Robinette and "Custody"....ugh
Rangwx
>Paul is a black man, and is a lawyer. We know both of these things. Was
>this leading somewhere?
Ben Stone said in "Out of the Half-Light", "Do you consider yourself a black
man who's a lawyer or a lawyer who happens to be black. Ben was questioning his
priorities.
Pennyaline
>Everybody knows the facts: Paul is black. Paul is a
>lawyer. What's the problem? Should the lawyer part make him any more or
>less black? Or the black part, any less or more a lawyer? The two are
>not linked.
They are, considering that ethnicity can be as big a part, or bigger, of an
individual's identity as his or her occupation. It appears that, after careful
consideration, Robinette's agenda became racial.
Get used to it, Brian.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry, but my karma ran over your dogma.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
XMJMac
That is exactly what I said to my husband as we watched that show tonight
with Paul Robinette. I said, isn't any former cast member allowed to come back
to the show on a positive note? I was angered at how he played the race card,
and I was also very angry at the writers siding with that recovering crack
addicted mother. What message does that send to the public who watches the
show?
Being an avid fan of the character Ben Stone, I felt like shouting to
Paul, "Didn't Ben teach you better?" No matter how angry Ben got at the system
it was always the law that was his priority.
And by the way, what is the seven letter word beginning with the letter T?
It's a school night for me too..laughing!
Hugs,
Mary Jane!
Patrick M. Geahan
: And by the way, what is the seven letter word beginning with the letter T?
: It's a school night for me too..laughing!
I assumed it was "traitor".
--
________________________________________________________________
Patrick "I'm a graphical cheek ant" Geahan
pmge...@mtu.edu ICQ:3784715 http://www.csl.mtu.edu/~pmgeahan
pat...@teamknightrider.com pat...@ziggy.resnet.mtu.edu
Jackie McElroy
>
>
> Paul is saying, basically, that no black child can ever be
> adopted by white parents. Why? Are we that evil? If a
> white couple wants to adopt a baby, and the adoption
> agency approaches them with a black child, what
> the hell are they supposed to do, send the kid back?
It's not so much that we white people are evil as that placing black
children with white parents is an element of genocide. White parents
cannot perpetuate black culture, so unless they are very careful, a
black child can end up estranged from his cultural and ethnic roots.
The issue is historically a divisive one. The position of the
Association of Black Social Workers is exactly what you said: no child
can ever be adopted by white parents. Just as an Indian tribe has a
legal claim to an orphaned Indian child (Federal Statute), these
professionals would seem to want to claim that Black America has a
similar claim on its orphaned children.
I understand the argument. I on't agree with it. But white parents
must be very careful to not be colorblind. The world is not, and their
black children will have to deal with that. I'll never forget the
anger my own daughters felt when coming home and telling me of their
being called a "nigger" at school. They are both black and both had
black biological parents. And the hurt that my biracial son felt when
his best friend called him a nigger while they were playing basketball
made me hurt and also provoked such anger that I literally walked into
thje fire station bay where I was working at teh time and kick the
tires on one of the pumpers.
It is important that black children be able to deal with such things,
and a lot of blacks that I know seriously and sincerely doubt the
ability of white parents to prepare their adopted children for such
things.
There is also the issue of how does a white parent teach a black child
about the child's history and heritage? It can be done; I'm convinced
of that and I think my children are living proof. But it takes
thought, and planning, and a bit of sensitivity and a lot of learning
on the part of the white parents.
That, I think, was the issue being expressed by paul. It is also not
my favorite episode, but raising the issue is in keeping with the
show's habit of raising controversial issues. As whites, we don't
often think of such issues; blacks do.
-jackie
Jackie McElroy, B.A., E.M.D.
mcja...@usa.pipeline.com
Venice Florida USA
Fire-Rescue Dispatcher
Sarasota County 9-1-1
(I speak for me,
not my boss)
Alan Pollock
Contrary to most here, I thought the episode was balanced. Arguments were
thrown into the pan allowing the viewer to fry up and eat his own meal. 'How
many white kids were adopted by black parents?' is one example.
It's easy to have a logical opinion, but harder to see one based on a another
value system. So is it all really logic?
