|By Don_walsh on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 04:43 am: Edit|
It has nothing to do with slave labor, it is (commercial) sex 'slavery', a la Russian Mafia, and I would have thought that all that is covered under the Mann Act already. Federal jurisdiction seems very well established.
Of course the Mann Act does not distinguish between consenting and non-consenting sex workers. However, as a matter of jurisdiction, that matters not at all.
All this is, folks, is some drunken and debauched legislator trying to appeal to some constituency with a duplicative law catering to those concerned with "transnational trafficking in women" which is a pet peave of M.Albright.
Anyone who disputes my characterization of legislators, hasn't spent much time in the company of same. I have.
|By Billynorm on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 12:03 am: Edit|
The law is merely a victory for Nike & Kathie Lee Gifford, who had no intentions of importing their slave labor anyway!
|By Don_walsh on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 02:56 pm: Edit|
Oh, I see. It's a make-work bill for the ATF.
|By Bob_chong on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 07:02 am: Edit|
Basically, this bill is "outlawing" things that are already illegal (including the liquor rider, which also serves to compound the restrictions on freedom and on commerce, at the federal level)?
Reminds me of hate crimes legislation. I am bothered by hate crimes, but allowing the federal government to add a layer to an existing crime will only serve to give them more control in states' matters.
|By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 06:59 am: Edit|
Oh man does this suck. My slave-running business is finished. When will that damn meddling government get off my ass?
|By Black_rabbit on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 05:57 am: Edit|
Um, no, actually I was on topic for once.
See, the bill is designed to prevent you importing people for purposes of making them captives and prostituting them. But that ain't the important part. Has nothing to do with anything.
There is a rider on the bill that says the federal government will have the power to enforce state laws on SHIPPING LIQUOR.
|By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 12:06 am: Edit|
I pretty much volunteered to plaster my most intimate privacy all over my objects and images when I decided to become an artist. Come to think of it, that wasn't exactly a decision, at that. Why stop here? Despite the possibility of the imminent exploitation of this information by Bob for purposes of attacking me, here's the thing:
I admit it. I was mad for Anne. Although it was over ten years ago, dwelling on it can still produce an uncomfortable tingling sensation in my abdomen. I ran across the same photo this evening. My estimation of the sculptures was a little more charitable, given my obvious bias in the matter, but I find your account wickedly funny. As far as tales of spicy romance go, I'm afraid I'm empty. I have never been so floored by the beauty of a woman, and the feeling was not mutual. I never fully recovered. But, if oblivion is this exquisite, I'll take it. I leave you with a Marilynne Robinson quote and a jpeg of a photo 13 years old.
"For need can blossom into all the compensation it requires. To crave and to have are as like as a thing and its shadow. For when does a berry break upon the tongue as sweetly as when one longs to taste it, and when is the taste refracted into so many hues and savors of ripeness and earth, and when do our senses know any thing so utterly as when we lack it? And here again is a foreshadowing -- the world will be made whole. For to wish for a hand on one's hair is all but to feel it. So whatever we may lose, very craving gives it back to us again. Though we dream and hardly know it, longing, like an angel, fosters us, smooths our hair, and brings us wild strawberries."
|By Perruche_verte on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 11:06 pm: Edit|
Supposedly this bill toughens the penalties for illegally bringing women into the U.S. to be used for sex or forced labor. Nothing to do with BDSM unless the scene is a pretty elaborate and expensive one.
This is already pretty highly illegal and I'm not sure the bill contains any new provisions for enforcement. But it's a bill that will get votes for any politician who backs it. Bet they were falling all over themselves to co-sponsor it too.
Anatomist, I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I actually did a Google search for Anne Hars, thinking this might be some dynamite cultural reference I needed to pick up on.
On this site:
there's a photo of an Anne Hars -- a sort of spectral figure with a big hat, not at all unattractive -- standing behind a sculpture by an artist named Biz Parris. Parris makes sculptures that look like wadded foil sandwich wrappers from a fast-food restaurant stuffed into mesh onion bags and dropped in a parking lot somewhere.
Also what look like some poorly crafted but "expressive" ceramic vessels and sculpture. Not terribly cheap either. Sorry, I used to be a ceramist so I feel qualified to comment here. No reflection on A.H., I'm sure.
Is this the great lost love?
If I'm making you recall something painful I'll stop this line of questioning immediately.
|By Michele on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 10:42 pm: Edit|
don, i was joking. i would wink, but i like to avoid emoticons, if at all possible.
|By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 10:35 pm: Edit|
Sorry, no, that was just a desultory private rave that somehow made its way through my keyboard.
|By Don_walsh on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 10:26 pm: Edit|
I'm not really sure that this bill has anything to do with 'consenting' at all. But I haven't read it yet. If the bill is intended to interfere with consensual BDSM activity between/among adults then it is a travesty.
|By Perruche_verte on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 10:07 pm: Edit|
I'm sorry, are we supposed to know who Anne Hars is?
|By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 09:13 pm: Edit|
i wish the government could've prevented me from falling in love with Anne Hars... that ruined my fucking life.
|By Michele on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 07:15 pm: Edit|
i wish the government would quit being so darn nosey about what happens between consenting adults.
|By Black_rabbit on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 05:30 pm: Edit|
A rider stuck on an anti-sex-slavery bill will (if it goes through) give the US Federal Govt the power to enforce state bans on shipping liquor.
I wonder if they will enforce it any harder or better? See the link below.
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation