kicotan

My theory? Las Vegas has a lot of pollution. The air quality is ranked 10th worst in the nation for metropolitan cities. Add to that the almost constant air conditioning going on inside your home and the result is black dust that collects in your carpet and if you walk around barefoot-on your feet. http://news3lv.com/archive/las-vegas-among-worst-cities-for-air-quality Every time I change the filters for my A/C unit in my Las Vegas house, they are black.

Exactly why when you sell your soul to be on one the non-disclosure paperwork that you sign is very specific. The Brown Clowns in Alaska couldn't get away with as much as the Brown Clowns of Las Vegas do because of the actual people that lived and worked in the small towns they inhabited. When Matt Brown of the Alaska Clowns was at the only bar in town knocking a few back, the bartender and the patrons took notice and blabbed. If the Las Vegas Browns were under a smaller microscope, their lives would be more transparent as well.

I included it as an example of "reality" shows, in general. I've spent too much time hanging out with Hollywood workers-not the "stars", but the camera folks, boom operators, on set make-up artists/manicurists, background music makers~folks who never get screen time, but have actual experience in the making of the fake reality of "reality" TV. The pilots that are shot and shopped are a dime a dozen and most don't ever go anywhere. The majority that get bought and aired are of the "who you know and who you blow" variety with the premise being a big dollop of scandal, taboos and sex. For example, if it wasn't for Kim Kardashian "leaking" a sex tape, most of us wouldn't know who the hell she and most of her family are and keeping up with them wouldn't have made anyone any money. I don't believe for a minute that the original premise was to show polygamy in a positive way. Just like "Naked and Afraid" wasn't produced to show nudity in a positive way, or 19 and counting was designed to show the absence of birth control in a positive way. As evidenced by the majority of posts here and on social media, the pearl clutching and outrage is real~that's what the networks want, buy and sell. Just my 2 centavos.

Indeed. I speculate that what we see of the Brown's lives on their reality show has very little semblance to their "real" lives and how they genuinely interact, and more to do with made up plot lines. There is nothing real about reality TV. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bustle/i-was-on-reality-tv-faking-real-life_b_4823714.html

Prostitution is not legal in Las Vegas...not sure if it is a felony, though. On a side note, "Gigolos" is one of those reality shows with very little reality to it. Male "escorts" are almost exclusively hired by men.

Mr. Kicotan asked me just now how long it will be before his bizarre behavior is blamed on the concussions he suffered during his football career. Y'know, since he's such a victim and all, I'm a little surprised he hasn't used that excuse himself.

I was listening to a talk radio show disecting some of his statements and they suggested that his imaginary friend "Charlie" was code for whatever drug he was on at the time. I can't believe I watched the whole thing especially after hearing him giggle like a schoolgirl. Disgusting is too good of a word to describe him.

Indeed. Not to mention the complications that can arise with such prolonged labor and sllloooowwww dilation. They announced the weight 8lbs 8 oz, I believe? My son was 8 lbs. and 5 oz. and I thank everything holy I was in a clean hospital with a doctor who could stitch up the tear that went all the way into my sphincter.

Oh wow. I'm sorry, I guess I should have qualified my question then - I had three without any epidurals. I imagine it would be easier to sleep if you don't feel it. revised question: those of you, like Maddie, who have not been given an epidural, could you choose to sleep through labor?

Ok, show of hands, who here has chosen to go get some sleep while you are in labor?

To be fair, New Jersey does it's share of child marriages as well as many other states, not in the south. "...Fraidy Reiss, the founder of Unchained at Last, said she was "literally shaking" when she first obtained data for New Jersey, where her group is based. Nearly 3,500 children married in the state between 1995 and 2012. “That number was so much higher than I had thought it would be,” she told Frontline. “Then, the fact that the children were as young as 13 and the fact that it was mostly girls married to adult men.”..." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/200000-children-married-us-15-years-child-marriage-child-brides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint! I'm all for voluntary and consensual participation of adults when it comes to either religion and/or legal marriage. I've no idea what the statistics are as far as how many polygamist families are like the Brown's (participants are adults when they marry as well as it is their personal choice) vs. situations like Warren Jeff's flock (under aged and "assigned" a spouse). I wouldn't want polygamy to be considered legal either if there was no distinction made between the two situations, just like currently legal monogamous marriages have to be entered into by consenting adults (even though the exact age of adulthood for the sake of marriage varies from state-to-state and with parental consent, 14 year old females can legally marry in states like South Carolina, for example).

There are over 1,000, but definitely less than the 2,000 lb. equivalent to be considered a "ton", lol. "Prior to the enactment of DOMA, the GAO identified 1,049 federal statutory provisions in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor. An update was published in 2004 by the GAO covering the period between September 21, 1996 (when DOMA was signed into law), and December 31, 2003. The update identified 120 new statutory provisions involving marital status, and 31 statutory provisions involving marital status repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor." Wiki article on the rights and responsibilities of marriages in the US

Indeed. Between the sleazebag lawyers and the Therapist Nancy types, I'm actually surprised there hasn't been more support coming from both camps to promote the Brown Family's fight for legalized polygamy. It's an untapped cash cow. Entire firms and counseling centers could be dedicated to their legitimacy.

Thank you for adding these concerns to the discussion! I can't imagine trying to suss all that crap out. However, other than the social security thing, folks have lawyers draw up legal paperwork to address issues of medical power of attorney, inheritance and divorce settlements, just like widows, monogamous couples or single folks do at present. Perhaps a form could be filled out with checkboxes or fill in the blanks to address those concerns without having to rack up billable hours with a lawyer. As far as social security is concerned, I'm of a radical mind when it comes to that in I think it should be revamped anyway, but again, there could be a trust-type fund that it could be deposited into or a checkbox whereby one individual could be the named beneficiary.

I've no dog in this fight, I'm as monogamous as they come. I'm also as heterosexual as they come, yet it doesn't bother me for same-sex marriages to be legal. My curiosity is why do you think married folks deserve and should be given special rights and privileges from the government that single folks aren't allowed to enjoy? Also, since you agree with the current legal restrictions on what constitutes a marriage, why do you think polygamists should be denied legal marriage(s)? I'll go ahead and stipulate that I am in agreement that parties to any legal marriage should be consenting ADULTS, but I'm just curious as to why you believe it should be decriminalized yet not made legal. I'll also stipulate to being severely menopausal and if you've already explained this, I am profoundly apologetic.

Indeed! Especially since this is the first challenge to the 127 year old law and they could hand them the maximum sentence of 5 years.

Whoops, I was wrong-not MGM, it is Ceasars properties. " Passes can be purchased at participating Total Rewards® Centers (excluding Planet Hollywood) or at the cashier stands at any of the participating buffets - Caesars Palace: Bacchanal® Buffet**; Flamingo: Paradise Garden Buffet; Harrah's Las Vegas: Flavors, The Buffet;Paris: Le Village Buffet; Planet Hollywood: Spice Market Buffet®; Rio: Carnival World & Seafood Buffet®.** ** Upgrade your pass to include Bacchanal Buffet at Caesars Palace and Carnival World & Seafood Buffet at Rio All-Suites Hotel & Casino. Bacchanal Upgrade cost: Brunch/Lunch $25/visit Dinner $35/visit Carnival World & Seafood Buffet Upgrade cost: $25/visit irrespective of meal period" One can also get a weekend pass: "Weekend pricing is $74.99 plus tax. It applies starting at 11am on Fridays until 11am on Sundays. Hours of operation vary for each buffet."

Vegas tends to make it difficult for foodies! I think I gained at least 10 pounds when I first moved there, what with all the fabulous options and for the love of everything holy~the buffets. I'm not sure if they still do it, but at one point you could buy a 24 hour pass that would get you into all the buffets at the MGM owned properties. Also, between May and October, unless you have a gym membership or want to do the indoor mall walking thing, it is hot as hell and outdoor activities that would promote weight loss are next to impossible, especially if you've not acclimated. That being said, these folks KNOW they are in the spotlight and especially with Janelle and her "Strive" nonsense, they should be putting in a bit more effort not to come off as fat slobs.