Re Robinette (and Brooks), he needed some balance too, didn't he? I can well
imagine some perceiving him to have been a yes man all those years. I don't
think so myself, but I can understand those who might. Robinette and Brooks
in their last appearance needed righteous closure. They deserved it, and they
got it. Classy show. Nex
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ah, if in this world there were no such thing as cherry blossoms,
perhaps then in spring time our hearts would be at peace."
Ariwara no Narihira
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gersten
responsibility is to defend his client to the best of his ability, not
to show allegiance to his past employer. What other defense could he
have possibly used to try to convince a juror of her not being guilty?
Neither the facts or the law were on his side; the only thing he had
left was using the race card to play to the emotion of the jurors.
Robert Ford
Jackie.
When I saw the episode (twice, actually), I thought it was a thinly veiled
ploy to bring Robinette back for a pseudo-cameo. Both my wife and I have
grown tired of the race issue as a theme, and "Custody" seemed like just
another one of these.
I didn't like how Robinette changed since he originally left the show. I
think the story could have been more effective if he was the same
level-headed attorney who was fired up from the law - not from social
issues. His character had much more depth to it. In "Custody," he was too
one-dimensional.
Nonetheless, thank you for the insight into the episode. As a white male
who didn't grow up with such issues, it was very easy for me to not grasp
the implications of show.
Rob
Jackie McElroy wrote in message <72dtv9$9n6$2...@camel0.mindspring.com>...
The News Guy(Mike)
> Yada, Yada, Yada
> -- Paul's last line in the episode makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
> Paul is a black man, and is a lawyer. We know both of these things. Was
> this leading somewhere?
>
The great thing about L&O is that it sparks debate and probes deep seated
beliefs. I too, have white skin and do not consider myself a racist. As I
get to know more people of colour (Blacks and Asians, here in Canada) and hear
of their experiences in "a white world" I am shocked with the treatment so
many get from other whites and the system as a whole. Only when we have
walked in their shoes (so to speak) could we understand the true meaning of
the episode.
To say that whites and blacks should be treated as equals in law discounts the
entire societal differences we find ourselves in. If whites were treated the
same way as blacks are in society I believe the law would be different in the
first place.
My 2 cents.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The News Guy (Mike)'s - Seinfeld Lists Site
http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Studio/1955/
35.5 SCRIPTS - MOVIES - DEATHS -FOOD - MEDICAL - CLOTHES - ...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tricia Rawski
properly..sorry)
> It's not so much that we white people are evil as that placing black
> children with white parents is an element of genocide. White parents
> cannot perpetuate black culture, so unless they are very careful, a
> black child can end up estranged from his cultural and ethnic roots.
Is an african american child any less likely to wind up estranged
from his/her cultural and ethnic roots by sitting on teh sides
lines of foster homes, etc, feeling like s/he's not wanted, not
loved? At least with a caucasion (or asian, or alien, etc.)
family that had adopted him/her, the child would know they were
loved....
Gee, do they really think the kid is better off with no love and
no culture than s/he may be with "less/no culture" and lots of
love?
Blech!
Tricia
Sheryl Kirby
>
> Contrary to most here, I thought the episode was balanced. Arguments were
> thrown into the pan allowing the viewer to fry up and eat his own meal. 'How
> many white kids were adopted by black parents?' is one example.
True, but it's all statistics, which can be interpreted in many different
ways. If the question was "How many white kids were *accepted* by black
parents for adoption?" the answer might be significantly different. Given the
witness' previous comment that they try to place black children with black
families whenever there is one available, isn't it a possibility that the
black families were offered white children and refused them?
Sheryl
--
Above all else, think ice. You want to be able to walk around in your
dinner jacket and smoking robe with an ice bucket and tongs,
distributing ice to all you deem worthy. You want to be a monarch of
cold drinks. -Chris Prince
Jeff Carter
long thread but!!!
Brian Barjenbruch wrote in message ...
>I had been dreading "Custody" all along, and there he was...like all those
>years he spent in the DA's office never mattered. There's a certain
>seven-letter word beginning with 'T' that would seem to apply here. But I
>won't use that word. Nor will I use the many four-letter words I'm
>thinking of, either. :)
This is what I thougt until the last fifteen minutes of the show.
>I actually prefer the "evil twin" theory. Paul didn't look much like he
>did when he was a regular cast member; I prefer to think it was somebody
>else entirely. Makes the whole thing less...repugnant, I guess.
>
>Now, on to the episode itself: Maybe my white skin disqualifies me from
>saying anything at all about the episode (or, indeed, from watching it at
>all) but I have some problems with this one. I am not a racist, nor do I
>want to look like one, but:
>
>-- Paul is saying, basically, that no black child can ever be adopted by
>white parents. Why? Are we that evil? If a white couple wants to adopt
>a baby, and the adoption agency approaches them with a black child, what
>the hell are they supposed to do, send the kid back? (For the record, I
>have no problem whatsoever with a white baby being adopted by black
>parents.)
The point of the argument is not so much that white parents cannot adopt
black children but that white children will not be adopted by black
families. It was just going to show that their are differences in the
treatment of races when it comes to foster families. It was later made
plainer when Paul asked the foster mother if her daughter was taken away
from her when she was addicted to pain pills. Now I know people may say you
cant compare crack to pain pills, but I do because addiction is addiction
and people who have strong addictions will do almost anything to get their
hands on what ever they are addicted to. Like Paul said the white families
can send their kids to granma or an nanny while they go to rehab, while the
black families have their children taken away from them. Case in point, my
family is a foster family and the last little boy we had came from a family
in which his mother was a crack addict. His father was not, had a job and
tried to take care of his family. The little boy was taken from his family
and not even allowed to go and live with his paternal grandmother while his
mother cleaned himself up. If we would not have taken him in the little boy
would have gone to a white family. Now I find it hard to believe that if
this would have been a white family the little boy would be taken from his
father, not allowed to live with his grandmother and then given to a black
family.
>-- "It's a school night." How much more condescending could Paul get...
>
>-- Claire was quite right to point out, since Paul was trotting out the
>race card whenever he could, does this mean that Paul believes all black
>defendants have carte blanche to do whatever they feel like and use the
>race defense as an excuse. Paul's reply: Not an excuse but a mitigating
>circumstance. Does Paul really believe there's a difference? Mitigating
>circumstances ARE used as excuses. Not that they should be, but they
>are. "Oh, woe is me, I was abused as a child, now I have the right to
>kill whomever I want..."
Ok I am not trying to be condesending or anything but most white people that
I know just dont realize that as a black man race is always a mitigating
factor in our lives. It is something that can not be escaped. Even if
there is not overt racism the question of race is still there. If I go into
a store and I am treated bad by a cashier the question arises "is it because
I'm black"? Now this person may just be very rude and it could be any
number of reasons why they are rude, but I have been discriminated against
so often in the past that race automatically comes to mind. Now of course
this does not give me the excuse to go in and mistreat the clerk or rob the
store, but race is a mitigating factor in how I view not only that store,
but the people that work there.
>-- Paul's last line in the episode makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
>Paul is a black man, and is a lawyer. We know both of these things. Was
>this leading somewhere?
To me this line makes all the sense in the world. To me he is saying I am a
black man first and then a lawer. Its close to something I was just saying
to a friend of mine. I am a Christian who is a democrat. Meaning I am a
Christian first and then a democrat. I genarally vote democratic and follow
along the lines of the democratic part, but if something conflicts with my
views (life) as a Christian they will be sacrificed. Paul is a lawer but
there are somethings that he must sacrifice if they conflict with his views
as a black man.
I hope this does not inflame anyone, but I also hope that people can
understand a little better.
Jeff
>--
>"Its origin and purpose...still a total mystery."
>- Dr. Heywood Floyd, "2001: A Space Odyssey"
Pennyaline
>>white children will not be adopted by black
>>families.
>
>How do you know?
It looks as though you snipped that quotation right out of its context, Brian.
Whoever wrote the post you're quoting from might do a better job of defending
him or herself if there was more of the original text to work with.
Robert Francis O'reilly
: ploy to bring Robinette back for a pseudo-cameo. Both my wife and I have
: grown tired of the race issue as a theme, and "Custody" seemed like just
: another one of these.
