Lori Alexander On Entitlement

[Koala]

For awhile Ken and Lori reminded me a bit of PP and ZsuZsu. But I have to give the PP credit for not commenting or trying to white knight ZsuZsu on her blog. Ken was totally white knighting his precious wife from the ebil liberals. He has done stuff like before on Lori's blog.

I think Lori goes to him for help. She prattles on about things she has no fucking clue about and then realizes she's in over her head and runs to Ken. The only problem is, Ken doesn't know anymore than she does. They are both idiots.

Her latest post is just a copy and paste job from the comment section of her last post...and Ken wrote that.

I think it's funny that they fancy themselves mentors and hold themselves in such high regard. The minute anyone questions them though, they either "don't have time to address it" or delete the comments. No dissent allowed. They are both beyond foolish.

[slickcat79]

As for cute-little-baby adoptions, I think it's time to stop being so condescending to birth mothers, and assuming that we can't trust their choices. I mean, they are adults or near adults, and they ahve made a choice, and so many people assume they were "coerced" or "pressured" or "would want to keep their baby once they spent time with it." It's kind of like the abortion argument--if you can keep women from aborting, they will eventually give birth, fall in love with their baby, and have a "happy family." Why not trust a woman's choice in both situations?

Lots of them are coerced or pressured, particularly by family members or religious institutions, and sometimes to drastic degrees. The magdalene laundries only closed in the last 20 years. I don't necessarily think "spending time with it" would make people want to keep their babies, but I do think some people might change their minds about keeping a baby if money, drug use, mental disorder, or other physiological/societal factors were not in play. Those are often the things that make them choose adoption or abortion in the first place. For some people, "spending time with it" does actually make them change their minds, which is why most states have a waiting period to give birth mothers a chance to cancel an adoption even after their babies are born. I am happy to support a birth mother in her decision to place her baby for adoption but, just as with abortion, I would hope that some effort was expended to see that she is making a free choice.

[lilwriter85]

I think Lori goes to him for help. She prattles on about things she has no fucking clue about and then realizes she's in over her head and runs to Ken. The only problem is, Ken doesn't know anymore than she does. They are both idiots.

Her latest post is just a copy and paste job from the comment section of her last post...and Ken wrote that.

I think it's funny that they fancy themselves mentors and hold themselves in such high regard. The minute anyone questions them though, they either "don't have time to address it" or delete the comments. No dissent allowed. They are both beyond foolish.

It makes me gag that they have actually mentored other people and some people have taken their shitty advice. I think Ken holds himself in high regard because he has a master's of divinity degree, but from what I can tell, he isn't currently a pastor at any church. Both him and Lori have fucked up views on marriage and a lot of her posts show that the marriage isn't happy. They are both assholes. I don't have any sympathy for Lori, because she has shown that she is asshole to other people including her parents and children. She has bashed her parents a few times. I recall something that she said her dad wasn't a good leader. She also said something about mentoring her mom. I get the strong feeling that she controls her adult children quite a bit. She threw a huge fit during one of her illness bouts when her daughter didn't make a fucking soup the way she wanted it. The most fucked up thing about Lori is that she is a Pearl fangirl and she had those blog entries about her being ok with her granddaughter being force fed.

[slickcat79]

Anyway, the more pressing matter is the hypocrisy these fundies show. Many probably benefit from various social programs without realizing it. There are items like child tax credits, local food banks, medicaid, etc that these fundie families take advantage of to maintain their quiverful lifestyle. Then again, they could say tax credits is merely their money returned to them (not true as that means less money for roads, police and firemen that they still take advantage of). They could say that the local food banks is just voluntary donation and therefore not socialism (not true as many receive federal grants or tax-exempt status). And of course, they still get a bill from medicaid, except hospital waiting on delayed payment means charging others more to "redistribute" and cover the cost.

I guess private charities weren't enough to cover her expenses during the whole year her family went without income. As others stated, welfare is only wasteful to some when they are not receiving it, it's only unnecessary when they don't need it. I wish these other fundies would step down from their moral pedestal and see the hypocrisy their attitudes project. There's nothing Christian about looking down on others who choose a different lifestyle than you, who are at more difficult economic situation than you. Fundies talk a lot about Jesus, but few seem to share his enthusiasm for helping the poor and doing good works.

I think the bolded is especially relevant. I was thinking about that when I was reading Chris Jeub's entry on government assistance the other day:

jeubfamily.com/2012/09/26/government-assistance-2

Apparently taking gov't assistance robs people of their dignity and creates a culture of dependency, but stubbornly refusing to take it makes you FREE :roll: This comes from a man who feeds his kids on free samples from Sam's Club and gets donated clothing left on the porch. He relies on Scamaritan Ministries to pay for his family's health care, which is just like government insurance with a smaller pool to draw from and an extra layer of shame and judgment. He wrote several entries earlier in the year about how his bout with myocarditis and his son's hand injury resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in medical expenses that they didn't have a prayer of paying, and he was really worried. Because somehow, waiting for random strangers to send you money for your medical bills is more freeing than having the government pay for them. He is just as dependent as the people on welfare that he derides, except he continues to put himself in that position by deliberately having more kids than he could ever afford.

[GeoBQn]

When people trot out the "private charities will solve everything" argument, I think of the episode of Who Do You Think You Are? featuring Lionel Ritchie. One of his ancestors helped found a national fraternal organization for African-American men that provided assistance to families after the Civil War. They did great work--until a cholera epidemic hit hard. The organization's resources were overwhelmed and they went bankrupt.

[G G Gunhold]

Some good friends just adopted a 14-year old with Hep B. Though some money did change hands (for work that was done), there didn't seem to be anything corrupt about it. The child (teen, really) is in much better health now that she is getting consistent medical care, and she has three older sisters to boot. I see it as a win-win situation, she is much loved.

As for cute-little-baby adoptions, I think it's time to stop being so condescending to birth mothers, and assuming that we can't trust their choices. I mean, they are adults or near adults, and they ahve made a choice, and so many people assume they were "coerced" or "pressured" or "would want to keep their baby once they spent time with it." It's kind of like the abortion argument--if you can keep women from aborting, they will eventually give birth, fall in love with their baby, and have a "happy family." Why not trust a woman's choice in both situations?

I wasn't referring to adoption from foster care, but to "cute-little-baby" adoption. What seems condescending is to tell young women that if they really love their kids, they will give them up to a couple (and therefore it follows that if they choose to raise them, they don't love them as much).

As for abortion, I don't think trusting a woman's choice means not examining the structures that lead up to both situations in order to prevent them if possible. Based on what I've heard from women who've placed for adoption and those who've had abortions, neither makes for a super fun time. I've trusted my friends to make the best decisions for them. I haven't trusted others in their lives; the doctors who didn't explain how to use birth control properly, the politicians who don't support a basic safety net for those who can't just "borrow from mom and dad", the societal message that they are worth less for having sex and/or accidentally getting pregnant.

It's kind of not like abortion. Abortion is a woman's decision. Adoption-at-birth is a decision that affects more people, including the entire life of a baby-then-child-then-adult. And in my view, I'm not saying it's not the right answer in many situations, but the way it's structured in the U.S. (especially compared to other countries) is absolutely skeevy. The "price difference" between a white baby and a non-white baby, the heavy influence of very conservative religious groups, the history of taking babies from unmarried teens without THEIR consent but with their parents', the dismissal of fathers' rights, the lack of legal rights for those who are adopted, the baby-stealing that has gone on in countries to supply the adoption demand fueled by the U.S. (at least in part), the tax credits for adopting but not for single mothering...

There may be a point when we don't need to consider the structural inequities that limit people's choices. But this isn't it. I am NOT saying ANYTHING negative about women who give their babies up for adoption, I am saying something about the tone of the conversation on a fundamentalist blog that gives their two acceptable options for unmarried young women: abstinence or adoption. Not contraceptives, not abortion, not raising their child. Women who have sex before marriage are "bad"; if they get pregnant, they are "bad"; if they have an abortion, they are "bad"; if they raise their child, they don't love it enough.