The Canadian polygamists lost their court case and were convicted. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/25/two-canadian-men-found-guilty-polygamy-first-test-127-year-old/

I ran across some interesting articles at the Emory University Law School's site: http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-64/issue-6/index.html It's from 2015, but still relevant to the discussion of constitutionality, I believe. From the intro on the page: "Emory Law Journal | 64 Emory L.J. 1669 (2015) In just a few weeks, when the Court hands down what will no doubt be a long anticipated and highly contentious decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court will answer whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license marriages for same-sex couples. While many believe the Court is poised to answer that question affirmatively, assuming it will, it is far less clear how expansive or limited the decision’s holding will be or what implications will flow from its rationale. At oral argument, Justice Alito pressed the petitioners as to the logical implications of a holding in favor of same-sex marriage, asking, “Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then, after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them?” Whether a right to polygamous marriage should be recognized as a matter of constitutional or statutory law is a question that we editors of the Emory Law Journal are disinclined to answer ourselves. But we do believe this important question is one worth asking, and Obergefell certainly gives new energy to that conversation. And while questions surrounding polygamy are not new to the academic legal literature, there remains plenty of room for further inquiry and dialogue. Accordingly, in this paper symposium, we have collected a number of articles and essays by leading and emerging scholars to tackle the question of polygamy and its many attendant issues..."

I read an interesting discussion piece recently on institutionalized discrimination. Discrimination can be legal if the law specifically says it’s legal. One type of discrimination that the law specifically allows is the bona fide occupational qualification. One major exception to the prohibition on discriminating against individuals of a protected class is when the discrimination is based on a job requirement that is “reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.” When this occurs, this job requirement is called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). Discrimination can also be legal if the law is silent on that particular type of discrimination. For example, if an employee were fired because he or she liked to play soccer, that would be legal since no law addresses that type of discrimination. More precisely, an employee who likes to play soccer is not part of a protected class. A compelling government interest is a legal concept where the government is able to infringe on a constitutionally protected right or discriminate based on certain characteristics, such as race, when a crucial or important government interest is at stake. Freedom of speech restrictions based on national security considerations is an example of a compelling government interest infringing on a constitutional right. Another form of legal discrimination is where an organization may exclude certain people from becoming members. The legal basis for this discrimination is the freedom of association and expressive association protections provided by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This allows a private organization to choose who can and cannot join. This freedom to discriminate is not absolute, though. For example, the discrimination must be related to the organization’s message or existence. If it’s not, the discrimination may be illegal. This was the case in Roberts v. United States Jaycees, where the Jaycees prohibited women from joining their organization as regular or full members. So when I said that I believe that to deny a polygamist more than one legal wife is institutionalized discrimination, I was going by the definition of the term as “bias built into the operation of society’s institutions", legally or illegally. As for constitutionality, The 1st amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Also, the 14th amendment's "equal protection under the law" clause states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." On a side note, I heard that Canadians are expecting a ruling today on a polygamist's challenge to their constitution. Thanks for joining the discussion! :)

I've not kept track of how long Nancy has been on retainer for the Brown Family, but it has, conservatively, been multiple YEARS already. I'm willing to concede that she's comfortable with being "gentle" to Meri, but having a long road ahead of her also increases her BL. I think that the portrayal of Nancy being someone to go to when Meri wants to communicate with her husband/wives as a stand alone prop for the show doesn't help with my negative perception of Nancy. If Meri really is aware that she needs therapy to help her learn to cope/communicate in a healthy way, then that should be evidenced by her attendance at regular sessions, goals being set, progress being made, that sort of thing. Not that they would have to film sessions, but if Meri included in her narrative on the show how she is working with her therapist regarding her vulnerability to/responsibility for the cat fishing incident, communication and intimacy resolution with her husband and/or wife/wives, issues with her daughter, etc. maybe it wouldn't seem so superficial and placating on Nancy's part.

Fixed that for ya'! Lol Nancy is a terrible therapist. She is merely a communication facilitator-in that Meri can't bring herself to communicate effectively with her husband/wives so she drags them to Nancy, who validates her and encourages her to not change a thing about herself. Any therapist worth her salt would be calling Meri out on her bullshit.

Indeed, there's lots of folks who walk away from the religion they were brought up with. I was at the church house, at the very least, once a week from birth to 11 years old. Dad was an elder, all that good stuff. It wasn't Catholicism, more of a loose Protestant sect known as "Disciples of Christ". They emphasized a personal relationship over dogmatic hoops to jump through for salvation. I left the church at 11 after a conversation with my father, the Elder. He said he didn't care what church I went to, as long as I went. I think the strict dogma of the church Meri & family belong to would hinder her ability to leave polygamy, but there is a remedy in place according to her faith for her to leave The Kody Brown Family, if his stewardship & the rest of the wives really are the cause of her unhappiness.