I've generally liked the way the show addresses racial issues - it
presents them in an ambiguous way that suggests these issues often don't
have simple answers. I find that more compelling than shows which present
them in a simple-minded way. And, I think "Custody" fit into this
pattern. I didn't like the resolution of the episode, but it did make me
think about the particular issue. Minority cultures (for lack of a better
phrase) do face assimilation pressures that the majority often doesn't
face and thus may not fully appreciate. And, this isn't true just with
racial minorities. It seems to me there are plenty of people of different
ethnic groups who go out of their way to celebrate their "heritages" and
preserve traditions from the "old country" and so on. I think it's silly
a lot of the time, but many other people evidently don't see it that way.
: I didn't like how Robinette changed since he originally left the show. I
: think the story could have been more effective if he was the same
: level-headed attorney who was fired up from the law - not from social
: issues. His character had much more depth to it. In "Custody," he was too
: one-dimensional.
Robinette struck me as being quite level-headed in this episode. The
impression I got was that he'd always cared about racial issues and had
decided he could better further his goals in this area by being a "black
lawyer" rather than "a lawyer who's black," to borrow the phrase that
Stone had originally coined. And, I found that development interesting
and would like to know what led Robinette to change his mind.
Nick 5 Oh
>Once a prosecutor, always a prosecutor...
That will come as a surprise to the countless former prosecutors now in private
practice.
Pennyaline
I had written:
>>It looks as though you snipped that quotation right out of its context,
>Brian.
>>Whoever wrote the post you're quoting from might do a better job of
>defending
>>him or herself if there was more of the original text to work with.
>
>That *was* the original text. I don't make words up.
>
>You'd care to be more specific, then? The episode itself, basically said
>that the question of white babies being adopted by black families (which I
>would consider a good thing...any child being adopted by any family must
>have the chance to be good) is totally unbelievable and has never happened
>anywhere. Care to provide a quote which refutes this?
Hey, Brian! I thought you said you were going to give up on this issue?
If you are, NOW would be a good time.
Don't you know what "in context" means? Or "more of the original text"?
No one said you made the words up. My statement was that your quote was
halfassed.
In other words, you snipped the post down to only the handful of words that
served your cause. The quotation you offered has no meaning in and of itself,
and is therefore beyond interpretation and, whaddayaknow, useless.
So, would I care to be more specific? Hell No! You're the one who did a poor
job. What do I have to do with it?
Would I care to provide a quote that refutes an argument you haven't even
presented yet? Again, no! Why would I?
Kelly
>
> I find that I can no longer watch any episode with Robinette as a
> prosecutor...knowing what he will eventually turn into. Again: The race
> angle is totally irrelevant to this question. What matters is only this:
> He changed, he did a total one-eighty. Characters should not do that.
> Once a prosecutor, always a prosecutor...
Nah... a good lawyer's allegiance is the LAW, not to the specialty. I
find it perfectly acceptable for Robinette to have gotten tired of
seeing so much power frequently abused in the prosecutors office and
wishing to "level" the playing field by bringing his special insight
into defense. A defense attorney CAN decide to represent only those he
is SURE are innocent -- and who deserve a good defense more!? Any
lawyer's moral obligation is to uphold the LAW, not the DA.
> (For example: If a former cast member of L.A. Law eventually returned as
> a prosecutor, LA Law fans would similarly be offended...since LA Law's
> characters are all defense attorneys.)
Again, no big deal. I can also accept a good defense attorney getting
tired of getting criminals "off" and wishing to do prosecution work.
The only difficulty with it (and which is a personal sacrifice) is the
lack of autonomy to chose not to prosecute someone one thinks is
probably innocent. The DA pretty much calls the shots and will simply
assign someone else to the case (and put a little checkmark in a certain
personnel folder). As to your LA Law example, I would be offended only
if we then were not treated to seeing the former firm member in action
against the LA Law firm!
>
Erika Sevetson
> >Re Robinette (and Brooks), he needed some balance too, didn't he? I can well
> >imagine some perceiving him to have been a yes man all those years.
>
> Yes man? Irrelevant. What matters here is this: When Robinette was a
> regular cast member, he was a *prosecutor*. That is all that we need to
> consider. To bring him back...as a defense attorney...that is basically
> saying that he regrets ever being a prosecutor, that all the time we ever
> saw him on the show, his heart wasn't really in it. Does Robinette regret
> being a prosecutor? It sure seems like it. "Custody" basically negates
> everything he has ever done as a regular cast member. Now that we know he
> 'really is' a defense attorney, how can we be sure that anything he ever
> did as a prosecutor, was trustworthy? Was he working for the defense all
> along?
