Recent comments

  • Why did K. Allen's thread disappear? It says page not found.   1 day 7 hours ago

    That reminds me of my nephew... When he intentionally tries to break one of his toys. Ah, to be young again...

  • Rape and The Elephant   1 day 7 hours ago
    Quote Palindromedary:Fundamentalists seem to be that way. And when they began saying that only people from the US have the exclusive right to an opinion on the subject it sounded very typical of what myopic and xenophobic people might say, or at least infer: "We're Americans and we are exceptional, you foreigners don't count!"

    Palindromedary ~ I think you are mistaken my friend. Foreigners have every right to comment on such topics. The same right we do. However, it is the Sociologist, not the Fundamentalist who rules the discussion on "culture" of any kind. Any Russian is perfectly qualified to discuss the topic of rape as it pertains to culture--Russian culture. Only an American has the background to effectively discuss rape as it applies to American culture. You see both people are familiar with what rape is; however, all people are only tied to and naturally familiar with the culture they are born and raised into. Even a trip as an adult, lengthy stay, or even permanent residence does not give someone the insight into another culture that they have in their own. People always cling to and proceed from their birth culture. It is a basic trait in all animals. It is why a feral cat cannot be domesticated; and, a domesticated cat cannot learn to live in the wild.

    You spent a long time in Saudi Arabia. Can you explain to me exactly how and why Islam affects the reason you would or would not marry someone? How about elaborating on any way you would find distasteful about dressing your kid to go to school, or the temple? How are you supposed to feel when someone ignores you in public? I imagine everyone probably ignored you; yet, only a cultural member would know the greetings ritual for every possible public circumstance. You probably never even had a clue if anyone didn't like you; or, were really pissed off at you. Is it acceptable to burp at a dinner table; and, if you do, what--if anything--do you say? Not that you would ever do such a thing in another country; which, is probably why you never learned the answer. I could go on, but I think you might be starting to get my drift.

    In the societies in question no woman dresses sexy. There, it is considered Taboo. That sentiment is ingrained, unspoken, and runs very deep into cultural mores. That means that no respectable woman would even consider it for any reason. Seeing such behavior is virtually unknown. How do you comment fairly on something that is virtually unknown to you? That is the custom there. Here, more than 75% of woman dress in sexy ways; and, it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do for multiple reasons and in multiple situations. That little social difference makes any opinion on the subject only relevant for the culture it comes from. Certainly, in Russia, there are a completely different reasons that a girl would dress that way--not one of them innocent. Here, there are many innocent reasons--from climate and exercise, to fashion and romance. Here, even formal and church affairs can warrant sexy attire. No one blinks twice. All of the reasons completely acceptable and completely innocent.

    That is just one example of the cultural bias that disqualifies foreigners from commenting on our culture. It does not disqualifying them from commenting on the topic in reference to their own culture though. They are the only ones on this forum uniquely qualified to do that. We are not qualified to question them on their own culture. However, that is a two way street you know.

    Palindromedary, I do believe you must be aware of that little sociological fact. It is called ethnocentrism. Please, do not encourage it!

  • Is Capitalism A "Moral" Economic System?   1 day 7 hours ago

    Capitalism blows, while privatization kills. What we need is democratic socialism! If there were a Democratic Socialist party, I would join it in a heartbeat. - AIW

  • Hillary Rodham Clinton: Would You Hire Her to Flip Hamburgers?   1 day 7 hours ago

    I'm all for a woman President but just not Hillary Clinton. We all thought it was a good thing to finally get a Black President...but, in retrospect, I think we screwed up. Lets hope that if we get a woman President that someone like Elizabeth Warren, or Jill Stein, is that someone...or Kshama Sawant even....but not Hillary Clinton. If the Democrats choose her they'll certainly lose the election.

  • Why did K. Allen's thread disappear? It says page not found.   1 day 7 hours ago

    ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮

  • We Need to Listen to the Founders and Stop the Forever War.   1 day 8 hours ago

    Thanks Mark.

  • Why did K. Allen's thread disappear? It says page not found.   1 day 8 hours ago

    ♠ ♡ ♢ ♣

  • UKRAINE 2.0 - Hong Kong's Color Revolution   1 day 8 hours ago

    In article More Washington Lies, Paul Craig Roberts says:

    Hong Kong:

    Whatever is occurring in Hong Kong, it bears no relation to what is being reported about it in the Western print and TV media. These reports spin the protests as a conflict between the demand for democracy and a tyrannical Chinese government

    Ming Chun Tang in the alternative media CounterPunch says that the protests are against the neoliberal economic policies that are destroying the prospects of everyone but the one percent. In other words, the protests are akin to the American occupy movement.