As for any assumptions that "once they'll meet the baby, they'll love it", I am not saying that at all. But if it's really a decision that isn't coerced and fully hers, why isn't there a window of time for her to change her mind? It's not like abortion in terms of a set point at which there is no physical turning back. It's an arbitrary legal point that varies, that isn't necessarily communicated clearly, and that often (not always) has a huge inherent power imbalance (young, (comparatively) uneducated, poor(er) single pregnant/recently post-partum woman without means vs older, educated, established, financially secure couple in stable health) even without broad societal messages surrounding the shame of women & sex, non-sexual women's bodies, single mothering.

I don't see that our society as a whole is particularly great at supporting women's decisions to be sexually active or not, to dress how they want, to exist in their bodies without judgment, to have children or not, to raise children or not, to marry or not. As many on this board point out, we have a huge and weird focus on pregnant women's pre-natal choices, but without providing the post-natal support that would support our positions (if we're pro-life, then kids need to be fed and sheltered and educated and cared for post-birth, if we're pro-choice, then women shouldn't have to decide based on whether they'll lose their job for being pregnant, or their family will throw them out, or they won't have the support to finish their education.

[Burris]

***UPDATE***

Lor's husband explains why it's not hypocritical to control women and homosexuals while yet still bitching that government needs to be smaller.

WARNING: Nuclear levels of stupid. Ken's answer has everything from obvious logical fallacies to the assumption the world is only a few thousand years old.

[rock_girl]

Lol @ "the parts do not fit". So what happens to a man with a micropenis and a woman with a wide vagina? Are they not permitted to marry because the parts just don't fit?

[lilwriter85]

Ben returned to make comments to Lori and Ken.

Ben Yarbrough · 1 hour ago

(sorry for the late response, I've had a friend visiting for the last few days, and finding time to type this up has been difficult)

Ken,

Lori's post is about the government interfering with people's personal freedoms. I responded with a question about how she viewed the differences between one kind of freedom and another, and the conversation went from there. While the conversation is not directly related to what she first posted, the sequence is logical.

The link to the website provides proof that Lori's claim about no society allowing gay marriage was false. Her claim was that no society has ever sanctioned it, not that no society has ever sanctioned it until 11 years ago, as you mistakenly assert. The reason I provided that link is to show that little of what you say can be taken seriously, because you both refuse to back up your "facts" with any sort of reliable evidence.

In response to this post, I'd first like to simply state that basing a large part of your argument on what people have been doing for the last 4,000 years is intellectually lazy to the extreme. Did your parents ever ask you as a child, "If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you too?" Times change, Ken. There's a reason that slavery, for example, is no longer legally permitted in the United States. Although passages in the Bible make it seem as though slavery is acceptable or turn a blind eye to its practice, and countless people used the Bible as justification for maintaining the institution of slavery in the U.S., people later recognized that we should not blindly follow morally reprehensible traditions, no matter how accepted they are in our society.

Because any discussion of morals is necessarily subjective, I'd like to spend some time looking at your arguments that are objectively flawed. Take, for example, one of the other main points of your post: gay marriage should not be allowed because of the need to repopulate the planet. You argue that allowing gays to marry will result in the collapse of civilization as we know it due to lower birth rates. This data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that while the annual population change certainly decreases up until 2049 (the latest year for which estimates are available), we are in no danger of suddenly becoming extinct :http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table_population.php. Considering that the percentage of gays and lesbians of the total population is not huge (this study estimates it to be around 3.5% in the United States: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/... your argument that allowing gays to marry will lead to the collapse of mankind also fails to hold up. As people responding to this post have mentioned, you also fail to take into account single parent households, couples who cannot conceive for genetic reasons, and couples who simply opt not to have children. Your response to those people simply stepped around the subject and went back to your flawed historical argument.

