georgesbluegirl

A few quick thoughts: first, I think you were referring to endocrine disrupters...industrial waste and sewage has been known to cause hermaphroditic occurences in various species, such as frogs and fish. Actually, it's an interesting thing to examine - if I remember my Env Studies 101, a significant portion of the problem has to do with hormones left in sewage due to birth control pills (which artificially introduce hormones into the body to perform their function). Anyway, endocrine disruption is a big issue, but it's not related to homosexual behavior in normal, healthy animals (penguins, bighorn sheep, lizards, etc.). Also, I was under the impression that the current estimate of the ratio between gay:straight people in America was between 1:8 and 1:10. Of course, the Kinsey number was much higher, but the way he examined his data projected a somewhat skewed result.

As someone currently educating herself on student loans....I am glad that this is starting to be addressed.

Actually it's not so rare - there are plenty of quantifiable examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, even if you just look at cases in zoos. Wasn't there some big to-do over "gay penguins" in New York a while back? More later.

I don't feel comfortable judging the parents in this situation. It's not like any of us are in their shoes or know how they ran their family. Imagine how easily and fast this could have happened: say the kid is at a friend's house, the friend says "look at this" and pulls up the video - the parents could certainly be naive about the internet or about what their kid really has access to outside of their house. Later, the kid is fooling around and manages to hang himself in a matter of minutes. I think the bigger issue is the video itself. I listened to an interview with a top Iraqi official who declared that it was the extra guards who had cellphones when the officials had none. Bottom line is a few people saw what was going on (the recording) and didn't take the initiative to stop it - it sounds like it was sort of a "it's not MY job" situation, and the release of the video was the result. Maybe it's my streak of distrust in authority, but I find it hard to believe that we really just let that one go and said "oops" later. I'd almost go as far as saying the scene was set up to leak; I don't think US troops or officials were going to stop that video getting out, probably assuming that if al-Jazeera shows it, the better to make sure people really know Saddam is dead. After all, some people think Elvis is still around, and that's in THIS country. Anyway, now that it's out it's out and I suppose it's a personal call to decide whether you really HAVE to see that, but it really just makes this kid's death more tragic.

The hanging video is anywhere you look for it...youtube, etc. The reality is that a ten year old should never have seen it (honestly, I wish it wasn't out there, I feel guilty just thinking about ever watching it) but that he could have gotten on a computer in any number of places and seen what everyone's been talking about. I believe in freedom of the internet, and I don't know how to stop that situation from occurring other than what should have been a much more tightly controlled situation surrounding the hanging. The video that's out was taken from a cell phone camera.

Well Butero, it feels good to agree on something!

Forrest, haha. And let it be noted that Baltimore girls get it done. By the way, are people objecting to her liberalism, her gender, her general positions, her attitude, or any given combination?

I'll have to do a little more research, but I don't think the point is that the boy was suicidal. I think that this was more of a "playing" scenario - like how kids pretend to be superheros or teachers or newscasters or other people they see on television. I highly doubt the boy was actually trying to take his own life.

Amen, forrest. How can we supposedly fight a war for the "freedom" of others if we're not awake enough to protect our own rights inherent in that idea of freedom? Old Benjamin has a point.

I mean if you don't like the system...don't buy the car. I think it's a really interesting idea. If they can figure out about highway driving etc. then this could do really good things.

I don't think the issue is that she "needs" an expensive car, it's that it is RIGHTFULLY hers. A problem in the paperwork essentially means that her father can legally "steal" her car from her if she disobeys his wishes. While that's something that should have been corrected when the error was noticed, I think that with the other instances of rights violations you've stated, pixy (I'm thinking mostly the mail stuff, and the personal information given out by your parents without your consent), that you could legally stand your ground if it really came to that. While the ideal situation is resolution, what you've said indicates that your parents are willing to abuse their wealth and influence in order to control you. As a 28 year old woman, this should outrage you. If you picked up your assets and left, and your father and mother tried to stop you - I think you could take them to court. If you showed that your income was yours, that you had made the car payments yourself, and that your parents had repeatedly abused their access to your personal information and resources, I think you'd be presenting a pretty good case. Talk to them and do what you can to rectify the situation, but know that if worst comes to worst and you want to leave, you have a good shot of making it.