People change their careers ALL THE TIME. And plenty of prosecutors
decide they'd like to make a reasonable living, and go into private
practice. It doesn't mean that they're refuting everything they ever did
as prosecutors; it just means that they've decided that they find another
sort of law more fulfilling. (Sometimes it just means they're tired of
watching their classmates drive new Porsches while they're in '78 Volvo
sedans.) Paul Robinette finally decided that he could be a better "asset
to his race" (to use an old cliche) by leaving the DA's office and drawing
attention to the struggles that African-Americans face every day.
> I find that I can no longer watch any episode with Robinette as a
> prosecutor...knowing what he will eventually turn into. Again: The race
> angle is totally irrelevant to this question. What matters is only this:
> He changed, he did a total one-eighty. Characters should not do that.
> Once a prosecutor, always a prosecutor...
So basically what you're saying is that people shouldn't grow and change.
If I were to get out of law school and become a lawyer at a firm that
defends, say, timber interests, then one day decide that I don't like what
they stand for and become a Sierra Club lobbyist--you're saying that
that's not feasible or realistic?
The writers laid the groundwork for this question very well when Paul was
a prosecutor. Even then he found himself conflicted between the opinions
of his community and the requirements of his job.
> (For example: If a former cast member of L.A. Law eventually returned as
> a prosecutor, LA Law fans would similarly be offended...since LA Law's
> characters are all defense attorneys.)
Well, let's not forget--the character of Grace Van Owen started as a
prosecutor, then became a defense attorney. Were fans offended? No--they
saw it as a growth of the character. Victor Sifuentes faced moral issues
all the time stemming from being a hispanic in a white firm. And the guy
played by Mario Van Peebles left because of the same conflicts in his
identity.
-Erika
(don't argue LA Law w/ me--I used to be obsessed!)
Muerling
>played by Mario Van Peebles left because of the same conflicts in his
>identity.
>
>-Erika
>(don't argue LA Law w/ me--I used to be obsessed!)
Sorry, Erika, I do have to question one point : ) -- wasn't that character
played by Blair Underwood?
test
Erika Sevetson
> Sorry, Erika, I do have to question one point : ) -- wasn't that character
> played by Blair Underwood?
Blair Underwood came onto the show later--maybe the 3rd season. Mario Van
Peebles left after season one.
(It's kind of scary what random '80s trivia is bouncing around in my head.)
Erika Sevetson
> I'm talking about fictional characters on a TV show, not real life.
Yes, but one of the things we all (well, most of the people who post
here, at least) love about L&O is how realistic it usually is--and we love
to argue about whether something on the show would *really* ever happen.
(Witness the recent "Mother of God" debate here.) A TV show that lasts
for 8 years and doesn't allow it's characters to grow would be pretty
damned boring.
If you don't like what Paul Robinette or anyone else on the show stands
for, fine, but when you argue that people--or even fictional
characters--shouldn't change, you've lost your credibility.
-Erika
(okay, yes, maybe I do feel somewhat strongly about this issue.)
Robert Ford
Brian Barjenbruch wrote in message ...
>I find that I can no longer watch any episode with Robinette as a
>prosecutor...knowing what he will eventually turn into. Again: The race
>angle is totally irrelevant to this question. What matters is only this:
>He changed, he did a total one-eighty. Characters should not do that.
>Once a prosecutor, always a prosecutor...
Out of curiosity... Can you watch any episode with Jamie in it? She
started out as a defense attorney. People change.
Rob
Jackie McElroy
>
> Someone said (Gads I hate that my quote function
> doesn't work properly..sorry)
That would have been me: jackie <mcja...@usa.pipeline.com>
>> It's not so much that we white people are evil as
>> that placing black children with white parents is
>> an element of genocide. White parents cannot perpetuate
>> black culture, so unless they are very careful, a
>> black child can end up estranged from his cultural and ethnic roots.
> Is an african american child any less likely to wind
> up estranged from his/her cultural and ethnic roots
> by sitting on teh sides lines of foster homes, etc,
> feeling like s/he's not wanted, not loved? At least
> with a caucasion (or asian, or alien, etc.) family
> that had adopted him/her, the child would know they were
> loved....
>
> Gee, do they really think the kid is better off with
> no love and no culture than s/he may be with "less/no
> culture" and lots of love?
Well, I guess those that adhere to this view would want to claim that
there is a larger cultural and societal issue involved. I don't agree.
I have 3 chidlren; my daughters, the two oldest, are adopted and both
had bio parents who were black. My son is biracial, and that
introduces a whole host of additional issues regarding cultural and
personal identity and the like. I am certified as a volunteer Guardian
ad Litem by the Florida Supreme Court. I accept Circuit Court
appointments to represent abused and neglected children in court and
at administrative hearings. I know that remaining in foster care is
never the answer if there is a suitable adoptive placement.
> Blech!
A agree; and so does the law now. Federal statute denies certain
matching federal funds to state agencies that have a rule or practice
of basing placement decisions on the race of the prospective families
and/or the child needing placement.
M. Bersick
On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
> >Out of curiosity... Can you watch any episode with Jamie in it? She
> >started out as a defense attorney.
>
> Not while she was on the show, she wasn't. We never *saw* her as a
> defense attorney. The viewers did not grow accustomed to seeing her as
> one.
>
> >People change.
>
> True. But there's good and bad kinds of change. I'm talking about TV
> characters here; people that we have seen, on the show, in one role,
> should not suddenly switch tracks like Robinette did.
"Suddenly" is nonoperative, since the L&O timeline leaves much in the way
of time and circumstance to allow Robinette to become a defense attorney.
You're not happy
> with what they did to Profaci, are you? What if one of the other
> regulars, such as Greevey, Cerreta, Cragen, etc., had come back, but as
> *perps* or something like that? Some changes are too drastic to be
> acceptable.
I see. So defense attorneys are morally equivalent to perps? Besides the
hubris of assuming that you will never need a defense attorney for any
reason, rightly or wrongly being accused, you must not pay attention to
the show given the starkly moral universe within which you appear to
navigate, if indeed navigation is required there at all. Defense attorneys
fall into a number of types on the show: sleazy, clever, run-of-the-mill,
and, even, dare I say it, those defending innocent clients. Robinette is
certainly experienced and savvy enoungh in Custody to get the judge to
recuse himself. He is also defending a client for a crime which didn't
involve violence, one which, even if you disapprove of or disagree with
the motives for (notice I am remaining moot here), has a rationale to back
it up. To say that he has betrayed all he ever stood for is to betray your
misunderstanding of RObinette from the get-go. He was never a "convist 'em
all and let god sort 'em out" prosecutor like McCoy. Neither was Stone.
That in my opinion, is one of the best points about this episode:
Robinette's soliloquy in chambers where he lets McCOy know in no uncertain
turns that "you're the biggest badass on the block." The implied
comparison is, of course, to STone, who was more capable of admitting his
own fallibility and/or uncertainty, more given also to attempting to
provide a reasoned decision about which way to proceed in a case than
McCoy, who instead rushes to judgement and then contrives clever but often
prima facie absurd legal arguments to support that opinion. Robinette
ultimately justifies his decision to become a defense attorney by way of
the clarity of his thinking re the tactical and philosophical differences
between McCOy and Stone.
And let me relate this point finally to my utter dismay over the way the
show has gone of late w/ Carmichael. Her uber-McCOy, avenging angel
approach to her cases can only come from the sort of moral certainty
and willingness to eschew all responsibility for one's decisions
(like McCOy in the face of the man he unjustly convicted, even if
unknowingly) which is anathema to a just legal system. Carmichael
represents a L&O which has become increasingly dogmatic and socially-
conservative. The operative question for a DA is no longer "Is this bay
guy the right bad guy to get or is he even bad?" but "This bad guy is bad
and probably bad in ways both past and future far beyond what I know know,
so how can I crucify the bastard?" This attitude is reflected as much in
the writing of the bad guys, who now appear to lope onscreen from a
smoke break in the pits of hell rather than a society which maps
realistically onto our own. But it sounds, Brian, as if that is fine with
you too, especially if said attitudes come wrapped up in a pretty little
package w/ a short skirt.
Whew.
Diatribe over.
Mike