    Another explanation is that once again, as in Kiev, gullible westernized students have been organized by the CIA and US-financed NGOs to take to the streets in hopes that the protests will spread from Hong Kong to other Chinese cities. The Chinese, like the Russians, have been extremely careless in permitting Washington to operate within their countries and to develop fifth columns.

  • Rape and The Elephant   1 day 8 hours ago

    michellekovalik: Yes, I read your response...thank you! I don't know how to answer that question without being provocative. (not to you, of course). ;-}

  • Why did K. Allen's thread disappear? It says page not found.   1 day 8 hours ago

    Wow! Four can play at this game. I agree with you all.

    Well said!

  • Why did K. Allen's thread disappear? It says page not found.   1 day 8 hours ago
    ...

    ...

  • Showing ID   1 day 8 hours ago

    Legend, the reason the righties are hellbent on suppressing the vote is a no-brainer. They are out to screw us, which makes our votes a threat to their interests. They know that if their success depends on our votes, they will lose. - AIW

    P.S. What's "communism" got to do with anything? "Fascism" is more like it.

  • Drunk college students no longer allowed to have sex in CA   1 day 8 hours ago
    Quote Zenzoe:
    Quote Semi permeable memebrain:

    The questions were can students under the scope of this law have sex while drunk?

    Have you read the actual bill, Semi? I read it, and it looks to me as though the bill doesn't address your question. Still, one can assume, based on the "affirmative consent" rule (“Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity...") that if a couple is going to go ahead and have sex while drunk, forgetting to obtain "affirmative consent" from each other, then neither sexual partner will be able to claim the other consented to the sex (because drunkenness messes with one's judgment and ability to consent) in the case of an accusation of rape. Plus, the old excuse of drunkenness as permission for sex won't work either in defense against an accusation of rape.

    Seems to me it would be wise for men to never have sex with a woman who is impaired, to say nothing of avoiding sex while drunk themselves. Doesn't that make sense? Of course, we're talking college kids, so judgment is already impaired from the get-go.

    Semi responds

    Well lets say the first paragraph seems like conjecture. not that is unexpected given the very strange parameters and lack of clear explanation that has accompanied this bill So I do not necessarily blame anyone for not having adequate answers since the presentation is ambiguous

    You need a lawyer, not me, but common sense would dictate it should be the same standard. Seems to me, if kids don't want to get into trouble, they're going to have to acquire some assertive-communication skills.

    Semi responds

    With all respect I am interested in an interpretation of this law and not what coomon sense dictates

    Do you think all women have to get drunk to want to have sex, or just some women? This is perplexing to me. Seems to me, women are as eager for sex as men, they just want to be a little bit discriminating and have the right to say No.

    I don't know, but there's something weird going on with that question, IMHO.

    Semi responds

    No i do not think all women need to get drunk to want sex, but nor do I think you are even close to responding directly to the actual question. This is not about my opinions, but a sheer inquiry of what the bill is about. This bil on the face of it outlaws sex with anyone being drunk. Maybe it will be shown to be more complex than that, but in the meantime maybe we can entertain the scenarion where drunken sex is outlawed for this particular population. Do you really think it a strange question to ask why seemingly freedom loving people are prevented drunken sex with one another.?I couild just as easily say it outlaws men from having sex as well, but since you seem more interested in the effects on women I thought you would apppreciate highlighting them instead. So it's either that you do not agree with the possibility that this bill oulaws drunken sex for this particular population, or, given the proviso that drunken sex is outlawed, that we now arrive at a situation where a formerly free choice is now prohibted

    I'm not exactly sure I understand that last paragraph, your meaning. But if you're saying a woman under the influence cannot be raped and know she was raped, I would have to disagree. Plus, she has every right to report. It's the guy in that circumstance who would have no leg to stand on, because he had no "affirmative consent" from her.

    Unfair? Too bad. Rape is not okay, even if a woman is drunk.

