georgesbluegirl

Exactly what I was going to say. Plus it just seems so petty and dumb. I guess you could say I'm pro-choice on a woman's right to wear pants.

It does seem pretty out there. The only problem I have with women wearing trousers is the ones who won't wear skirts at all! Why? I mean, some women just don't like them. I do, and I wear skirts and dresses with some frequency, but I would understand a woman who prefers not to or doesn't feel as comfortable in them.

I don't think I even knew that some people had a problem with women wearing pants...

Well then you get into questions of human trafficking, which is in every way slavery...and because it's usually difficult to tell the difference between someone who's been trafficked versus someone who is an illegal immigrant, those people often fall through the cracks when discovered.

Wait, seriously? Teenagers drink because of evolution?

Have yet to see a substantial (as in more than a cent or two) drop up in my neck of the woods, and that's well within the normal fluctuations anyway.

Read? I lived in East Africa -- the Ngorongoro highlands of northern Tanzania, to be precise -- from mid-winter through the middle of May. I watched the Kenyan negotiations this spring (well, early rainy season TZ season wise) with Kenyans - my professors and friends - and listened to them talk about what was going on in their government. Before that, I followed the politics of particularly southern and eastern Africa. To argue against the shattering influence that colonialism - which was driven by greed, not benevolence - has had upon the continent is sheer ignorance. I don't have time to respond in full at the moment, although I suspect there are others who can point out your errors, but if you so desire we can actually have this conversation.

If you actually think that the plight of sub-Saharan Africa is mostly of its own making, then you need to start reading some history and open your eyes.

Bump since this got lost in the information flow earlier - as an update...there is no real update. Still a lot of inaction on the part of the Department of Justice. Horrendous.

Okay I just have to say I LOVE Ladysmith Black Mambazo!!! I was in the front row for the first show of their American tour a couple years ago...PHENOMENAL.

A couple of things. First, to say that the only thing that matters about what music "means" is the lyrics really downplays the incredible power of music. There are some who would argue (and to an extent I agree) that music is the ultimate artistic expression. Music has the power to evoke great, sometimes unconscious, responses from the listener. It affects the brain in sometimes startling ways - have you ever heard of the riot at the opening of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring?" That said, I see the point that words can have a more immediate effect upon the listener (by the way, don't forget that "classical" music can have words too!). As a general rule, I don't really like the "is something good for Christians?" discussion because it seems to me that you have to figure out what influences you want in your own life individually. But even if one were thinking that way, I have a hard time lumping all "classical" music together, because each piece creates a different response. I feel differently listening to Chopin than I do listening to Beethoven. I guess when it gets down to it, if a piece of music is making you feel like you should go out and murder someone, maybe don't listen to it. In the end, though, music is evoking responses, but those are our responses to investigate, assess, and act upon. The fact is that "Rite of Spring" gets my heart pounding, but I listen to it without committing a pagan sacrifice or becoming violent.

The original Harris Poll is here. They polled to see who least and most favorite news anchors were among self identified right- and left-wingers. The results can be found in a couple of tables in the above link, but Gawker put up a handy dandy chart to make the numbers a bit more helpful: http://gawker.com/5002970/the-political-le...mericas-anchors Notice that BY FAR, the most polarizing anchors are the right-wing bloviation specialists. Another reminder that other than Air America (which you can't even FIND these days), the well-known conservative media personalities are much louder. And ubiquitous. And apparently irritate many times more people. Methodology (c/o Harris Interactive):

What he learned is that people like Obama, and that he'll lose the election for his wife if he doesn't learn to rein himself in.

Hey - that wasn't me! Sorry about that! I was thinking of another post I'd just responded to and that made it in there. And that lack of experience scares the weebeegeebies out of me. Excuse me, Mr. Pilot, but I would rather you have flown solo and landed that plane a few times solo and without the guidance of an instructore a few times before I'll ride in that plane with you - thank-you very much! Except that experience has NEVER been an accurate predictor of presidential (even general political) success. Some of our worst presidents have been our most "experienced." For the record, I can think of at least one person who spent most of his political career in the Illinois state legislature, worked as a lawyer, and served a only couple of terms in Congress before running for the presidency - Abraham Lincoln.

