremacism. At a meeting last month of the
crime-linked Jewish spying operation and pressure group, the
'Anti-Defamation League' (ADL) in Washington, Kerry said the
following:
"...what ADL stands for is what I would like to fight for. ...And
after last week's [OSCE] conference in Berlin, we celebrate 55
countries that came together who have pledged to intensify their
efforts to combat anti-Semitism and to spread tolerance. ...And
we still know that anti-Semitism, notwithstanding the meeting of
55 countries, has been growing, and demands global leadership in
order to stand up against it. ...Across the Atlantic we've seen a
new wave of anti-Semitism, masking as anti-Israel sentiment, and
it's creeping its way across Europe and the Middle East. ...The
people of Israel should also know that for the entire 20 years
that I have been in the United States Senate, I'm proud that my
commitment to a secure Jewish state has been unwavering; not even
by one vote or one letter or one resolution has it wavered. And
as president, I can guarantee you that that support and that
effort for our ally, a vibrant democracy, will continue. ...The
security of Israel is paramount."
[ http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/kerryadl.html ]
Ladies and gentlemen, you cannot have more than one paramount
value. If a certain thing is your highest value, that means that
all other things are of lesser or no value. Kerry says "The
security of Israel is paramount." Not the security of the United
States. Not the security of our children's future. Not the
security of Western civilization or its founding race. None of
these are paramount to Kerry, or for that matter Bush or any of
the bought politicians. The Jewish state alone is paramount. (In
one of those coincidences that is simply too funny to have been
made up, I note that Kerry's 'liaison with the Jewish community'
is a person named Jay Footlik.)
As for Ralph Nader, he himself, like Kerry, is not entirely White
(though he's not Jewish) a
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 09:50:00 -0400, LeMod Pol <modpol@igs.net> wrote:
Planned Parenthood Perversity
By Rich Lowry June 3, 2005
Can you say "perverse"? Planned Parenthood in Indiana
and Kansas is effectively fighting to protect child
rapists from potential prosecution in two high-profile
legal fights. That an organization devoted to the
interests of women finds itself in this position is a
cautionary tale of abortion-rights extremism.
In Indiana, the attorney general is seeking the records
of girls under the age of 14 who have visited Planned
Parenthood clinics. Let that sink in: We're talking
about 12- and 13-year- old girls. It is a crime to have
sex with a child under 14 in the state.
So you're ruling out the possibility of immaculate conception?
Good, 'cuz it didn't happen to Mary either.
|
| |
| |
In article <42A1B180.34C6535C@igs.net>, LeMod Pol <modpol@igs.net>
wrote:
Can you say "perverse"? Planned Parenthood in Indiana
and Kansas is effectively fighting to protect child
rapists from potential prosecution in two high-profile
legal fights. That an organization devoted to the
interests of women finds itself in this position is a
cautionary tale of abortion-rights extremism.
What they are actually fighting for is the right to privacy of these
girls.
They know that if they have to start turning records over to the police,
girls are less likely to come to them, and more likely to turn to unsafe
methods to terminate their pregnancies. This is particularly true if
the man responsible for the pregnancy is, say, their father.
Ideally, any girl who is raped would feel safe, both terminating the
pregnancy and going to the police.
Ideally, the parents of a pregnant 12 or 13 yo would know who the man
responsible was, and call the police themselves.
Of course, some 12 and 13 yo's who end up pregant don't feel that
they've been raped, even if the man responsible is considerably older --
those who seduce children are often very good at convincing the child
that she (or he) wants to have sex with them.
This is most unfortunate, and I'd love to see to it that any adult
having sex with a child was prosecuted. Or, for that matter, any teen
having sex with someone more than two or three years younger.
However, making safe abortions unavailable (and that's what a policy of
turning the records over to the police would do) is NOT the answer.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
|
| |
| |
Beth Kevles wrote:
The problem is that what the attorney general is doing is a fishing
expedition. There are, in fact, entirely legal scenarios in which a
14-year old girl might be pregnant. (14 year old boys typically capable
of impregnating a girl, for example. So are 13 year old boys.)
You apparently only see what you wish, which may not be
exactly what is there.
He is looking for tha adults that father the majority
of 12 to 14-year-old's pregnancies ie statutory rape.
And how does anyone know that the girls in question are, in fact,
underage? Has someone requested birth certificates?
I do not know how many individual medical case files
you have read, but how many have you read without an
age if not a birth date? - we are not speaking of DOAs
Planned Parenthood may not win this case, but
there's no reason to vilify them for trying to
make sense of the law.
Great if that were the case, but it seems they are
blowing smoke.
It would be better if they sat down with the AG and
worked out a way so that both objectives can be met for
the benefit of all. They should all be on the same
side, working together.
As for the late term abortion issue, that is best left
to the medical profession and more specifically to
those qualified ob/gyns - what do lawyers know about
that? <G>
--
LP
"We are fighting today for security, for progress,
and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all
men, not only for one generation but for all
generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world
of ancient evils, ancient ills."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
State of the Union Address - 1942
|
| |
| |
edward ohare wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 09:50:00 -0400, LeMod Pol <modpol@igs.net> wrote:
A general "must provide all records" deal? C'mon. The current
situation is that such people must contact law enforcement if they
have reason to believe a crime has been committed.
I'm certainly not recommending young teens have sex, but we know it
happens. Making it illegal by arbitrarily setting an age affects
nothing.
If two 13 year old or 12/13 have sex there is no
problem. It is when, all too often, a 20 or 30 year old
male cons an under 14 girl that we have criminal
activity.
In another issue, you can have two 17 year old high school seniors,
who can have sex legally, but as soon as one turns 18, they have to
stop until the other turns 18. Silly, eh?
No - you are being silly, ed. the article spoke of:
"the records of girls under the age of 14 who have
visited PlannedParenthood clinics."
further it spoke of the 'fathers'of 12 and 13 year old
pregnancies averaging 7 years older as in 19 to 20 2
An Indiana judge has just upheld the Indiana attorney
general's request, although the case is under appeal.
"The great public interest," the county superior judge
wrote, "in the reporting, investigation and prosecution
of child abuse trumps even the patient's interest in
privileged communication with her physician because, in
the end, both the patient and the state are benefited
by the disclosure."
But this whole thing is a fishing expedition with the assumption
anyone under 14 is subject to abuse.
Fair assumption that must be checked on a case by case
basis where sexual activity may be assumed.
Even with the records, this would be a very dicey cross
between a sack of diamond backs and a couple of angry
bengal tigers - talk about between a rock and a hard place.
the girl is at Planned Parenthood because she does not
want her parent[s] to know, so where can she be
interviewed? She can not be interviewed by law
enforcement of any kind without a parent/guardian and
or counsel. So how do you protect her privacy?
Instead of fighting this in court PP & AG should be
exploring how they can protect young girls from would
be exploiters.
Why would a feminist organization not be eager to
co-operate in a fight against the sexual exploitation
of young girls?
Because those asking for the records are proceeding on the assumption
that an arbitrary setting of age proves exploitation. (These, BTW,
are the same sorts of people
but not necessarily the same
who want to go on fishing trips in
libraries to see what books we've checked out, so they can find the
subversives).
Privacy is the principle. Too many people want selective principles.
They want them to apply when they accomplish what they want.
Yep. Just like my library records, eh?
Yeah - nobody got your library records.
This fight is so important because our culture
relentlessly sexualizes children.
Children? How above everyone?
How does this possible solve that problem?
Why don't you suggest a way that will satisfy both objectives.
--
LP
"We are fighting today for security, for progress,
and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all
men, not only for one generation but for all
generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world
of ancient evils, ancient ills."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
State of the Union Address - 1942
|
| |
| |
dragonlady wrote:
In article <42A1B180.34C6535C@igs.net>, LeMod Pol <modpol@igs.net>
wrote:
What they are actually fighting for is the right to privacy of these
girls.
They know that if they have to start turning records over to the police,
girls are less likely to come to them, and more likely to turn to unsafe
methods to terminate their pregnancies. This is particularly true if
the man responsible for the pregnancy is, say, their father.
Ideally, any girl who is raped would feel safe, both terminating the
pregnancy and going to the police.
Ideally, the parents of a pregnant 12 or 13 yo would know who the man
responsible was, and call the police themselves.
Of course, some 12 and 13 yo's who end up pregant don't feel that
they've been raped, even if the man responsible is considerably older --
those who seduce children are often very good at convincing the child
that she (or he) wants to have sex with them.
This is most unfortunate, and I'd love to see to it that any adult
having sex with a child was prosecuted. Or, for that matter, any teen
having sex with someone more than two or three years younger.