    Semi responds

    Are you saying a women, perhaps under the influence, concludes that what seemed like consensual sex during the act seems more like rape the next day when the women looked at how her perpratrator actually intentionally got her drunk and in an unfair position. Clearlly the bill implies that getting a woman drunk, whatever that can be defined as, is an illegal strategy for sex. Therfore , given this new atmosphere, it seems more resonable that a woman who may feel she consented in a drunken state the previous evening, now looks back and realizes she was not in a position to have given consent, and thus it is rape. I am not really trying to pass judgement, but it seems like a logical result from this bell

  • Ebola in Texas   1 day 8 hours ago

    Gee, I am so NOT surprised! From the moment I first heard of infected Americans being transported back home, I could see this coming. Ain't that special. And with our "uniquely American" for-profit, dysfunctional healthcare system, we are unprepared for anything like this. Watch out, folks... - AIW

  • Stop calling it "The Islamic State"   1 day 8 hours ago

    And the warlords keep using the same chest-thumping rhetoric they used in the Vietnam War days, while those death merchants keep laughing all the way to the bank. Heil to the Fourth Reich! - AIW

  • From Scarcity to Glut?   1 day 8 hours ago

    Drc2 points out how the "free market" thwarts innovation, especially when it necessitates long-term investment in new infrastructure. And I might add: when it introduces alternatives rendering status-quo provisions obsolete and therefore, worthless. "Free" market, my ass... - AIW

  • Why did K. Allen's thread disappear? It says page not found.   1 day 8 hours ago
    ..

    ..

  • Would Obama be So Unpopular Today if He Had Governed as a TRUE Liberal and Not a GOP-lite NeoLib?   1 day 9 hours ago
    Quote loganonenation:
    Quote Dr. Econ:
    Quote ulTRAX:
    Quote Dr. Econ:
    Quote loganonenation:..The argument seems to be that Obama had no choice but to pursue these faulty bargains with the right since he'd have only have been crushed by the 1% donor class if he attempted to get behind and argue for truly demand-oriented economic policies. Where is the evidence for that, I wonder?

    The evidence is in the vote tallies. That is the actual real evidence we have.

    Vote tallies in a intellectually braindead system with a narrow political spectrum, where 45-65% of the voting age population doesn't even vote, are evidence of what, exactly?

    I mean the congressional votes. He barely got anything passed - and only though compromising did anything get passed.

    But now that you bring up the electorate, Romney actually won a lot of things, like 'taking care of the deficit' and other issues. The same people who gave Obama a 5% of the vote thought Romney did a lot of things better than Obama. It only goes to show that if Obama had gone to the left a little more, we would have Romney as president.

    Obama barely got anything passed because all too often he pushed bad right-wing policies that did not have the support of the people in the futile effort to get the GOP to work with him.

    That is false. It was the conservative Democrats and Republicans that did not vote for Obamacare, stimulus etc.... The liberals all went along for the ride. Like they always do.

    Quote loganonenation:...There was thus no pressure on the GOP to cooperate with these unpopular & unproven neo-liberal, triangulation policies. It was better for the GOP, politically, to block everything and declare it a "socialist assault on the free market" -- or better yet, "an assault on Medicare to pay for Obamacare."

    The reason one of the worst Republican presidential candidates in history, Romney, came so dangerously close to winning in 2012 was because Obama had by then so badly eroded this popularity. He did this by continually supporting bad, unpopular right-wing ideas (and ignoring, good left-wing ideas) in his constant 4-year obsession to fulfill the eloquent, though pie-in-the-sky, flourishes of his 2004 Democratic Convention speech.

    As my examples indicated, that is absolutely false. People liked many of Romney's ideas and thought he would be better with many issues. You should look at the polls.

  • Would Obama be So Unpopular Today if He Had Governed as a TRUE Liberal and Not a GOP-lite NeoLib?   1 day 9 hours ago
    Quote ulTRAX:
    Quote Dr. Econ:
    Quote ulTRAX:

    Vote tallies in a intellectually braindead system with a narrow political spectrum, where 45-65% of the voting age population doesn't even vote, are evidence of what, exactly?

    I mean the congressional votes. He barely got anything passed - and only though compromising did anything get passed.

    But now that you bring up the electorate, Romney actually won a lot of things, like 'taking care of the deficit' and other issues. The same people who gave Obama a 5% of the vote thought Romney did a lot of things better than Obama. It only goes to show that if Obama had gone to the left a little more, we would have Romney as president.

    Your assumption seems to be based on those issues the candidates choose to run on. My assumptions are that our system is incapable of measuring the consent of the voters, and our two party system creates an artificially narrow political spectrum... and half of the vital issues that NEED to be discussed aren't. Social Security is a perfect example. It was an issue in 2000... and not since.

    So when you claim some polls say X... I have to wonder what issues that poll never asked about... and whether either candidate ever raised them. So what if Obama had raised more liberal issues and made a convincing case for them? How can your poll measure the effect on the electorate of what never happened?

    Look, I have my evidence, where is yours? That is all I am asking. I mean, there are liberals who run for president - like the Greens - who are as liberal as they come and no one votes for them. Isn't that evidence enough against your position?

  • Why did K. Allen's thread disappear? It says page not found.   1 day 9 hours ago
    .

    .

  • Why did K. Allen's thread disappear? It says page not found.   1 day 9 hours ago
    .

    .

  • More on California Beach Access   1 day 9 hours ago

    I suppose he's not the worst but don't follow him off a cliff. He seems to be gaining a cult following amongst beat down, low self esteem progressive radio listeners. Don't lose your capacity for critical thinking, have always a mind of your own. Cults of personality are weird and deserve to be marginalized.

  • We Need to Listen to the Founders and Stop the Forever War.   1 day 9 hours ago

    The "war on terror" can never be won because it is not a war on any individual or collective of people but against a behavior or a method of fighting. It will always be possible to kill innocent civillians en masse for political gains so it can never be be won.

    It is not only like a war on crime - which, too, can never be won - but is, in fact, a war on crime, and so, it is, appropriately, not a military concern but a security concern. As Bob Scheerer first raised, the only reason it became a military concern was because defense contractors saw 9/11 as an opportunity but there is no logical reason tanks, planes and submarines need to be built to stop guys with box cutters.

    There are no "Al Quaeida training camps", for example, the Al Quaeida training camps are the flight schools of the U.S..

  • Drunk college students no longer allowed to have sex in CA   1 day 9 hours ago
    Quote Semi permeable memebrain:

    The questions were can students under the scope of this law have sex while drunk?

    Have you read the actual bill, Semi? I read it, and it looks to me as though the bill doesn't address your question. Still, one can assume, based on the "affirmative consent" rule (“Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity...") that if a couple is going to go ahead and have sex while drunk, forgetting to obtain "affirmative consent" from each other, then neither sexual partner will be able to claim the other consented to the sex (because drunkenness messes with one's judgment and ability to consent) in the case of an accusation of rape. Plus, the old excuse of drunkenness as permission for sex won't work either in defense against an accusation of rape.

    Seems to me it would be wise for men to never have sex with a woman who is impaired, to say nothing of avoiding sex while drunk themselves. Doesn't that make sense? Of course, we're talking college kids, so judgment is already impaired from the get-go.

    Quote Semi permeable memebrain:

    What if both people are drunk? Is there a different standard for a women to give consent than a man? This last question would concern when both parties are drunk.

    You need a lawyer, not me, but common sense would dictate it should be the same standard. Seems to me, if kids don't want to get into trouble, they're going to have to acquire some assertive-communication skills.

    Quote Semi permeable memebrain:

    And finally are we not prohibiting women who want to be able to get drunk and have sex from doing so.? That is four questions to be clear

    Do you think all women have to get drunk to want to have sex, or just some women? This is perplexing to me. Seems to me, women are as eager for sex as men, they just want to be a little bit discriminating and have the right to say No.

    I don't know, but there's something weird going on with that question, IMHO.

    Quote Semi permeable memebrain:

    Bushwacker to his credit tried to answer this saying they can have sex while they are drunk as long as no one changes their perspective of what happened later. After all , as Zenzoe says, rapists can literally control the minds of victims, so it may take some time to realize you have been raped. apparently Bushwackers point is apparently that people can ignore the law and have sex as long as both parties choose to ignore the law together. But from what I see it is technically illegal

    I'm not exactly sure I understand that last paragraph, your meaning. But if you're saying a woman under the influence cannot be raped and know she was raped, I would have to disagree. Plus, she has every right to report. It's the guy in that circumstance who would have no leg to stand on, because he had no "affirmative consent" from her.

    Unfair? Too bad. Rape is not okay, even if a woman is drunk.

  • More on California Beach Access   1 day 9 hours ago

    Appreciate your thoughts but have nothing critical to say about Thom. I called Randi Roads for many years...she's gone. Thom allowed me on his program and made me sound better than I deserved. My thanks to Thom and to all the progressive hosts still out there. Progressive shows have been banned from AM radio in Los Angeles - a first in my 50 years as an L.A. radio listener. Grateful to have Thom via WCPT over the Tune-In app on my tablet!

Currently Chatting

Community Archive

Why the Web of Life is Dying...

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.