Haha perhaps. Trickle-down WILL actually work - the problem is it takes 30-40 years. It's impractical for a president to try to implement it because he or she is only in office for 4-8 years, and after that the next president is going to want to put their policy in place...so you only see the up front benefits for the "top shelf," and not the long term effects for all social strata. Of course, presidents should really keep their noses out of the economy because they don't have much effect on it anyway (apart from major decisions like starting wars). There's my 2 cents.

I listened to Rush and Hannity today too and yes, I heard the same thing...."let the liberals mess it up and then come back in 2012". These people have absolutely no regard for this country; it's their agenda that is important to them and their ratings. They have both lost whatever respect I had for them; not to mention...their minds! As for Ann Coulter...she's just being Coulter. Whatever gets the limelight for herself. I will not vote for McCain. Maybe I can write in my choice; Mike Huckabee. To do the assessment justice, it should be noted that many people are hoping for a Carter-Reagan kind of situation.

Aw it cut me off - I wanted to point out that since we expel CO2, technically political hot air contributes to global warming. But I guess harnessing it for power wouldn't be such a bad thing, if we're already polluting the atmosphere with all those stump speeches....

Okay in defense of my generation first of all - this has been a BANNER year for people not only coming to the polls, but being incredibly well informed about the issues. Campaign officials on all sides of the race have remarked about their surprise and interest in the fact that young people, especially, are asking incredibly sophisticated questions about policy, current events, and the political positions of the candidates from whom they are choosing. So don't knock young people. Second of all, before you accuse Obama of being full of "hot air," read his biography. Sure, I'm realistic about why politicians get into politics - but he hasn't been in the game that long, and there is something inexplicably genuine about the way he speaks to and with people. I'm going to see him on Monday. =) Of course, I have made my preferences known...if you can't buy what I'm saying, well, then at least admit that he's not any more "full of hot air" than anybody else major in politics.

Solid. Except, could you elaborate on your feelings about Ford? I'm interested. You don't often see him listed with names like those.

When you say "two people" do you mean to say you think homosexuality is OK? If not it might help to be a little more specific. I said "two people" to emphasize the idea of two sovereign individuals deciding to enter a relationship of mutuality. I wasn't trying to make a point about homosexuality, which isn't a topic of relevance in this thread anyway.

On second thought, I revise my estimate to .01%.

I legit don't think that more than 1% of the people in this country understood what a superdelegate was before two weeks ago or so.

Oh and I should also say, I don't see why this should be an issue. Sure, there are stereotypes and racists left out there (plenty of them, unfortunately), but if two people are in love, let them work it out. It might be hard, but why would anyone say it's a bad thing if they want to be together despite the fact that they may encounter prejudice? I understand that cultural differences may present a problem - say you have a man who still adheres to his culture's notion that a woman is worth inherently less than a man, and then he and a Western woman begin a relationship. I can see where there would be problems. But again, hopefully the couple knows each other well and each understands the background of the other, and what they might encounter from without, before they get married. Like I said, it's not like you pretend race and culture don't exist, but nor do they ultimately determine our relationships. When you come down to it, it's really about two individual people and their choices.

This brings up another point. Most people look at interacial couples as being black and white, however, that is not always the case. I don't think many would have a problem with a white European person marrying a Hispanic, or any other combination, but we are hung up with a black man with a white woman. I'm not sure why that is. The real issue is one of faith. If both people are Christians, there is nothing Biblically wrong with a mixed marriage. You're right to bring up the black/white issue. That is actually a deeply American issue (more accurately, New World, actually), and has a lot to do with the history of slavery. All the same, remember that race is a cultural phenomenon and not a genetic one. That doesn't make it more or less important, but realize that you're not really talking about people being born different, but cultured and viewed differently. There is more genetic variation within the races than between. (Also, there is less variation in phenotype between men and women who are "white" than those who are called "black" - so the whole "they all look the same!" thing? Yeah, actually could more accurately describe how "white people" look.)