WIP

Lots of good points! This is a power-based relationship even when the girls are 18 and legal, it still not be something that should be encouraged. Unfortunately, in a stagnant economy with rapidly growing gaps in income we can expect a lot more young women looking for sugar daddies, and rewarding these Berlusconi-wannabees! And as you pointed out, desires don't in and of themselves deserve rewards. We can't maintain any sort of civil society if everyone is allowed to follow their urges....provided they have the money to do so of course.

Yeah, here we go with that "right to work" bullshit! This is nothing more than right-to-break unions, since that is exactly what it has done in every state where it has come into law. The fact is that in a capitalist system, those with money are more equal than those without; and for average working people...in a factory for example, the only leverage they have against the employer is if they act collectively. Allowing employers to pick apart the union through rewarding traitors, is just an attempt to remove the only power that the employee has to protect themselves from abuse and greed of the employer.

No, there isn't a difference! When I was young, most workers in manufacturing and construction belonged to unions and made better money than the public service unions. During the race to the bottom provided by globalization, deregulation and anti-union legislation, some not-so-bright working people are more interested in taking others down to their level, than in improving their own lot in life. The tradeoff for most public service workers has been job security and a pension plan guaranteed by the employer. Apparently, that's what this governor in Wisconsin is trying to take away, just as many other public service employees across the U.S. have had their pension plans pilfered by governments that refuse to pay back monies they have borrowed out of them. This constitutes theft if they get away with it! It's notable that rightwing Republicans are so observant of paying debt bonds...they don't seem to be willing to renege on them, but reneging on what's owed in past contract negotiations with the unions is okay to just tear up and pretend it never existed! The whole system is a fraud. And before I forget, it's worth noting that the majority of teachers and healthcare workers are women; so the attack on public service unions that usually avoids police and firefighters (except John Kasich) can be seen as an attack on women in the workplace also; and one that, if successful, will have a cascading effect of driving down the incomes of women outside of government and increase the disparity in income between men and women.

When a spokesmodel is pushed by the right as someone to take seriously as a presidential candidate, I have to wonder what goes on behind the scenes in rightwingworld that the rest of us are not privy to! All of a sudden, out of nowhere, John McCain is order by the religious right to put this woman on the ticket (I'm sure even the Republican Party has some actual real female candidates if it was about choosing a woman), and then all of the rightwing pundits fall in line telling us how wonderful she is and making excuses for every stupid thing she has said and done over the last two years. But when it comes to the invalid point of the OP, this is typical rightwing tactic of blame-shifting...just like they are doing now against the union demonstrators in Wisconsin. They excuse their thuggery, while labeling all responses as thugs. Anyone like Palin, or these other teabagger candidates that used violent rhetoric and told their crowds that being angry is an excuse for threatening violence, deserves no apologies for whatever blowback they are receiving for their vile efforts.

Thanks for patronizing!

Nice post! Back when I was young, the fallback arguments by conservatives against the increasing role of women in the workplace was that patriarchy was the way things always have been and the natural model of society. From what I've read by anthropologists who study the few remaining hunter/gatherers that are left, these societies, which constituted most of human history, are not patriarchal, as so many conservatives presume to be the norm. What we call "normal," having men exclusively in leadership and women mostly relegated to home and childrearing, is something that has only been with us since the agricultural revolution began, and rewarded the most aggressive and violent members of growing social organizations. So, the arguments that feminism is tinkering or interfering with the "natural" order of things is not a valid argument to begin with. We may be venturing into unknown territory in trying to redress the discrepencies between men and women in modern society; but as you have pointed out, the societies that do the most to achieve gender equality perform better than those who only go part way or no way along this path. I imagine a lot of the opposition to efforts to bring more women into politics is related to the fear that conservatives have that they will lose control of policy-making. The first time I noticed some on the right raise alarm about women in politics was a few years ago, when I used to be mostly libertarian in my thinking; I was listening to an interview of someone long forgotten on the Cato Institute website...the point of the guest was that the size of government in modern times rose and fell depending on whether or not nations were at war. So, during the prelude to war, and during the war, spending would obviously increase; but after the war, war debts would be payed off and government spending would return to prewar levels. This economist (I presume) tied the introduction of the welfare state, and domestic spending programs to the Suffragette Movement and women achieving the right to vote. As I recall, he didn't go so far as to advocate repealing women's right to vote...Cato is a libertarian organization after all, and has to at least pretend to be hands-off on social policy, but he did put the thought out there for all of the listeners, that the more women are active in the political process, the less money will be available for war, and the more will be spent domestically. So, is that a bad thing?

