WIP

And, did you notice that it wasn't addressed to either of you two? It was intended for someone who has opened up the issues of employee rights, fair wages, and even what is normal sexual behaviour even further. So, I felt the need to just take the time and put everything on the table as brief as possible, and see what gets picked up. You two could have just ignored it without comment and that would have been fine; but it seems that you want to try to dumb everyone down to your level....so there are at least two more members here that I won't bother discussing anything with in the new year. Kind of sad in retrospect!

How many red herrings died in the construction of that paragraph? First, could you provide a definition of what you are calling "Government," because the libertarian/anarchist crowd floats around and never says whether they are talking about national governments alone, or local governments. And needless to say, they pretend that "government" orders billionaire bankers and oil company barons around and confiscates their money for nefarious purposes. A quick look at the way most of the world's governments are financed, and who holds and accumulates more wealth, plus who benefits from financial "reforms" and "free trade" legislation, reveal what a fallacy the anti-government crusade is, and that it is little more than a diversion or a misdirection, to draw attention away from the powerful manipulating interests behind government....and who have created the only international institutions with real power to change economic policies. And, nice try....attempting to make a case that government is the social force that is dependent on continuous growth! In fact, the only growth in government today is military spending -- which is mostly financed from the collective tax base, while the objectives benefit no one aside from a few large corporate interests....such as major oil companies in the M.E., and mining and other resource companies, as well as new multinational corporations set up to take advantage of the privatization of infrastructure in bankrupted third world nations. The only other increases come from programmed spending - old age pensions and medicare - which are based on promises made to contributors during their working years....and about to be renegged on by the U.S. and other governments around the world. And that's government growth in a nutshell! What I was talking about in terms of dangerous, eventually catastrophic growth, is the way our modern capitalist money and banking system functions. 97% of new money is created by a stroke of the pen or a data entry, every time a new loan is authorized to a borrower. It is not taken from a bank's assets, but all of a sudden appears as a debit entry on the books, and as long as the loan is payed back with interest, the new money matches the real increase in economic growth of the local economy....and that's why constant growth is essential! If the economy is flat, or in decline - confidence in the funny money scheme could easily collapse....like it almost did in 2008 and will eventually do again, when the pyramid of new derivative investments can't be piled up any higher. I'm going to have to get around to posting a thread on the subject; for now, I'll leave it with this revealing comment from way back in 1927, while the Roaring Twenties were still roaring -- from Sir Josiah Stamp, former Governor of the Bank of England, in a talk at the University of Texas: The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit. What I was referring to specifically, was coming to terms with the size and scale of the problem for the human race to live in a sustainable manner today. I started moving away from the denial crap maybe 6 or 7 years ago, when I started realizing that the arguments denying the human factor in changing the climate, did not have valid proposals for how CO2 can increase without increasing the greenhouse effect. The arguments are mostly attacking evidence for anthropogenic climate change, and not proposing an alternative theory to explain the facts.....the same strategy used by creationists against evolution. But, what is recent for me, is realizing that our economic system, and our entire consumer-driven way of life is leading the world towards extinction. Most of the environment or green proposals to deal with climate change toss out buzzwords like 'sustainable growth' or 'clean energy,' without bothering to demonstrate how proposed changes will do much to stop, let alone slow down growth in greenhouse gas emissions. If we were to go by Al Gore's movie: An Inconvenient Truth, all we have to do is change our lightbulbs and inflate our tires to save the planet! And Gore, being just a little more moderate than the voracious capitalists at the energy companies, is not going to propose solutions that are difficult or do anything to change the present system.....and that's when I realized that the green capitalists are either awash or a worse threat than the Koch Brothers to the environment, because they are like a false ally, who pretends to be on your side while working towards the opposite objectives. No, it is partly from new technology - even back when I was in school, many social science commentators were a little apprehensive about the future of the TV generation, because of the measured psychological changes in children who watch high amounts of television....especially commercial television, where the programs are secondary to the needs of marketers of new products and services. Even television has had an average effect of making the populace more isolated and less sociable, impulsive, neurotic, and more easily distracted/unable to pay attention; and that's without adding all of the other electronic devices with the computer era, that have so many walking around (or driving around) in their own little bubbles, with their phones, tablet computers and mp3 players. And, along with the isolating effects of technology, we add the increasing inequality in wealth and incomes, that fragment a population further, into smaller and smaller niches that feel little if any common purpose with others....even right in their own neighbourhoods! No wonder libertarianism became such a fad in the last 30 years! I was hoping one or more, other atheists would take the bait on this one....and I promised to start a thread on that general subject....if I can get it set up properly. This is the most recent change for me, because up until a year or two ago, I followed along with a modern secular dogma that the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, started by Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon, was the launching of a permanent trend in human history, of increasing knowledge leading to improvements through applying new technology and new knowledge....this is pretty much standard humanist philosophy in a nutshell, and is still the majority doctrine today as best exemplified in books by writers like Stephen Pinker - an evolutionary psychologist who wrote a new book a year ago trying to make a case for human improvement through the long course of human history....I forget the title of the book, but I heard so many of his interviews and lectures promoting it, I probably wouldn't find much that was new or interesting inside the pages. And, I would have bought into secular humanist doctrine that continued progress requires abandoning old gods and religions as relics of the past, and that most people will be much better off after they have abandoned religion. And it's this last part of secular humanist dogma that I find the weakest -- there is a pulling away from traditional religion today; but is there evidence that people are becoming naturalists or are happier after they stop attending their churches? The story might turn out to be something going in the opposite direction, as the move away from religion and the demands of those religions, may just be motivated by increasing self interest and self absorption. From what I've seen, organized religions can do good things and bad things. They can motivate and push people to reach out to others and be concerned for more than their own immediate interests, and even promote universal concern for everyone around the world.....or they can go in the opposite direction, and underline and justify modern selfish, individualistic motives.....this is where I see the great evil of right wing Christianity and related religions making the world a worse place to live in! A couple of months ago, my wife and I went on a brief trip to New York City, and did a lot of the typical tourist stuff while visiting a staying a couple of nights as guest of one of my cousins who lives in Manhattan. I was struck, while walking through Times Square and observing the garish, obscene commercialism that assaults the senses, that there was an ad from American Atheists among the billboard ads for every product imaginable:'Keep The Merry, Dump The Myth' or maybe it was 'Dump The Myth, Keep The Merry'....who knows....or who cares? I guess the point was that to American Atheists, the harmful religion is Christianity and celebrating Christmas as a religious occasion. And as far as I am aware, American Atheists has nothing much to say about America's real true religion - Materialism! Which to me is the most serious and damaging religion and causes the most harm and suffering for people. And is the average American better off without any religion in a harshly competitive materialistic world? Or, might they be better off having an alternative religion that doesn't worship the god of money?

God, new music sucks these days! I'm just going to return to 1975 .

I figured I would hear about the god in the market when I asked that question! And I don't believe in that god, which is based on a myth called Pareto Efficiency of Market Dynamics. In brief, that myth only works in theory if everyone behaves in rational, predictable ways, and business owners do not consolidate control of markets.....which is not what happens in the real world! People are often irrational; make choices based on impulse (the advertising industry depends on that), and business owners will try to control markets by gaining monopoly or near monopoly. They will also behave in ways that do not maximize their own profitability in situations where they deliberately try to ruin a rival competitor, even if the costs outweigh the benefits. In real life, the constant boom and bust cycles of markets -- especially as they are deregulated, blows the myth that fair prices and fair wages are determined by whatever the market says. In today's return to feudalism, a fair wage in Bangladesh is 35c an hour....and that has an obvious impact on everyone's wages, regardless of skill levels, wherever they work in the world. Which is only a problem for the capitalist entrepreneurial ownership system, where a few who control the bulk of a nation's wealth feel the need for big returns on investment as the incentive to invest in new businesses. While it is not a problem in worker cooperative systems, where employees have a say in business decisions and how profits are divided. Entrepreneurial systems may be fine at small scale, such as small businesses that find a product or service that is needed....that is roughly how the middle class began in the Middle Ages in Europe. But, when it gets to international banks - who actually create most of the money that runs modern economies, the major oil companies and other monstrosities that earn billions for a handful of major shareholders, these voracious institutions which are presently rewriting national and international laws to allow them to devour entire nations for resources in their constant, ever-growing quest for more and more profits....well, I'll end by saying that if there is no way to stop this system and put something else in place that can meet most of our basic needs, our economic system will drive us over the cliff in a mass extinction. Some guys....I didn't say everyone! And if this new age of permanent austerity is dealt with by returning to past norms, then young women will be back viewing either marriage or prostitution as their best roads to financial success. This doesn't prove that the old Victorian Era logic that women don't really enjoy sex and put up with it to get what they can out of a man, is natural -- but it is how many, even most will adapt if choices are limited to those options again. Like I said before, it's a matter of how impulsive you are, or to what degree you value stability over immediate gratification. I'm not trying to put a halo on my head now that I'm coming up to our 25th anniversary (not including 3 years living common law), but whatever I felt I might be missing out on over the years, wasn't enough to motivate me to risk turning my life upside down! And certainly, if I hadn't seen so many train wrecks in the personal lives of some of my friends, family and co-workers over the years, I might have stepped out on a few occasions myself. Okay, this is a fwiw argument, since most of it is trying to extrapolate from personal experiences and feelings to apply some general rule....so I am aware that it's going out on a limb. But, from what I've read over the years from history and sociology, our attitudes about monogamy and marriage are very modern and very recent! If we go back more than a few generations, most of our ancestors were arranging marriages of their children, and following marriage ceremonies taken from a time when patriarchs literally sold their daughters to prospective bridegrooms....and as we are aware, there are some places in the world still doing this. We have to go back to the Renaissance to find any written accounts of romance and love affairs between a man and a woman -- and they almost never involved the two getting married at some future point in time....the story was usually a tragedy....because that's what romantic love would get you in feudalistic societies. If we go back further, we find that monogamy meant little more than a man can't buy more than one wife, even if he has the money to pay for more. Which takes us back to polygamy -- which is the most common institution of marriage once farming and permanent settlements started, and men usually took control of economic activity. And, if we go back before the age of agriculture....when humans lived most of our history - in small bands related by blood -- we usually find egalitarian, non-hierarchical societies, dependent on the contributions of both men and women, where cooperation and sharing are crucial to the group's survival. And in these societies, we don't find marriage or monogamy in any sense of the way we understand these terms today. Early on, many anthropologists made all kinds of unfounded assumptions....like one I recall, where the researcher in the Amazon, was calling a male and female moving their hammocks together - a marriage! In that long, paleolithic past, where the family clan was the only institution that mattered, pair-bonding was frequent and fleeting, and children were raised by females collectively, and males who had no ideas of paternity, or cared for that matter. They were all part of the tribe....and that's all that mattered! And, if we assume that this would be the natural way for men and women to act in a free society, how do we make that happen today, when all of our social institutions beyond marriage are based on contingencies and unreliable for any length of time? It seems to me that many liberal social commentators have been right that we are not naturally monogamous, but they failed to see that in a world where there are no other trustworthy social institutions (not to mention the much greater exposure to STD's that promiscuity brings in modern societies), most of us are going to have to learn to be happy with monogamy! My point is that if someone is getting older, and they've been married several times, and may not even be sure if their present marriage is going to last, they have no one they can trust who will be there no matter what! Family relationships don't extend much beyond immediate family today. I've noticed since my father died 10 years ago, that almost all the relatives from that side of the family have disappeared also for various reasons. It was pretty much a matter of my father's generation being the only one that maintained those links, while most of our cousins haven't bothered. I imagine something similar from my mother's family in Michigan, although she has a sister-in-law who just reached 101, and my mother has become close friends with the eldest of her daughters....so there may be some continuity after my mother's passed on, but who knows? I'm the youngest of my family, so I know that I am likely going to outlive them just going by the odds. So, that leaves us back to marriage, as the last institution we can really trust in good times and bad. I do have one friend from high school, who was best man at my wedding, who might be there till the bitter end, but my point was that if you have one or two friends from early in your life that are still with you as you're getting closer to the finish line, you're lucky! Nope! That was bullshit from Victorian patriarchal assumptions that I touched on earlier. The notion of man being the savage warrior competing with other men to 'spread his seed' didn't become the norm until we get to that point described in the Old Testament, where women are part of the collection of a man's possessions....the Ten Commandments pretty much spells it out. If we go back to an earlier time before materialism becomes a force in human culture, we find no concern or consideration for paternity. In a hunter/gatherer tribe, a man doesn't care whether the boy he's teaching how to make a spear, is his son or his nephew...it's all the same to him, because it's the wellbeing of the tribe that matters. And the women....well that would be the greatest fallacy of all, that women don't really care much about sex, except for what can be gained by it. Again, this is an adaptation to societies that transition from relative equality and consideration for male and female, to becoming completely male dominant -- where women have to secure the right man for raising their children. In previous eras, childrearing was a group activity, so a woman's sexual interest in men would be for fun and games, pretty much the same as it was for the men. Modern psychological research has noted that women vary in their tastes in men depending on whether or not they are ovulating -- preferring higher testosterone - more rugged appearing men during the times they are most fertile, and switching preference to less rugged men when they become pregnant. That may explain a lot of the reasons why females in a hunter/gatherer band would want to change partners frequently, while in the later societies, the lack of community support led most women to settle on the best combination of attributes in one man afterwards....giving rise to the notion that women should be naturally monogamous....unlike the men. Hey! Go for it if you can get it. I should point out that a lot of my observations depend on where you are in life, and where you are in a marriage. I recall that a little more than 20 years ago, earlier in our marriage, we became friends with a couple of similar age. I learned from the guy that they were swingers, and had hooked up with at least one other couple, but that relationship didn't last. I was all for the idea of hooking up with his wife....and it really didn't bother in the least if the deal meant that he would be bedding down my wife (as long as she didn't get pregnant or contract an STD of course). But, when I tried to broach the subject as cautiously as possible, my wife flew into a rage and declaring how she knew he was nothing but a f@#$%^^& pervert, and picked up the phone and was going to tell off the wife. I literally wrestled the phone from her hands and somehow convinced her not to mention the subject again. But, our friendships cooled off, and I never would bring up a subject like swinging or stepping out again after that reaction. I still wouldn't write it off as women being naturally more monogamous than men, since it could be more likely that her growing up in a broken home makes her even more invested in stability and security than I am.

Well, needless to say, here are two women who either failed to learn anything from fairly recent history, or just take it all for granted. If we're to believe the implied dynamics of the background in this story that: (a) a younger woman is looking to play the role of 'homewrecker' to advance her status by capturing a wealthy, established older man, while the wife feels threatened by this younger woman and wants her dispatched as quick as possible so she doesn't lose her meal ticket -- then we are right back where we all started! And I hope most women can see past the ends of their noses, because these types of situations are how the few with the money and the power, keep others fighting with each other rather than working together for a more equal society. Just sayin.....there are larger lessons to learn (for some) from this example.

I didn't mean 'completely separate.' I would say that a guy who wants to have sex with a woman he despises is sick in the head, but a lot of guys will do it anyway, while most women I've met will only do it for other personal gains that might be included. And, guys who value the relationships their in and put a high premium on stability, will avoid the temptations that come along and not let them get past the fantasy stage. My thoughts about "laziness" have more to do with the fact that the guys who are screwing around for a long time have to be more than pathological liars! They have to be a lot more organized with their time than I am or care to be. Silly Christian notion or not, what else should we call it when you might see a girl or even have a conversation with one that really turns you on....yet you know in the back of your mind as soon as more deliberate thinking kicks in, that everything's going to go bad if you try to explore that other possibility? Our current society hasn't been around for very long, and is not sustainable anyway, so I'm not exactly sure what worth it is to talk about 'normal' right now at this point in time. That said, I would argue that monogamy has become important - not because of religious indoctrination - but because personal relationships are so unreliable and dependent on material factors like where you live, where you work etc., that there is more at stake in protecting a marriage today than there ever was before in history! When I was young, there were friends I had that were only friends while we were drinking together, and didn't survive the transition to adult responsibilities....just as there were friends my wife and I had with other couples that we got to know through our kids....but as our children grew older and moved away from earlier friends, the adult friend component didn't last either! Today, monogamy may be important for the first time in human history! But, as long as we remain doing roughly what we are doing now, it will remain so. If we start talking about what's intrinsically normal as humans, and what's not, it can't be done without going back and doing an exhaustive study of how humans lived in hunter/gatherer bands during the long period of the Pleistocene - the era in which we evolved into modern humans. Everything that has happened to us culturally ever since then - including the 10,000 year age of agriculture are all adaptations made because of cultural pressures since the major evolutionary changers were made.

And, if you do, forgot to tell the rest of us what it means!

If we take a step back and look at the overall context, both the wife, and the employee are women who's primary avenue to a better life comes through marrying the man who has the money, or is earning the large salary. Supposedly from the beginning of my generation, this was all in the past, and women are independent and able to earn their own way without needing to depend on a man to ensure their own success in life. In the return to austerity, there are a number of signs to indicate that these relics of patriarchy are on the return; and the young women will start focusing again on marrying the man who will have the best earning potential, while those who got left out will play the classic role of the gold-digger, and try to displace wife#1 so they can have their shot at a life of luxury! But, rather than blame the women for how they react or adapt to living in a man's world again, I'm going to focus the blame on the system that inevitably leads to people debasing and degrading themselves for personal success.

Well, from the information given to the public, this working relationship went on for 10 years; so if anything wasn't right, the employer had a lot of time to address these issues before anything got out of control....as we are told. We put the burden of responsibility on the persons or groups in society that have the power - not those at a disadvantage who have to adapt to demands, wishes and wants of the boss in this example. My guess is that any unprofessional conduct was on his part, or being encouraged by him...which is just as bad, since he had the power to stop it or let it keep going.....so, I really don't care what her motives or intentions were, because, even if she was a gold-digger looking to break up a marriage to marry a rich dentist (like the receptionist in my former dentist's office), it was a situation that was under the boss's complete control anyway.

If any of them are NRA members, they're fools! This is what their membership dues support: The man who shot Martin, George Zimmerman, said he acted in self-defense. Police haven't charged him and legal experts say Florida's "stand your ground" law may shield Zimmerman from prosecution. The National Rifle Association worked with ALEC to spread similar laws that are on the books in at least 25 states. Those laws grow directly out of the Second Amendment ethos the NRA has championed: "the ethos of individualism, of having a gun, of individuals taking the initiative," said Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at the State University of New York at Cortland and at Cornell University who has studied and written about the NRA for decades. Less well known is that the NRA has also helped ALEC spread other conservative laws that have nothing to do with gun rights. ALEC drafts and shares model bills with state legislators to promote corporation-friendly and conservative social policy. A watchdog group called the Center for Media and Democracy first documented the NRA's role in these bills with ALEC. An NRA lobbyist, Tara Mica, helped shepherd a model bill that requires voters to show a photo ID at the polls. Many conservatives have pushed voter ID laws to prevent election fraud. Many liberals say these laws inhibit voting by minorities. Read more: http://www.ksbw.com/news/politics/NRA-ALEC-team-up-for-causes-beyond-gun-laws/-/2124/10296044/-/cm3da0/-/index.html#ixzz2GHZJFoWw In reality, the NRA is composed of half a dozen legal entities; some designed to run undisclosed attack ads in political campaigns, others to lobby and collect tens of millions in undisclosed, tax-deductible sums. Despite the grassroots façade, there is much evidence to suggest that corporations that profit from unregulated gun use are propping up the NRA’s activities, much like how the tobacco lobby secretly funded “Smokers Rights’” fronts and libertarian anti-tax groups, or how polluters currently finance much of the climate change skepticism movement. In a “special thanks” to their donors, the National Rifle Association Foundation lists Bushmaster Firearms Inc., the company that makes the assault rifle reportedly found with the shooter responsible for the mass murder today in Newtown, Connecticut. How much Bushmaster Firearms Inc. (a firm now known as Windham) contributes is left unsaid. The Violence Policy Center has estimated that since 2005, gun manufacturers have contributed up to $38.9 million to the NRA. Those numbers, however, are based on publicly listed “sponsorship” levels on NRA fundraising pamphlets. The real figures could be much bigger. Like Crossroads GPS or Americans for Prosperity, or the Sierra Club for that matter, the NRA does not disclose any donor information even though it spends millions on federal elections. And like other industry fronts, the NRA is quick to conceal its pro–gun industry policy positions as ideological commitments. Take, for example, “The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund.” It’s a pro–gun rights legal fund “involved in court cases establishing legal precedents in favor of gun owners.” http://www.thenation.com/blog/171776/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners# Notice from these two articles that the NRA is actively involved in voter suppression of targeted groups that they apparently aren't interested in protecting the gun rights of either! This organization backed model legislation that has led to the inevitable dangerous overreactions of giving a pass to any idiot feeling threatened, to run around with a gun and shoot at anything that moves --- the Trayvon Martin Case was only the most obvious of a number of similar incidents across the USA because the NRA used ALEC to promote model legislation that increases the proliferation and use of handguns! And, as I for one, mentioned previously, the NRA only pretends to be focused on gun owners; they're primary concern (just like typical politicians) is the people who pony up the most money.....and that happens to be the makers of guns and ammo, not the users! So, the NRA is the most brilliant corporate lobby group out there, since all of the others have to kick in their own money to advance their propaganda and buy politicians....while the NRA has a vast army of suckers helping them do the job of maximizing profitability of gun manufacturers!

I was only 16 at the time, so I was a little young to take on the role of social crusader, but it's always stuck with me that I stood by like the others in that restaurant and did nothing, nor said anything while this girl was being abused by the owner. * I just want to add as a post note that I am not into bashing Muslims as many are on these forums, and I bring up Saudi Arabia or other examples of Muslim patriarchal extremism to put the mirror in front of the Christian or secular variety of misogynists on our side. I live in a neighbourhood that's largely immigrants from all over, including Muslim countries. Except for distinctive dress of some, or a ludicrous fear of dogs, they are typical of others who are new and still adjusting to life in a new country that's much different than home. I won't judge all Muslims by what the extremes do...especially when the imperialists and reactionaries on this side have fueled the extremism; just as I can't judge all Christians by what right wing fundamentalists do. Much of what they believe and practice is antithetical to traditional Christian values, just as the modern day Salafis and Wahabbis are a modern creation in the Muslim World, and the result of an adverse reaction to western culture and western colonization.....rather than part of a tradition that was trying to end the constant wars and blood feuds, and improve the quality of life of people living in the Arabian Peninsula back in the 7th century. I can understand why a lot of women get sucked in to the usual pattern of viewing other women as rivals, but this is exactly how guys get away with so much shit in the first place. A lot of guys take advantage of the way women view love and sex, and use it to their advantage. Fact is - men can compartmentalize sex and love...we can be in love with a woman, and still try to seduce another for fun and games...if we can get away with it. It's not that me, or most guys who don't screw around, are paragons of virtue....it's more of a matter that, aside from a few rock stars or guys with too much money, the only way most guys can be screwing around is if they are out there actively looking for opportunities! And once they start down the 2nd track, they have to be good liars, and have the energy to make the time and money available to deceive two women at the same time. It's a shame that many women fall for their bullshit alibis....at least the first or 2nd times, but if a woman is in love with a man, and views love and sex as interwoven, it's hard to get used to the male capacity to decompartmentalize the two. And, Instead of working together, women fall into the trap of falling for his excuses and breaking friendships, and being divided and isolated by the men who try to run their lives. That seems to be the net result here. I know a lot of guys who do the flirting thing and don't take it further....or just haven't had the opportunity to do so. For myself, I've avoided starting down that road, which hasn't been too terribly difficult for me, likely because I was very shy around girls when I was young, and took along time to open up and be able to talk to them. Keeping things low key and avoiding talking about sex, was always a good way for me to keep my anxiety levels down if I met someone for the first time. So, to each his own....the only thing I would expect is that the guys who are going to deliberately lead themselves into temptation....like two guys I work with who pestered me to get on Facebook....started looking up old girlfriends as soon as they joined. No surprise they both ended up divorced....except to them apparently....since neither of them accepts the blame for ruining their own marriages.

Maybe I'm getting it from Star Trek or something...the line "with great power comes great responsibility." Wherever it's from, the point is that the employer has the bulk of the responsibility to prevent a situation like this from getting out of hand. I don't see much more going on than the fact that he was assuming more interest in him by her than was likely happening, and if she is guilty of anything, it's bending to an overbearing boss and feeding his ego, instead of putting him in his place right from the beginning!

And they also get richly rewarded for being the owner of a business. I am reminded of that fact every time I think back to my former idiot dentist bragging about how he had a 28 foot pool installed in his new home...just so he could improve his triathalon times! Not that he was an incompetent dentist....I just got sick of his bragging about his workouts and race times....he never did manage to beat me at 5K....but regardless - I sure as hell couldn't afford a 28 foot pool! And neither could the employees working for him. Including the one he knocked up and left his wife for! One point that capitalists of all stripes....whether liberal progressive or ruthless libertarian always ignore, is that EVERY employee working for them is underpaid! And if you don't believe me, tell me how long a business stays profitable after it pays its employees more than the full value of their work? Answer is NEVER. Because a capitalist system depends first and foremost on the owners of capital being able to extract more value from workers than they are compensated for. And modern capitalism goes beyond the system of small business ownership that began with skilled tradesmen taking on apprentices centuries ago; now it is a system that depends on constant and continued economic expansion to keep inflating the money supply, so that owners of capital can continue to profit, and profit more than actually producing products of real value. The richest of the rich in the modern capitalist system are the bankers who use the banking system itself to bleed the real economy of wealth and concentrate it in their own estates....but, now I'm getting way off topic, and I'll have to note this for a future topic I want to present -- because I believe most of our ills today...everything from sickness, social dysfunction, wars, ecological degradation etc., are not examples of our system not functioning properly....the truth is the exact opposite! Our modern capitalist system is doing exactly what it was intended to do, and most people are suffering as a result...whether they are aware of the cause of their suffering or not.

I don't think the wife has any more right than her husband, to fire an employee for personal reasons that are mostly the fault of her husband....since he was the one with the power in whatever relationship existed between him and this woman.

I think that would be a shades-of-grey point, because our culture is almost identical to America's, and except for having greater social support on average, and less brainwashing with libertarian crappola, the main difference is that if someone gets mad....or is insane, they have greater access to firearms in the U.S. than they do in Canada. If we look at the psychology of violence, a case can (and has many times) been made that guns are a prime example of technology making the committing of violence more remote and easier to accomplish than would otherwise be able. I can tell you that, way back when I signed up for a five year stint in the Armed Forces, I had a harder time with drills - running through a dummy with bayonet, or practicing with knives during hand to hand combat drills, than I did firing at a target. I never said anything to my superiors and went through the motions...but I worried deep inside that if I ever found myself in a situation where I had to stab an enemy through with knife or bayonet, that I might not have been able to actually do it. And that's the case with the way other people react with weapons. Many people who could not bring themselves to stab an assailant while under attack, would feel no qualms about shooting them. And if it's an emotionally heated situation, we can see where having the gun means all the difference in the world whether a violent act will be perpetrated or not.

A cousin of mine said last year that 8 years after her daughter died suddenly from an unexpected and previously undiagnosed heart defect, she is still grieving and unable to completely get over it, even though she tries, for the benefit of her husband and the other children.' They are likely going through the same thing. Even as the years pass, something seemingly at random will happen and remind her that her daughter is no longer here. The worst thing that can happen to a parent is to outlive their children, especially at a young age. That is likely why the Sandy Hook Shootings is making an impact that previous mass shootings were unable to do. Other incidents are dismissed by an increasingly callous and jaded population that is used to increasingly disturbing stories in the news, and playing video games patterned off of early training games and videos designed to desensitize and detach special ops candidates from their natural empathetic responses. But, having 6 and 7 year olds gunned down, is a shock that breaks through to even the most cynical and jaded....and that's why the NRA has been in a panicked, damage-control mode ever since.

I am finding myself caring less and less about Jewish history now that my government genuflects to every bullshit statement coming out of the Israeli Prime Minister. It's one thing for the U.S. to be kowtowing to Israel's interests in the Middle East; but why the hell do we have to be doing it too now? So, the people who happen to be living there have no rights, is that it? . Well, first of all, I didn't grab for Yugoslavia out of any particular interest or ethnic heritage; but I do know enough about their situation to know that Yugoslavia was not a nation of provinces, but a federation of six republics and two provinces....which was why it was always at risk of breaking apart without a dictator in control. In theory, those republics had intrinsic rights of nationhood on their own, just like the republics of the U.S.S.R.. And Kosovo, was a province of Serbia...not a republic. It was granted autonomous status from the fact that like a similar autonomous province in the northern part of Serbia, it was mostly populated with an ethnic minority - Albanians - while Serbs on made up about 15% of the total population. But, according to international law, Kosovo was within the borders of Serbia. When ethnic tensions developed into a civil war, after the fall of Yugoslavia, there were claims by the Russians and Serbs that the U.S. and the E.U. were supporting the uprising, and intended to carve Kosovo away from Serbia, just as they were quick to recognize Croatia's independence in that war previously. Now, where I find an intriguing similarity between Kosovo and Palestine, is that the land in Kosovo is scattered with many significant Serbian historical sites including historic churches that were abandoned as Albanians moved into the area during the early part of the 20th century. With the rise of Serbian nationalism after the breakup of Yugoslavia, there was a clamoring for retaking the Serbian "holy sites" from Albanian interlopers. So, the situation that led to ethnic cleansing and Clinton's air war on Serbia, was precipitated by one group claiming historic rights to territory that was being occupied by outsiders who had moved in during more recent generations....sound familiar yet? My concerns are not with trying to figure out who's right and who's wrong, it's what is the difference between the Serbian claims of historic rights to their national territory - especially holy sites, or a Jew coming to Israel from Europe or America and claiming the right to the land and pushing Arabs out because he says his ancestors lived there 2000 years ago? If someone wants to return to a place where someone is already living there now, who gets the land?

Unfortunately, that seems to be the case! Wayne LaPierre is just throwing crap at the wall and hoping something will stick. What other explanation is there for him to decry cuts to mental health funding and crazy people turned loose on the streets! It's no secret that the NRA works with other rightwing lobbies in Washington, and has supported lower taxes and lower public spending....which they are now trying to run away from.

Yes, and I can't believe how many posting on this thread so far think we're still living in the Victorian Era, where an employer can do whatever the hell they like to an employee! The arguments related to:'she was flirting with him too' do not take into account the difference in power in this relationship. Maybe her conduct seemed flirtatious because she was already concerned about losing her job. Or....and I've seen this in many, many places where I've worked....women will often go along with and not complain about everything from flirting to sexual or degrading comments or jokes, because they're intimidated by guys when they're new on a job, and never worked around men before. In a larger business, where there's a union, and one man can't act like he has godlike powers - like where I work - we still have a few problems with sexual harassment complaints, that began as soon as the first women were hired, and guys had to learn how to deal with it. In many cases, the new female workers didn't speak out or file a grievance with the union....usually they were either quiting or taking a leave of absence. And most of the guys who were the subject of the complaint, were not classic sexual predators....or certainly didn't see themselves as sexual predators. It seemed to be more of a problem that a lot of guys have naturally by conflating anything a woman might say to them as a sexual come-on....and just following their impulses into turning a misunderstanding into a mess that involves everyone. Exactly! The one time I seen something similar to this was way back when I was 16 or 17, working in an Italian restaurant. The guy who owned the place was a pig, who was always grabbing the waitresses (who were my age) even when his wife was working at the time. And one girl who he was especially friendly with....and trying to feel up and rub up close with, never said anything, and only seemed to try to get away from him....but it was the wife who fired her for no good reason, other than the fact that it was the only way she knew how to keep her husband away from young girls! When times get tough....like they seem to be doing in recent years, what would otherwise be entry level jobs, become careers for people, as they are stuck in place with nothing to advance to. So, there should be repercussions in the event of an unreasonable or unlawful dismissal. The problem is what are the realistic chances that someone fired from a low wage job - who was depending on that income, is going to have the financial resources to take her former boss to court? I know this one didn't involve me, but I want to 2nd the motion, because it should be underlined that men and women can be platonic friends....and if there are sexual attractions from one party or the other, they can be kept in check. If all the talk about women's liberation and breaking down gender barriers is more than just talk, then men and women have to be able to work together and even be friends, without trying to use those friendships as sexual opportunities. If it's not possible, why aren't the conservatives and the people who believe male/female relationships are invariably sexual, advocating that we change our society to something like Saudi Arabia? Separate schools for boys and girls....there are some idiot educators who are actually trying to do this unfortunately....no women in the workplace...or at least not working where they may come in contact with men....come on conservatives....and misogynists too....stand by your rhetoric!

Why do I get the impression from your posts that you believe the employer/employee relationship is a master/slave relationship? Do employees have any rights in rightwingworld? Not from the posts defending this dentist's right to fire an assistant....because his wife made him do it!

It's worth noting that the NRA is most actively the proponents of self-protection, and many of their members express open hostility to law enforcement.....example would be if you look up how they interpret Waco or Ruby Ridge; and yet here's Wayne LaPierre calling for America to be turned into a police state with a cop or a rentacop with a gun standing in front of every school!

If killing 20 6 and 7 year olds wasn't bad enough, today's glaring headline in the news from Western New York, tells us that first responders can be targeted also, as two firefighters are dead, after responding to a fire that may have been set as a deliberate trap. I've heard some of the things that Gerald Celente says and agree with, although he has a seriously bloated opinion of himself and his prognostication abilities -- he is not the only economic analyst who has been warning about the economic crises happening now....but most of the others aren't using their findings to sell gold online. Point being, Celente isn't the only one who was fearing that Americans are getting to the point of being so stressed out, that people on the fringes would start acting out in shocking and unpredictable ways....and it sure doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that this would have happened! But, what to do when everything starts going crazy? The collapse of social support that even that NRA clown are citing as causes now, have not and will not be addressed in a serious manner, and it will take years even if there are efforts to deal with the collapse of mental health care, unemployment and foreclosures, to show any positive improvements. In the here and now, America may have no other choice than to begin seriously dealing with lax gun control laws. And I want to add an issue that is never dealt with when the tea party, tri-corner hat crowd starts waving their guns around and talking about 2nd Amendment rights -- they never mention that their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment doesn't extend the same right to bear arms to all citizens (especially those with darker complexions). It is never mentioned by the gun crowd that blacks never had the same rights to own firearms that whites did during the long period after the Civil War, during the age of Jim Crow! Not only were their voting rights effectively nullified, they weren't allowed to own guns in most of the south for a variety of technicalities that were never applied to whites! A more recent example of how the NRA and assorted gun nuts look the other way, is what happened after Hurricane Katrina, when soldiers and private security companies (probably Blackwater) were going through what was left of New Orleans and confiscating guns. Nothing was said by Wayne LaPierre regarding that attack on 2nd Amendment rights. So, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is a right to be granted to certain people and not others: if you're whiter, have better than average income, and own a significant amount of property, your 2nd amendment rights are stronger than otherwise.

I tried to scan through as much of the six pages of this thread as I can, and I think it's not even worth bothering to wade into the weeds and get the issue muddled down with technical, legalistic bafflegab, that is mostly irrelevant anyway! The same dynamics occur in workplaces that were formerly all-male, and start integrating women into the workforce....just let's say, a lot of guys don't know how to act! And are either openly hostile or try to seduce them....which apparently a lot of women who are new on a job consider just as stressful. Whatever! If there isn't a law there should be - that if we are going to have a real gender-equal society, every workplace has to be safer and less threatening to women, and guys who can't tell the difference between a girl saying "hello" and a girl who wants to have sex with them, need to be sent to special training seminars so they can learn how to separate doing a job, and looking for sex. And re: this example, I personally don't give a rat's ass whether or not the wife was threatened by a young, attractive woman in her husband's practice. Fact is, that if a dentist is a womanizer - looking for what's available on the side, or finds himself in his 40's - in the middle of a mid-life crisis, and gets a new sports car, starts competing in triathalons, and starts an affair with his receptionist, any strategies of these matrons to try to keep temptation away from their husbands is doomed to failure! The attitudes and strategies of Christian matrons in our society are not any different than the way matrons in patriarchal Muslim societies act as the glue to hold patriarchy together! And also are the enablers for polygamy, child-marriage, public stonings etc. because they benefit somewhat from patriarchy, and most of the harms are to the new brides. Just saying....women who attack laws protecting women in the workplace, from domestic violence, equal pay, access to birth control etc., are the great enablers for evil in our society......and who knows where that will lead to in a couple of generations along this trend! Progress is not usually ever upward. Sometimes, reactionary forces drag everyone backwards again.....may happen here too, if everyone who is progressive is just asleep at the wheel and allows the reactionaries to just chip away at every social progress that is made.

Thanks for providing the evidence that conservative christian white women are their own worst enemy! Always willing to work directly against their own interests, and especially the interests of younger women and girls who have the most to lose if women's rights keep getting chipped away at!

I've been hearing about the infamous "Powell Memo" for a couple of years now. A few progressive analysts of government consider the Powell Memo to be the first shot that was fired in the war on the Middle Class, back when the rich were complaining about the great unwashed masses voting against the interests of the wealth class. And just a quick scan of Lewis Powell's bio reveals him as a stealth candidate for the Supreme Court by Nixon.....but that's not a whole lot different than the more recent stealth candidates for the Business Class like John Roberts or Sam Alito.