You say, "I challenge you to tell me what rights are taken away from a civil union couple as compared to a married couple." You can read the GAO's 1997 study here: http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/223674.pdf. It found that there are "1,049 federal laws classified to the United States code in which marital status is a factor." I encourage you to read the study yourself. Maybe we are using a different system of measurements, but I would consider 1,049 differences to be quite a lot.

Reentering subjective territory, let's also talk about the harm to gays as a result of unequal legal treatment. You argue that the harm is minimal at best, and in this case I acknowledge that I cannot objectively prove you wrong. However, doesn’t common sense indicate that being considered a second-class citizen will have some sort of negative influence on your mental well-being? Try thinking about what you would feel like if the rest of the world suddenly decided that white people, as a minority, didn't deserve the same rights as everyone else. Something tells me you wouldn’t like it.

On a side note, your 8th paragraph is extremely disturbing. Immigrants in France are not "taking over," they are immigrating. Culture is not something that is frozen in time. Do you also think that sushi is ruining U.S. culture because it displaces time-honored U.S. foods like meatloaf? Should we be concerned about Gangnam style because people are choosing to listen to it in place of music produced by Americans? (If this sounds ridiculous to you, it's because these examples, like your claim that immigrants are ruining culture, are exactly that.) The reason why countries like the United States and France are such great places is precisely because of the myriad cultures contained within their borders and the way in which these cultures influence and change each other. Complaining that immigrants are ruining a culture does nothing more than expose your own intolerance of others.

Ben Yarbrough · 1 hour ago

Back on topic - I'd now like to make a few conclusions of my own (please take note of how I don't try to present my own opinions as fact). Having shown that the information you use to back up your claims is untrue, the only argument you have left to fall back on is that gay marriage is forbidden by the Bible. However, the Bible has been around for quite a while now, and people have been arguing about what it means ever since it was written. The issue here isn't what the Bible says, but the attitude of the person interpreting it. Why is it that throughout history, some Christians have used the Bible to promote the mistreatment of others, while some Christians have found that they can be both faithful and accepting of others? In my opinion, it is because people who have hate and fear in their hearts to begin with will always find an excuse to treat others as inferior to themselves, and the Bible presents a great excuse to give vent to these feelings. Putting yourself in a superior position to others and then trying to claim that you love them is painfully hypocritical.

Finally, I'd like to clear up a misconception you have about my post. In fact, my main issue with this blog is not specific to your anti-gay marriage bias. The issue came up this time, but it's not the main problem I see with what both of you write. Rather, my problem is that you are deliberately spreading misinformation without backing up your sources, and you use the Bible to back up your own assertions that those different from you, whether they be gay, poor, or immigrants, are ruining society. These themes appear again and again on this blog. Giving your arguments anything more than a cursory glance reveals that they are flawed and do not stand up to a logical examination. I know that the two of you are beyond convincing, but I hope that this will show the readers of your blog that they should look a little harder at what you write and not take anything you say at face value. Anyway, it's been fun discussing this with you. I have no doubt that you will manage to find a way to make it seem as though everything you have said is perfectly reasonable and factually correct. I will not be responding again, because doing your research for you is rather time consuming. And might I suggest that since you took my last post and made it into its own topic you do the same with this one, so that people who might not be reading this anymore will have a chance to see it?

Sincerely,

Ben Yarbrough

Pomona College 2011

[Hisey]

I wasn't referring to adoption from foster care, but to "cute-little-baby" adoption. What seems condescending is to tell young women that if they really love their kids, they will give them up to a couple (and therefore it follows that if they choose to raise them, they don't love them as much).

As for abortion, I don't think trusting a woman's choice means not examining the structures that lead up to both situations in order to prevent them if possible. Based on what I've heard from women who've placed for adoption and those who've had abortions, neither makes for a super fun time. I've trusted my friends to make the best decisions for them. I haven't trusted others in their lives; the doctors who didn't explain how to use birth control properly, the politicians who don't support a basic safety net for those who can't just "borrow from mom and dad", the societal message that they are worth less for having sex and/or accidentally getting pregnant.