Amazing that you are so anxious to destroy the only tool that working people have as leverage against employers that you post every stupid piece of anti-union propaganda you can find. You troll around for a video clip of a drunk who apparently is at the Wisconsin protests...although we can't take your word on it after FoxNews was exposed for fraud when they spliced in file footage of a protest in California with their anti-union bullshit a few days ago....so compare this with all the guns & ammo tea party clowns and the anti-Muslim crowd threatening violence upon those attending a fundraiser for a Muslim charity and tell me who are the real dangers in society? Union demonstrators are fighting for the rights of working people, and what they are able to win will have a cascading effect that will benefit those outside of the union. The rightwing hacks are fighting against the interests of the common people and driving down wages and working conditions....since polling data has revealed in the past that many of these teabaggers are pensioners or on some form of federal assistance themselves, they are too stupid to see past the flags and the crosses to realize that they are working against their own economic interests as well as others.

In case anyone missed it, one of the big news stories this weekend besides Libya, is that retailers are warning us to expect higher food prices next month. Other commodity analysts are warning consumers not to expect prices to go down: Higher food prices here to stay, says economistCTV Edmonton It's time for a lot of people who are used to fast food and the convenience crap in the supermarket aisle to learn how some basics about how to cook from scratch and save money. It's what most people around the world have to do, and the way we used to eat here before WWII; and homemade meals are almost guaranteed to be healthier than the additive-laden stuff that a lot of people are used to popping in the microwave. A good tip for busy working people who don't have time to spend 2 hours in the kitchen every night has always been to set aside some time on the weekend to prepare meals for the week, and pack them away in the freezer until they're needed.

I wasn't even aware of this until I picked up this morning's newspaper, but according to the global organizing forum - International Women's Day 2011, there are event going on all over the world. Sure, most of it is going to be bland and boring compared with all the wars and bloodshed going on. I noticed a story about the Women's Day event at Tahrir Square in Cairo Egypt, which noted that numbers were far below expectations, and those women who attended, were confronted with insults from counter-demonstrators...why are there counter demonstrators? Likely the optimism from overthrowing Mubarak is starting to fade, and Egypt will be confronted by an ugly fight between progressives and Islamists over who charts the course for the nation. But what about over here! When I was on my way home, I'm listening to P.O.S. Mike Bullard mocking Internation Women's Day, and trying to get a call from a strip club in Toronto.....his lame notion of humour no doubt. So, how does he get work every time he gets fired from a radio or TV gig? When I get home from work, I'll take the time to read through some of the material on the site. This board usually looks like a sausage fest since there seems to always be a lot more guys than gals here. So what do you all feel about feminism in general? And has it been a big source of progress over the last century, and benefitted both men and women (my take), or are you an anti-feminist, like the crowd surrounding the small number of women who refused to be intimidated from celebrating International Women's Day in Tahrir Square?

I would have thought this was a satire thread if there wasn't so many delusional rightwingers who support this woman in spite of her incompetence and vicious statements she's made towards others. I'll apologize to Palin, and the drones who support her when hell freezes over!

It's kind of ironic, but the point falls on deaf ears - that most of the lobby for fetus rights want to cut support for the children who are already here. It's not just a matter of ignoring post-fetal children, they are directly trying to harm their interests with economic policies that reward the rich and successful, and punish the poor.

As the U.S. economy grinds downward, and the Christian Right grows in power, Atwood's dystopian vision is a better description of modern Tyranny than George Orwell's 1984.

How exactly do you condemn taking an abortifacient in one post, and then write a following post supporting the same things? From the information available, it appears that the U.S. has already been heading back down the road to coat hanger days for some time now. Removing funding for abortion, and even making it impossible for private insurers to cover abortion, puts it further out of reach for the poor, as does the legal and illegal harassment and intimidation campaigns to close clinics that offer abortion services. The difference now, is that increasingly intrusive laws and proposed laws, are fulfilling the Hyde agenda of 30 years ago -- making abortion impossible to access, rather than trying to outlaw it directly. Up till now, many middle class women have been asleep at the switch, because they have had the security of knowing that an abortion was available for them or their daughters within a few hours drive if necessary; but now, these new proposed laws that are trying to demand inquiries whenever a woman has a miscarriage, are starting to make them realize that if they support Republicans, they won't be able to buy their way out of pregnancy themselves, if they decide that they personally have good reasons for wanting an abortion. Condoms can break, or may not be used properly by the guy, and oral contraceptives can be abortifacients because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. So, are you going to be consistent or not on this notion that fertilized eggs are persons with equal rights? Well, first of all, it grows into the fetal stage, it's not automatically a fetus at the discovery of pregnancy. If it's a matter of the girl having choice...even if uninformed choice, then I guess this means that you would support her decision to have an abortion in cases of no choice - rape, or coercion.