It's actually one of the smartest movies to come out in the last couple years. But whatever. Judge the book by its cover.

I'm always confused when people say that movies should be made without bad language or sexual content or violence or general "immorality." While I agree that gratuitous excesses of these are common (particularly violence), especially from Hollywood (i.e. why I'm an indie fan), film, and art in general, is supposed to say something about life, and life is certainly not devoid of language, violence, or sexuality.

Um, good thing it didn't come out of Hollywood....you know, it was called "the little Indie that could" for a reason.

If you haven't seen the movie, then don't make such harsh judgments. It's one of the most "pro-family" films to come out in years, by the way! It's this insane, loserish, flawed family who winds up realizing how important they are to one another through the course of the movie. The so-called "pedophilia" scene is just about the opposite - it's an over-the-top way of critiquing the whole child pageant culture, showing how ridiculous early sexualization of children actually is by having this plain, chubby little girl gyrate on stage in competitiion with coiffed and made up little princesses. The family sees the ridiculousness and so joins her on stage, both amplifying the strangeness (and hilarity) and putting childhood back into the context of the family. Anyway, it's a great, quirky movie, and it was one of my favorites this year. I about fell out of my seat during that scene when I saw it in theaters.

i've never really had a conflict over the difference between the two, as they're the same. first love: chocolate. true love? you guessed it....

You realize how absolutely crucial flies, fleas and mosquitos are to a functioning ecosystem, right? If you believe that God is an all-knowing creator, how can you doubt that even the mites have a purpose, a reason to exist? =)

What makes the plight of American Indians so different is exactly what has been pointed out a few times: the reservation system, which is a hallmark of an organized effort to exterminate an entire culture. To put blame on the people living in poverty on reservations now ignores the long and brutal history of marginalization and oppression that has been suffered - for generations, they have essentially been treated as "other" and set apart, and ignored. It's all well and good to feel bad about the situation, but nothing is going to change unless people start speaking up. Spread the word. Kitty: I'm from a rural area outside of Baltimore, my whole family is from the city. I know what you're talking about, but I spend a lot of time down there - I work and volunteer and hang out downtown (Federal Hill, Fells Point, etc.). I've been down on the west side watching the "renaissance" take place - they're trying to redo that whole area to make it attractive and "artsy" and a tourist spot. Not that I resent the renovation of the Hippodrome or anything, but now the people running Healthcare for the Homeless, as well as a bunch of local outreach agencies, and some small locally owned businesses, are feeling pressure to close their doors. Healthcare for the Homeless especially may be forced to Dundalk, where it would be little accessible to those who need it. Sorry if this seems rambly but this is my point: ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. So many people walk by the people sleeping on the sidewalks without looking in their direction. So many people won't even make eye contact with the homeless. I don't think the "forgotten people" are those forgotten at all - they're the ignored people. Until we're willing to open our eyes, take a look around, and reach out a hand in whatever way we can, those people will be starving, impoverished, brutalized and alone.

AMEN. (comin' from an english/environmental science major....)

Yeah, I think it's actually very relevant. The fifties "ideal" versus what was actually going on.

Okay, I get it then. But choice or not, I personally see something wrong in deliberately choosing an all-white neighborhood. That wasn't the point though, so I'll let it be.

*spews tea that she had been drinking from nose* But why? I get the freedom to choose how you live thing. Once again, every family should be able to choose what works for them. It was the last bit that got me - again, freedom of choice, but how is an all-white neighborhood better than a comparable neighborhood composed of residents with a diversity of backgrounds, ethnic, cultural and otherwise?

i was referring to "career" as work outside the home, for the sake of simplicity. i was not belittling the task of raising children! =)

I'd never say that it was meaningless! On the contrary! It's every woman and man's choice how to live their lives and raise their family. Some women prefer to stay home. Some men do. Often, both spouses work. Like I said, do what you feel is right for your family. If you want to stay at home, do. If you want to work, do. Just make sure you're not sacrificing the personal in either case.

It's all about balance. For example, if you're a young doctor who gets pregnant and has a child, there are probably going to be serious demands on your time that you can't ignore without throwing away your future within your career path (and all the money spent on med school). So maybe the husband eases up hours and stays home for a while. It's whatever works for specific families...I don't think there's any black and white model that works across the board.