It's kind of not like abortion. Abortion is a woman's decision. Adoption-at-birth is a decision that affects more people, including the entire life of a baby-then-child-then-adult. And in my view, I'm not saying it's not the right answer in many situations, but the way it's structured in the U.S. (especially compared to other countries) is absolutely skeevy. The "price difference" between a white baby and a non-white baby, the heavy influence of very conservative religious groups, the history of taking babies from unmarried teens without THEIR consent but with their parents', the dismissal of fathers' rights, the lack of legal rights for those who are adopted, the baby-stealing that has gone on in countries to supply the adoption demand fueled by the U.S. (at least in part), the tax credits for adopting but not for single mothering...

There may be a point when we don't need to consider the structural inequities that limit people's choices. But this isn't it. I am NOT saying ANYTHING negative about women who give their babies up for adoption, I am saying something about the tone of the conversation on a fundamentalist blog that gives their two acceptable options for unmarried young women: abstinence or adoption. Not contraceptives, not abortion, not raising their child. Women who have sex before marriage are "bad"; if they get pregnant, they are "bad"; if they have an abortion, they are "bad"; if they raise their child, they don't love it enough.

As for any assumptions that "once they'll meet the baby, they'll love it", I am not saying that at all. But if it's really a decision that isn't coerced and fully hers, why isn't there a window of time for her to change her mind? It's not like abortion in terms of a set point at which there is no physical turning back. It's an arbitrary legal point that varies, that isn't necessarily communicated clearly, and that often (not always) has a huge inherent power imbalance (young, (comparatively) uneducated, poor(er) single pregnant/recently post-partum woman without means vs older, educated, established, financially secure couple in stable health) even without broad societal messages surrounding the shame of women & sex, non-sexual women's bodies, single mothering.

I don't see that our society as a whole is particularly great at supporting women's decisions to be sexually active or not, to dress how they want, to exist in their bodies without judgment, to have children or not, to raise children or not, to marry or not. As many on this board point out, we have a huge and weird focus on pregnant women's pre-natal choices, but without providing the post-natal support that would support our positions (if we're pro-life, then kids need to be fed and sheltered and educated and cared for post-birth, if we're pro-choice, then women shouldn't have to decide based on whether they'll lose their job for being pregnant, or their family will throw them out, or they won't have the support to finish their education.

Hi I don't know where you are getting your information about adoption, but it seems many of your premises are mistaken.

Maybe you are referring to perfectly healthy white blond babies. It's true, there is a "demand" for them. However, the overwhelming number of adoptions are for babies WHOM NOBODY WANTS.

I know many couples who have done cute-little-baby adoptions. However, these babies were brown. Nobody else wanted them. The adoption agencies asked all the families on their list, till they came to my friends.

In most cases, if there is a family who wants a baby, that is a very good, and lucky thing. That's because most adoptions are for older kids (above a year), minority kids, disabled kids, etc. It is wrong to call these adoptions corrupt or bad--because kids are getting homes where they otherwise would not have had a home.

When people speak negatively about adoption, I think there is a racist element to it. They are saying, "That family doesn't deserve this cute-little-white baby." They speak like the baby is a commodity, and that the adoptive family doesn't deserve this wonderful prize. I've never seen anyone criticize adoption and then it turns out they are speaking about the adoption of a blind 8-year old. No, it is always the cute, white, healthy babies that we are terribly worried about.

The same is true for international adoptions. Instead of rejoicing that these babies are getting good medical care, food, and love, white americans in comfortable homes worry about whether these babies should leave their orphanages and abandon their culture. Culture is important, certianly. However, surviving chldhood is important too. Many, many children die in third-world orphanages. I would bet these kids would rather live, than stay in their country and enjoy their culture until their early death.

[slickcat79]

Hi I don't know where you are getting your information about adoption, but it seems many of your premises are mistaken.

Maybe you are referring to perfectly healthy white blond babies. It's true, there is a "demand" for them. However, the overwhelming number of adoptions are for babies WHOM NOBODY WANTS.

How is that possible? If nobody wants them, how do they constitute the majority of adoptions?

I know many couples who have done cute-little-baby adoptions. However, these babies were brown. Nobody else wanted them. The adoption agencies asked all the families on their list, till they came to my friends.

In most cases, if there is a family who wants a baby, that is a very good, and lucky thing. That's because most adoptions are for older kids (above a year), minority kids, disabled kids, etc. It is wrong to call these adoptions corrupt or bad--because kids are getting homes where they otherwise would not have had a home.

I don't understand your wording here. It's a good thing if a family wants a baby, because...there are fewer adoptions for babies? You keep referring to situations that specifically address adoption from foster care, when GG said she wasn't talking about foster care adoptions.

When people speak negatively about adoption, I think there is a racist element to it. They are saying, "That family doesn't deserve this cute-little-white baby." They speak like the baby is a commodity, and that the adoptive family doesn't deserve this wonderful prize. I've never seen anyone criticize adoption and then it turns out they are speaking about the adoption of a blind 8-year old. No, it is always the cute, white, healthy babies that we are terribly worried about.

I don't see how you get that from previous comments at all. I do think there are some fundie families (in particular) that don't deserve to have more children because they don't give the child anything that they won't get in foster care. They are the ones that see children as trophies. They don't love them, they don't provide for their physical or medical needs, they don't recognize and address any previous traumas, and some of them abuse their adopted kids to the point of death.

I'm really confused by the idea that people see the adoptive families as not worthy of having a child. For generations, the assumption has always been that the birth mother/family doesn't deserve a cute little baby. If she's young, if she's unmarried, if she's poor, etc. she should give that baby to an older, wealthier, probably white, definitely straight married couple.

The same is true for international adoptions. Instead of rejoicing that these babies are getting good medical care, food, and love, white americans in comfortable homes worry about whether these babies should leave their orphanages and abandon their culture. Culture is important, certianly. However, surviving chldhood is important too. Many, many children die in third-world orphanages. I would bet these kids would rather live, than stay in their country and enjoy their culture until their early death.

I think we've seen some clear examples to show that not all children who are adopted internationally get those things. But besides that, why should the only solution to poverty and childhood illness be "take the kids away and give them to someone else"? It's only recently that people have become aware of the level of corruption that does exist in a number of international adoption programs. Babies who are stolen from their birth families, mothers who are lied to about the fact that their kids will be taken away forever, cases of human trafficking like the church group who tried to kidnap a group of Haitian "orphans" after the earthquake, etc. Adoption can be a fantastic thing, and I support that as a choice for women who are able to make it freely. But I'm not sure why we should perpetuate the assumption that a young/single/poor/neurally atypical/whatever woman will make a poor mother and she should decide to give her baby away to someone more deserving before it's even born.

[jesssnerch]

Ben returned to make comments to Lori and Ken.

This young man deserves a slow clap from an eighties movie!

QhTiJEYqqY8

[lilwriter85]

Ben is deserving of that slow clap. I wish he would continue to comment on Lori's blog. But he knows that it is pointless. I'm surprised Lori's even allowed Ben's newest comments to be published.

[dairyfreelife]

How the fuck does he know this? Doesn't site a single statistic, just puts it out there and expects everyone to swallow it.

Funny, most gay/lesbian couples I know have all been in long term relationships that are monogamous. One has been together for 25 years, another had one 6 year and recently a 3 year one and they want to marry, have three children between them. Ken and Lori: :hand:

[dairyfreelife]

Not surprised the Nitwit allowed this comment to be published.

This Harper person is so ignorant, it's comical. If this is true, she missed the point entirely. Her grandmother's family felt they were better off than others so chose to give the jobs to those she felt needed it more. Seems like her grandmother must have been a kind women who cared about others. So what happened to her grandchild?