OT: Dump the Kid, You're Going to the War Zone
Bobchai
Sent to me by a Facebook friend, it comes from a a very liberal anti-
war site, but regardless of your politics, this story is an outrage.
Even Dr. Laura would be outraged.
Classic military protocol since WW2 has been that if you are the sole
source of support for a child, you would not be obligated to be sent
into a war zone. The military just as easily may have kept this woman
posted to a base stateside, but they didn't. Her insubordination is
going to cost her a year in a military prison and the loss of her
child to foster care. They could have simply given her a discharge.
--Bob
* * * * *
November 13 2009
Army Gives Single Mom's Infant to Child Protective Services and Sends
Mom to Afghanistan
Specialist Alexis Hutchinson of Oakland, CA is the single mother of an
11-month old boy, Kamani. Currently she is confined to Hunter Army
Airfield near Savannah, Georgia, where she has been posted since
February 2008, and threatened with a court martial if she does not
agree to be deployed to Afghanistan, even though she has not found
anyone to take care of her child while she is away. She has been told
that she will be flown this Sunday to Afghanistan for a special court
martial.
In anticipation of going overseas Specialist Hutchinson flew to
California and left her son with her mother Angelique Hughes of
Oakland, as per her Army family care plan. However, after a week of
caring for the child Specialist Hutchinson’s mother realized that she
was unable to take care of Kamani on top of her other duties to her
special-needs daughter, her ailing mother, and her ailing sister. In
late October Angelique Hughes informed Hutchinson and her commander,
Captain Gassant, that she was not able to care for her daughter's baby
after all. The Army gave Specialist Hutchinson an extension of time to
find someone else to care for her son, and in the meantime her mother
brought Kamani back to Georgia. However just a few days before
Specialist Hutchinson was scheduled to deploy she was told that she
would not get the extended time after all and would have to deploy,
even though there was no one to care for her child.
Faced with that choice Specialist Hutchinson did not show up for her
plane. The military had her arrested and they put her child in the
county foster care system.
Currently, Specialist Hutchinson is scheduled to fly to Afghanistan
for a special court martial on Sunday and is facing up to one year in
jail. Her mother flew to Georgia and retrieved the baby but is
overwhelmed, and does not feel able to provide long-term care for
Kamani.
Specialist Hutchinson would like to have more time to find someone to
care for her infant. However, she does not have a lot of family or
friends who could do so. She says: “It is outrageous that they would
deploy a single mother without a complete and current family care
plan. I would like to find someone I trust who can take care of my
son, but I cannot force my family to do this. They are dealing with
their own health issues.”
CONTACT:
Rai Sue Sussman
Attorney at Law
179 11th Street, Second Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 864-5600 x111 (office)
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:6c433ba3-7a3f-4221...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.c
om:
> The military just as easily may have
> kept this woman posted to a base stateside, but they didn't.
At the expense of someone else having to go overseas and be away from
their family for a year. That is the other side.
> Her
> insubordination is going to cost her a year in a military prison
> and the loss of her child to foster care. They could have
> simply given her a discharge.
Which is what should have happened the moment she became a single
parent, but times are tough.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. - David
Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Childfree Abby
> Bobchai <Robert...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:6c433ba3-7a3f-4221...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.c
> om:
>
>> The military just as easily may have
>> kept this woman posted to a base stateside, but they didn't.
>
> At the expense of someone else having to go overseas and be away from
> their family for a year. That is the other side.
I have to agree with this: like it or not *someone* is going to have to
be posted away, and whoever it is has family too.
>
>> Her
>> insubordination is going to cost her a year in a military prison
>> and the loss of her child to foster care. They could have
>> simply given her a discharge.
>
> Which is what should have happened the moment she became a single
> parent, but times are tough.
>
Again, it all boils down to choices: you can't have it all. It is a
choice to be in the military, just as it is a choice to be a parent. It
seems to me that it should be mandatory that any single person in the
military, or any person in the military who is married to someone in the
military should have to forgo childbearing until such time as a) their
term of service is finished or b) if in the later case, the term of
service of at least one of the spouses is finished to care for any
offspring of that union.
I think of getting pregnant in that situation as being in the same
category as shooting one's self in the foot or any other self inflicted
injury.
Do I feel particularly sorry for this person? Not really, even if she
did have her mother to care for her child, it would have been totally
unreasonable for the person in question to expect her mother who is
already the caregiver for a disabled daughter and invalid mother to
assume the burden of raising her grandchild to begin with. The solution
to leave the child with her maternal grandmother was clearly
unreasonable to begin with. Question, though... unless this was an
artificial insemination, this child has a father out there somewhere.
Why is the father not a candidate to take care of his own child?
being the sole parent of a child and a military career are not terribly
compatible choices. She knew the score before she embarked on both.
Now that said, do I think this woman will go to prison? Not likely.
For all the brouhaha, the worst that will happen is that she will be
discharged.
Abby - dispassionately.
--
The ChildFree Abby Archives - http://www.dismal-light.net/childfreeabby/
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:GP6dnSR8ityy3p3W...@supernews.com:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Bobchai <Robert...@aol.com> wrote in
>> news:6c433ba3-7a3f-4221...@f1g2000prf.googlegroup
>> s.c om:
>>
>>> The military just as easily may have
>>> kept this woman posted to a base stateside, but they didn't.
>>
>> At the expense of someone else having to go overseas and be
>> away from their family for a year. That is the other side.
>
> I have to agree with this: like it or not *someone* is going to
> have to be posted away, and whoever it is has family too.
And someone who *can't* be posted overseas is unfair to everyone
else. And the military doesn't like making exceptions, for good
reason.
>
>>
>>> Her
>>> insubordination is going to cost her a year in a military
>>> prison and the loss of her child to foster care. They could
>>> have simply given her a discharge.
>>
>> Which is what should have happened the moment she became a
>> single parent, but times are tough.
>>
>
> Again, it all boils down to choices: you can't have it all. It
> is a choice to be in the military, just as it is a choice to be
> a parent. It seems to me that it should be mandatory that any
> single person in the military, or any person in the military who
> is married to someone in the military should have to forgo
> childbearing until such time as a) their term of service is
> finished or b) if in the later case, the term of service of at
> least one of the spouses is finished to care for any offspring
> of that union.
My understanding (long ago, well before any current difficulties)
was that becoming a single parent was automatic discharge. Friend
of mine from high school decided she wanted out, so she got
married, got pregnant, and got divorced as quickly as possible.
>
> I think of getting pregnant in that situation as being in the
> same category as shooting one's self in the foot or any other
> self inflicted injury.
>
> Do I feel particularly sorry for this person? Not really, even
> if she did have her mother to care for her child, it would have
> been totally unreasonable for the person in question to expect
> her mother who is already the caregiver for a disabled daughter
> and invalid mother to assume the burden of raising her
> grandchild to begin with. The solution to leave the child with
> her maternal grandmother was clearly unreasonable to begin with.
> Question, though... unless this was an artificial
> insemination, this child has a father out there somewhere. Why
> is the father not a candidate to take care of his own child?
Her idiocy doesn't change the fact that the military's response is
quite unreasonable, though.
>
> being the sole parent of a child and a military career are not
> terribly compatible choices. She knew the score before she
> embarked on both. Now that said, do I think this woman will go
> to prison? Not likely. For all the brouhaha, the worst that
> will happen is that she will be discharged.
>
I could see a general discharge, rather than honorable, and
wouldn't quibble over the justice of that.
Karen M
> In anticipation of going overseas Specialist Hutchinson flew to
> California and left her son with her mother Angelique Hughes of
> Oakland, as per her Army family care plan. However, after a week of
> caring for the child Specialist Hutchinson’s mother realized that she
> was unable to take care of Kamani on top of her other duties to her
> special-needs daughter, her ailing mother, and her ailing sister. In
> late October Angelique Hughes informed Hutchinson and her commander,
> Captain Gassant, that she was not able to care for her daughter's baby
> after all.
And yet Grandmoo was able to leave her little homegrown skilled
nursing facility not just once but TWICE to travel from California to
Georgia to haul Li'l Kamani back'n forth. Amazing.
With the child support payments Hutchinson is going to have to pay,
plus the family care-giver stipend (for the invalids & special needs
daughter) the state of California is undoubtedly throwing her way, and
the doo-gooders who will step up to help now that the publicity
machine is up and running, she should be able to afford to bring
someone in for at least a few hours a day to help with her "duties"--
but that wouldn't keep ArmyMoo from going to Afghanistan, now, would
it?
No sympathy here.
Karen
Bobchai
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
Abby:
Well argued. The fact that there is a father is significant. But I
otherwise agree.
However, women in the service who accidentally wind up being parents
should be given some slack, for the kid's sake.
--Bob
Marten Kemp
Why? The military exists to "go in harm's way" to shoot Bad Guys.
Or to support, at some level, those who do. It shouldn't be used
as a jobs program for stupid women.
It would be preferable if she could be kicked sideways into a
Federal Service organization; maybe something like VISTA?
--
-- Marten Kemp (Fix ISP to reply)
You can't help being ignorant 'cause there's always
something you don't know; what you can't be is stupid.
Bobchai
> And yet Grandmoo was able to leave her little homegrown skilled
> nursing facility not just once but TWICE to travel from California to
> Georgia to haul Li'l Kamani back'n forth. Amazing.
>
> With the child support payments Hutchinson is going to have to pay,
> plus the family care-giver stipend (for the invalids & special needs
> daughter) the state of California is undoubtedly throwing her way, and
> the doo-gooders who will step up to help now that the publicity
> machine is up and running, she should be able to afford to bring
> someone in for at least a few hours a day to help with her "duties"--
> but that wouldn't keep ArmyMoo from going to Afghanistan, now, would
> it?
>
> No sympathy here.
>
> Karen
>
Karen:
My mother was a corporal in the WACS during World War Two. She
volunteered; there was no draft for women.
She was discharged from the Army when she married my father, who was a
civilian, in May 1943. I wasn't born until a decade later.
She was discharged for simply getting married, during the time of the
greatest need for cannon fodder this country has had since the Civil
War. Twelve million Americans served the armed forces in WW2.
I know that many male servicemen didn't have that priviledge in those
days, and often died in combat before they could return home to their
wives and newborn children.
But my mother skated this one, perhaps because her service as an Army
typist was frivolous at a time when women in the military were
considered superfluous. Nevertheless, I have her dog tags and I'm
glancing at her copy of the 'New Soldiers Handbook' , from when she
went into basic combat training in Georgia. "AJ14068, Co. 20, 1st
Regiment, Fort Oglethorpe, GA"
She's 92 now and is an Alzheimer's vegetable, but her story is or
should not be any different from this woman's. If today's Army can't
get its shit together and recognize biology as well as women's
equality, then what's the point?
And why is this silly-ass war in Afghanistan more important than the
crucial bonding between mother and child during the first year? If
the kid was three or four, I could accept foster care, although that
is bad enough.
If my mom could get a discharge in World War Two for simply getting
married, what the hell is going on here?
--Bob
Bobchai
wrote:
Martin Kemp:
No problem there. Service in any other way is better than imprisonment
and sending an infant to foster care.
--Bob
Frank Apple
[apparently quoting somebody-or-other; in typical style, Bob has
chosen not to provide anything remotely resembling a cite]
> In anticipation of going overseas Specialist Hutchinson flew to
> California and left her son with her mother Angelique Hughes of
> Oakland, as per her Army family care plan. However, after a week of
> caring for the child Specialist Hutchinson?s mother realized that she
> was unable to take care of Kamani on top of her other duties to her
> special-needs daughter, her ailing mother, and her ailing sister. In
> late October Angelique Hughes informed Hutchinson and her commander,
> Captain Gassant, that she was not able to care for her daughter's baby
> after all. The Army gave Specialist Hutchinson an extension of time to
> find someone else to care for her son, and in the meantime her mother
> brought Kamani back to Georgia. However just a few days before
> Specialist Hutchinson was scheduled to deploy she was told that she
> would not get the extended time after all and would have to deploy,
> even though there was no one to care for her child.
> Faced with that choice Specialist Hutchinson did not show up for her
> plane. The military had her arrested and they put her child in the
> county foster care system.
So: active-duty parent dumps her sprog on an incompetent family
member, is consequently unable to report for duty, and we're
supposed to feel sorry for her when she's arrested?
Fuck that. She made her lifestyle choices; let her deal with the
consequences.
[aside: it's a boy, and its name is "Kamani?" WTF?]
--
Frank Apple
========================================================================
"Life's too short to be caught up in misery." -Pirate Queen
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:0f54bcf7-1f1b-47c0...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.
com:
> On Nov 15, 10:06�am, Childfree Abby <morga...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>
>> > Bobchai <Robertsonc...@aol.com> wrote in
>> >news:6c433ba3-7a3f-4221...@f1g2000prf.googlegrou
>> >ps.c
>> > om:
>>
>> >> The military just as easily may have
>> >> kept this woman posted to a base stateside, but they didn't.
>>
>> > At the expense of someone else having to go overseas and be
>> > away from their family for a year. That is the other side.
>>
>> I have to agree with this: like it or not *someone* is going to
>> have to be posted away, and whoever it is has family too.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Her
>> >> insubordination is going to cost her a year in a military
>> >> prison and the loss of her child to foster care. �They could
>> >> have simply given her a discharge.
>>
>> > Which is what should have happened the moment she became a
>> > single parent, but times are tough.
>>
>> Again, it all boils down to choices: �you can't have it all.
>> �It is a choice to be in the military, just as it is a choice
>> to be a parent. �I
They can *only* be given some slack by telling other, more
responsible soldiers "You have to go overseas because this single
mother can't." No, what they should be given is a discharge, so
rooom can be made for people will more sense and better planning
skills.
Bobchai
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They can *only* be given some slack by telling other, more
> responsible soldiers "You have to go overseas because this single
> mother can't." No, what they should be given is a discharge, so
> room can be made for people will more sense and better planning
> skills.
Gutless:
Right. What they should be given is a discharge.
--Bob
Bobchai
Frank:
Do I have to provide footnotes for everything I say on this
newsgroup? LOOK them up yourself; Google, the great god of the
universe, will provide.
OK, I have no patience to look up the original post, but here's
another, almost identical one, from the Oakland Tribune , a reliable
source:
Frank, it's all over the Internet. I have complied by citing sources
with you numerous times, every time you requested a source. Why do you
say I don't cite? If what I say is false, look it up: it only takes
ten seconds. This forum is free-form about ideas, not academic
debates. And for me it comes from reading the Left as well as the
Right. I have no champion in either extremist cage fight.
--Bob
--Bob
Frank Apple
> I have complied by citing sources
> with you numerous times, every time you requested a source.
I don't care that you didn't cite your story about Li'l Kamani;
that was just a comment in passing. The important thing was
your outrage over the incompetent moo actually being held
responsible for her actions, which I found puzzling.
Frank Apple
> On Nov 15, 10:41?pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > They can *only* be given some slack by telling other, more
> > responsible soldiers "You have to go overseas because this single
> > mother can't." No, what they should be given is a discharge, so
> > room can be made for people will more sense and better planning
> > skills.
> Right. What they should be given is a discharge.
Dishonorable, of course.
Childfree Abby
You know, Bob, as a woman and someone who has studied a bit of military
history the story of of Hutchinson does make me a little angry
particularly in the context of your mother.
Her situation is a little different than your mother's: Hutchinson was
trained for active duty with the fully expectation that she could and
would be deployed to an active combat zone. Your mother served her
country honourably within the framework of the time and place. and they
may have given her basic combat training, the probability that she would
be deployed to the front lines was not going to happen.
What has largely been forgotten is that when women won the right to
enter the military the general perception was that they were little more
than "camp followers". It took a long time and a lot of hard work to
overcome this image, and even longer for their roles - outside of
nursing- to be considered seriously.
Women in combat - that was unthinkable- and when it happened, their
contributions were ignored and hushed up for decades after the war such as:
The women who transported bombers across the North atlantic to deliver
them to Europe - and they flew without radios, so that if they went down
there would be no hope of rescue.
Russian women - 2 full regiments of night bombers as well as one fighter
pilot regiment. (google Lily Litvak sometime)
and Ludmilla Pavelychenko - an infantry sniper with over 300 confirmed
kills - 36 of which were other snipers.
When one joins the Armed Forces, one joins to serve first and foremost,
wherever, whenever. Not to hope for a cushy out of the way job because
you can't figure out how to use birth control or keep your legs crossed.
Pregancy is *not* an accident these days. It is a self inflicted injury.
Abby - historically
tom c
"Bobchai" <Robert...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6c433ba3-7a3f-4221...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Classic military protocol since WW2 has been that if you are the sole
source of support for a child, you would not be obligated to be sent
into a war zone. The military just as easily may have kept this woman
posted to a base stateside, but they didn't. Her insubordination is
going to cost her a year in a military prison and the loss of her
child to foster care. They could have simply given her a discharge.
--Bob
I disagree.
1) She knew when she joined the Army the chances for lower skilled people to
be deployed was very high.
2) She chose to become pregnant
3) She chose to do it without partner support
4) She chose not to separate from the service when pregnant as allowed by
regulations.
5) She chose to not define a truly adequate family plan.
6) She chose to go AWOL.
This is not someone who has stellar decision making skills. If you wish to
defend the children then placing them outside of her and her family's care
is the best thing for them. At least for their early years they will be in
position where their care is somewhat monitored. And may be if their mother
faces some real adversity she will come back ready to be a parent - because
she sure isn't right now.
tom c
>Well argued. The fact that there is a father is significant. But I
>otherwise agree.
>However, women in the service who accidentally wind up being parents
>should be given some slack, for the kid's sake.
--Bob
They are. They are allowed to separate from the service with an honorable
discharge while pregnant. She chose not to. And that makes a critical
difference.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:hdrh2n$dc8$2...@reader1.panix.com:
> Bobchai <Robert...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 10:41?pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > They can *only* be given some slack by telling other, more
>> > responsible soldiers "You have to go overseas because this
>> > single mother can't." No, what they should be given is a
>> > discharge, so room can be made for people will more sense and
>> > better planning skills.
>
>> Right. What they should be given is a discharge.
>
> Dishonorable, of course.
>
Not realy. General is more appropriate. Unless, of course, you're a
woman-hating sadist who masturbates at the very thought of causing
others pain.
(You were aware there are a lot more than just two types of
dischages, weren't you? Weren't you?)
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
h
"tom c" <rv6f...@hotmail.comie> wrote in message
news:hds0fg$mom$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> 1) She knew when she joined the Army the chances for lower skilled people
> to be deployed was very high.
> 2) She chose to become pregnant
> 3) She chose to do it without partner support
> 4) She chose not to separate from the service when pregnant as allowed by
> regulations.
> 5) She chose to not define a truly adequate family plan.
> 6) She chose to go AWOL.
>
> This is not someone who has stellar decision making skills. If you wish to
> defend the children then placing them outside of her and her family's care
> is the best thing for them. At least for their early years they will be in
> position where their care is somewhat monitored. And may be if their
> mother faces some real adversity she will come back ready to be a parent -
> because she sure isn't right now.
Yup. My mother was a 1st Lieutenant in the Air Force stationed in Tokyo in
the 50s, where she met and married my father. The Air Force had no problem
with her being married, BUT she knew pregnancy would automatically result in
an honorable discharge. So...she waited to get pregnant until they were BOTH
out of the service and back in the states, with jobs, a house, and family
support nearby, just in case. You know, all the RESPONSIBLE things that
you're supposed to do PRIOR to breeding.
elizabeth
>
Originally, enlisted men did not get married unless they had
permission from the CO.
"If the Army wanted you to have a family the Army would have issued
you one"
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:259b2d88-924a-4238...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.
com:
> On Nov 15, 10:06�am, Childfree Abby <morga...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>
>> > Bobchai <Robertsonc...@aol.com> wrote in
>> >news:6c433ba3-7a3f-4221...@f1g2000prf.googlegrou
>> >ps.c
>> > om:
>>
>> >> The military just as easily may have
>> >> kept this woman posted to a base stateside, but they didn't.
>>
>> > At the expense of someone else having to go overseas and be
>> > away from their family for a year. That is the other side.
>>
>> I have to agree with this: like it or not *someone* is going to
>> have to be posted away, and whoever it is has family too.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Her
>> >> insubordination is going to cost her a year in a military
>> >> prison and the loss of her child to foster care. �They could
>> >> have simply given her a discharge.
>>
>> > Which is what should have happened the moment she became a
>> > single parent, but times are tough.
>>
>> Again, it all boils down to choices: �you can't have it all.
>> �It is a choice to be in the military, just as it is a choice
>> to be a parent. �I
Are you really complaining that the world has changed in the last
230 years?
Bobchai
Abby:
BRAVO!!! Your historical background is priceless.
Actually, I don't give a damn about the mother's mistakes. I only
care about the kid.
On a side note, Hasan (Ft. Hood) wanted out of the military after he
got religion, but the Army was not going to let him out of his
contract, because they paid for his medical school. He was apparently
a mediocre psych counselor at Walter Reed, but they raised his rank to
major and they sent him to Ft. Hood, where he was to be deployed to
Afghanistan. The Army should have known that he was a loose cannon,
but after-the-fact judgements are of course useless.
--Bob
Bobchai
> "Bobchai" <Robertsonc...@aol.com> wrote in message
Tom C:
Acknowledging your post. Agreed, she made some wrong choices. She
probably didn't CHOOSE to become pregnant.
This is the most sexist argument I have against alt.support.childree
-- that single women "choose" to become pregnant, and that it's all
their fault for not getting an abortion, so now they are breeder
trash.
Men can be so self-righteous about this stuff. I think this whole
line of argument is demeaning to women.
--Bob
Bobchai
> "Bobchai" <Robertsonc...@aol.com> wrote in message
Tom C.:
Not knowing the details of the case, I agree,
--Bob
Bobchai
> "tom c" <rv6fl...@hotmail.comie> wrote in message
h:
That's a great story. Unfortunately, it's not always true today. I'm
sure this woman had an accidental pregnancy and should have been
discharged immediately. But the volunteer military is so hungry for
"bodies" to fill the ranks, that they are practically recruiting in
prisons for the felons who are up for parole.
--Bob
Bobchai
Elizabeth:
LOL. I like this one.
--Bob
Frank Apple
> Acknowledging your post. Agreed, she made some wrong choices. She
> probably didn't CHOOSE to become pregnant.
You're saying that she was raped, then? I don't think there's
anything in the story about that.
Frank Apple
> On a side note, Hasan (Ft. Hood) wanted out of the military after he
> got religion,
He didn't "get" religion, he'd always been a Muslim. Apparently
he got increasingly radicalized somewhere along the way, though,
and although that fact was obvious, nobody stepped up and threw
him out.
> but the Army was not going to let him out of his
> contract, because they paid for his medical school.
There are ways of recovering costs when something like this happens.
They're difficult and they don't always work, but c'mon - the guy
had "soldier of allah" on his business cards, and nothing about his
military rank!
> He was apparently
> a mediocre psych counselor at Walter Reed, but they raised his rank to
> major and they sent him to Ft. Hood, where he was to be deployed to
> Afghanistan. The Army should have known that he was a loose cannon,
> but after-the-fact judgements are of course useless.
Not really. Now we'll know better how to spot and handle the
next Hasan, assuming the military can actually learn something
from this incident. Which is, of course, questionable.
tmclone
> > Acknowledging your post. Agreed, she made some wrong choices. She
> > probably didn't CHOOSE to become pregnant.
>
> You're saying that she was raped, then? I don't think there's
> anything in the story about that.
>
Who cares if she CHOSE to become pregnant or it was an "accident"? The
fact that she CHOSE to continue with the pregnancy AND keep the larva
shows that she has no reasoning ability at all. I vote for
dishonorable discharge NOW.
Pete
<5f7fdb38-b63b-4f45...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
"Rush Hann!ty" <rush...@aol.com> wrote:
> When AREN'T you defending children here, Boob? Seriously, your grip of
> reality just keeps vanishing over the years. At least you're keeping
> up with technology and your youtube "friends" have become facebook
> "friends."
I wonder if Booby sold the house in Hawaii - oh wait, wasn't that his
brother's?...Pete
Rush Hann!ty
> In article
> <5f7fdb38-b63b-4f45-91e5-caf2ddd83...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Rush Hann!ty" <rushn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > When AREN'T you defending children here, Boob? Seriously, your grip of
> > reality just keeps vanishing over the years. At least you're keeping
> > up with technology and your youtube "friends" have become facebook
> > "friends."
>
> I wonder if Booby sold the house in Hawaii - oh wait, wasn't that his
> brother's?...Pete
I believe it was. Maybe he could go live in Mexico again, where he
could live like a queen.