Of course it was, and it's a ridiculous comparison! Just once, I'd like to see rightwingers compare Hitler and the Third Reich to things that are appropriate comparison...like mass genocide and fascist governments for example. For the record, this is your response to a news story posted about concerns that an unexplained increase in sales of the drug used for treating pain and inflamation - Mistopropol (Cytotec), are being made because of its abortifacient properties, and trying to deliberately induce miscarriage. So, what exactly does your statement mean? If you consider taking a drug with big warnings by pregnant women to be murder, then, should murder charges follow for a woman who has a miscarriage that can be linked to taking a drug or falling down stairs etc.....welcome to the world of pro life!

Well, if there are any doubts that fascism is growing in America, this video pretty much puts it to rest!

I kind of touched on this in the previous post -- we have only had a conservative party in the ideological sense of the term since the creation of this new unified Conservative Party. That's why the Liberals are in a precarious situation now; they are caught in the middle, trying to find a space between left and right, like the Liberal Party of England. Personally, I hope the situation remains with multiple parties, rather than the American system of two party duopoly. When it becomes established that only two parties can win an election, the two strongest have a strong incentive to collaborate for mutual advantage, and shut out third party challenges...which is exactly what the Republicans and Democrats have done in the U.S. system.

The new Conservatives are whole different animal than the old Progressive Conservative Party. For most of the past few decades we actually had two centrist parties in Ottawa -- the only distinct difference was regarding federal/provincial powers, with the Libs being the centralist party, and the Tories wanting more powers given back to the provinces. Now, what we have with Harper is the northern branch of the Republican Party.

In the parliamentary system, strategic voting has to be considered riding by riding. Where you live, it may come down to a matter of either a Conservative or Liberal getting elected, and if you decide that it's worth supporting a Liberal, so be it. Where I am, I'm in one of a small number of strong NDP niches in this country, which has an MP with a long reputation as a good constituency rep in both provincial and federal politics. It's worth noting that Dave Christopherson was one of the few NDP MPP's in Rae's Government who didn't bail out, and actually won re-election. So, for me voting Green is a matter of making sure the Green Party gets enough of the overall share of the vote to maintain their status and be capable of advocating environment issues in Ottawa. If it gets close, I would almost certainly vote NDP to keep the Libs and the Cons from taking the riding.

No, they should get their feet held to the fire for how they handle environment issues. The Americans have gone through something similar in the last two years, as a majority were motivated by the desire to vote for the least bad of the two options, and hope he would be a real progressive in spite of the millions he has collected in campaign donations...and the possibility that he will have very lucrative deferred rewards to cash in after he is out of office, like most other politicians. Anyway, the situation on the left in America today is a fight between those who buy this "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" crap and are demanding that everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 line up and do the same in spite of how he has almost completely betrayed their interests, or the real progressives who are called disloyal and enablers for the right, because they say out loud that supporting Democrats who won't work for their interests is not worth their money or time, and instead are waging the ideological battle of what a real progressive government should be all about. So, the NDP here claims to be the party that represents the common peoples' interests; but if they compromise it away, or govern incompetently like the Bob Rae NDP Government in Ontario, the supporters have to call them out on it rather than blindly supporting them as the authoritarian rightwingers do for their leaders.

The problem comes in when the discussion is about teachers - who decides what the basis of merit is? There seems to be a bi-partisan attack on public schools in America, based on the policies of the Obama Administration and some of the people he's hired, who make their intentions known that they want to gut public schools in favour of charter schools and private schooling. I haven't read enough on the subject to give much informed commentary, but I am aware of objections to merit-based hiring and pay schemes that are acting as incentives for schools and teachers to remove poor-performing students so that test scores will be higher. And of course there seem to be a lot of issues regarding what the authorities are testing for. They are encouraging schools to shift focus from educating young people to training them to pass math and english tests....and forgetting about subjects that will provide a well-rounded education like history, geography, science, music, arts etc. Many critics of merit pay see it as an unintended incentive to both streamline and dumb down the average student.

Your example is an expensive FoxNews asset with a long term contract that they may want to avoid tearing up presently, who seems to have started shifting his ideology during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. I remember at the time when I was still an active member of conservative U.S. forum that the mob there started slamming him for criticizing the Bush Admins response to the disaster...even implying that he was gay...something that was never expressed previously if there's any truth in it! Until a couple of years ago Sean Hannity kept Alan Colmes on his show to appear "fair and balanced", although he did not get anything close to an equal voice on the show. FoxNews used to pretend to be "fair and balanced" but I'm not sure if they really care that much if they are considered a conservative propaganda organ. Mediamatters and FAIR just play back what your leaders are saying. They do a more honest job of media analysis that the equivalent rightwing media watchdog organizations....where I suspect you get the misleading stories you frequently post up. All the clowns do at Fox is try to out-conservative each other. And, as mentioned previously, I am well aware of Shep's leaving the reservation over the last few years.

The example of Nigeria that I mentioned demonstrates the errors of trying to make blanket descriptions of "religion." Why would Muslims and Christians in one part of Nigeria be able to live together peacefully and even intermarry, while further north the neighbourhoods are divided between Christian and Muslim, and there are steady, constant attacks and violence carried out? It seems obvious that a deeper understanding of the underlying issues is needed, and what seems apparent is that even the people themselves prefer to describe their difference as religious in nature, rather than racial or tribal. The area of Nigeria where the religious wars are going on is also where religious adherence divided tribes, so although religious differences may provide kindling to throw on the fire, the underlying differences are still going to be there even if they all were forced to adopt the same religion. And, as is often pointed out on secular and atheist websites, religious adherence and devotion strongly correlates with poverty and limited political institutions. People who are living in misery are not going to want to hear that 'this life is all there is, so make the best of it!', and without a church or a mosque to provide social services, there are no places to turn to if family members are unable or unwilling to help. Religion is going to be along for the ride, and any efforts to advance secularism will depend on improving quality of life and expanding government services (yes conservatives...bigger government!) rather than making demands that religious institutions take a back seat.

I wasn't discounting that it will be a crisis for poor people here; I guess alot depends on how our governments and society as a whole respond to the growing crisis of people falling between the cracks. I heard an interview with Chris Hedges a little while back, about a recent book he has written; Hedges says that he starts his book on growing income gaps and poverty in the U.S. with an examination of the city of Camden New Jersey. Camden has taken on the appearance of a typical third world city, and what he found most striking is that the poorest neighbourhoods in the city centre, don't even have supermarkets. There are convenience stores that will sell food at higher prices and suburbanites have to pay for groceries, plus a few remaining fast food restaurants, since buying crap at McDonalds or KFC is actually cost-efficient compared to having to buy groceries at a 7-11. But no doubt that also adds to the problem of obesity, diabetes and heart disease that will shorten their lives by an estimated 20 years below the average American life expectancy. Now that I think about it, maybe the problems will be worse for the poor here than in many of these third world countries, because at least they are more likely to have access to real food in the first place!

Here's an example of why I can't take those with faith in future technology seriously when it comes to solving big problems that are encroaching on us today: take a look at this little blurb story I happened upon yesterday: India has more mobile phones than toilets: UN report Far more people in India have access to a mobile phone than to a toilet, according to a UN study on sanitation. Now, what should that tell us about blind faith that human progress will fix any and all of our problems? When I was 8 years old, we were supposed to have flying cars by now...just like on the Jetsons! But possibility does not tell us much about feasibility. Most of the big innovations have been in information technology, rather than stuff that's mechanical like robots and new, high yield energy sources. The Star Ship Enterprize's matter/antimatter propulsion system is theoretically possible too; but making it a practical possibility will likely never happen in a million years. And, it needs to be added that what you are calling "new" here - tar sands - is not new! The Alberta Tar Sands were discovered before they were even aware of oil under the surface. What has changed is that tar sands that were previously considered only suitable for paving roads, have now become an essential fallback alternative for an oil industry that is desperate to keep their highly profitable energy monopoly alive. The tar sands are still badly degrade petrochemical deposits that require vast amounts of energy and clean water to turn into even low grade oil...and that is even at such a highly acidic level that Americans are balking at allowing a pipeline intended for transporting tar sands oil through their states. This crap is hardly innovation! Rather, it's a sign that our civilization is in an increasingly desperate predicament, as we produce more CO2 and pollute land and groundwater to get at what oil is still available. Smart innovation would be government with guts enough to push back against the petrochemical industry and hit them with the taxes that they have been deferring, and shift the remaining tax burden onto these sources of pollution that are going to kill us in the long run. That is a separate problem, but one that plays a huge role in the oil debate: demand is increasing at a time when supplies are running out; and demand from newly industrialized countries like China and India will keep oil prices high in spite of a weakening demand in the U.S., Europe and other western oil-dependent countries that are pushed back into recession by high oil prices. In a sense, the rise of China and India's carbon footprints on Planet Earth is a testament to the failure of Neoliberal economic theory. They are just following the directions that our pro-globalization economists advised them to go in back in the 70's and 80's, and now we have a whole host of problems because they have been successful at it! Relocalization is going to happen whether the Neocons and the Neoliberal globalists like it or not! Their strategy is dependent on dirt cheap energy sources, and now that they are running out, our economies will become more local to be more energy efficient. This would be a complete good news story if it wasn't for the fact that the world oil industry still has the clout to push their increasingly dirty products in the market; so even though we are going to use less energy, we won't be saving as much on carbon emissions as we should.

Higher food prices will hit us in the pocketbook! The difference between us and the approx 2 billion who live on less than 2 dollars a day, is that higher prices mean starvation or a desperate struggle to get enough food somewhere.