However, making safe abortions unavailable (and that's what a policy of
turning the records over to the police would do) is NOT the answer.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
I do not disagree with what you say - however you are
in error on point -- the AG is not looking for files,
according to the article I posted, rather he wants
lists of names which would only indicate that sexual
activity may or is possibly about to have started. It
may also indicate that the girl is unable to discuss
the subject with her mother or guardian
Ostensibly the AG is not interested in abortions per
se, rather protecting grade 6,7 and 8 girls from
exploitation by adults - which could, as you said, may
be father, step-father, mom's boyfriend, or the senior
quarterback on the highschool football team.
That given, I have difficulty in seeing how this can be
accomplished without opening the sack of diamondback
rattlers that is any schools rumour mill.
--
LP
"We are fighting today for security, for progress,
and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all
men, not only for one generation but for all
generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world
of ancient evils, ancient ills."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
State of the Union Address - 1942
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 14:34:03 -0400, LeMod Pol <modpol@igs.net> wrote:
edward ohare wrote:
I'm certainly not recommending young teens have sex, but we know it
happens. Making it illegal by arbitrarily setting an age affects
nothing.
If two 13 year old or 12/13 have sex there is no
problem. It is when, all too often, a 20 or 30 year old
male cons an under 14 girl that we have criminal
activity.
And so they want the ability to look over **all** the records of
patients under 15. Does this satisfy probable cause? Of course not.
But the next argument is that its a special situation, and so the
principles don't apply.
But justifying special situations is consistently trouble. Special
situation in 1942, so they incarcerated Japanese-Americans. Special
situation in 1950, so they character assassinated half of Hollywood.
Special situation in 1970 so they started breaking into offices to get
people's medical records. Special situation in 1984 so they
clandestinely sold arms to coutries on the no sell list and gave the
money to the Contras who were on the no money list.
No - you are being silly, ed. the article spoke of:
further it spoke of the 'fathers'of 12 and 13 year old
pregnancies averaging 7 years older as in 19 to 20 2
Averages aren't a sufficient reason to intrude in people's lives.
Talk about profiling!
But this whole thing is a fishing expedition with the assumption
anyone under 14 is subject to abuse.
Fair assumption that must be checked on a case by case
basis where sexual activity may be assumed.
Not at all a fair assumption.
Yeah - nobody got your library records.
Not for want of trying.
This fight is so important because our culture
relentlessly sexualizes children.
Why don't you suggest a way that will satisfy both objectives.
You have to depend on people to report crimes. If investigation of PP
records raises some suspicion, what are they going to do if the girl
won't cooperate?
|
| |
| |
edward ohare wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 14:34:03 -0400, LeMod Pol <modpol@igs.net> wrote:
I'm certainly not recommending young teens have sex, but we know it
happens. Making it illegal by arbitrarily setting an age affects
nothing.
And so they want the ability to look over **all** the records of
patients under 15.
stop playing dead meat -- that is twice you have made
the same spurious claim. They want names not records,
which is why the court went along.
Does this satisfy probable cause? Of course not.
But the next argument is that its a special situation, and so the
principles don't apply.
Probable cause does not apply nor does "special situation"
But justifying special situations is consistently trouble. Special
situation in 1942, so they incarcerated Japanese-Americans. Special
situation in 1950, so they character assassinated half of Hollywood.
Special situation in 1970 so they started breaking into offices to get
people's medical records. Special situation in 1984 so they
clandestinely sold arms to coutries on the no sell list and gave the
money to the Contras who were on the no money list.
Averages aren't a sufficient reason to intrude in people's lives.
Talk about profiling!
But this whole thing is a fishing expedition with the assumption
anyone under 14 is subject to abuse.
Not at all a fair assumption.
Ed you skipped the most important part of my posts -
just like daryl
--
LP
Those who show compassion to perpetrators of evil
will display indifference and cruelty to good people
deserving compassion.
It is a reflection of a core attitude that feels
revulsion to the wholesome and hence an attraction
to evil. * Talmud- kohlet midrabba 7:36
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:07:37 -0400, LeMod Pol <modpol@igs.net> wrote:
edward ohare wrote:
stop playing dead meat -- that is twice you have made
the same spurious claim. They want names not records,
which is why the court went along.
Try the topic, not attempted insults (besides, you should know I
refuse to be insulted).
Probable cause does not apply nor does "special situation"
Most certainly does. Both. They're trying to investigate potential
crimes based on statistical probability that in a large sample,
they'll find some crimes.
Ed you skipped the most important part of my posts -
How am I supposed to know what's important to you? Make it easier on
me. Write less! <G>
just like daryl
Oh, here we go again.
Seriously, I've noted this technique is a standard one for you. It
doesn't work. What you want to do is call someone stupid **after**
you | | |
