green

Thanks for pointing this out. This hadn't occurred to me. I also found the other folks' remarks in this thread to be very enlightening.

Once I was late for a date by 3 days.

Well, Obama is way hotter than Dubya!!!

It is hard not to judge unlovely stinky people negatively. Anyone can take a shower.

I have always suffered from time management issues.

It sounds like Green is gonna have to renew her passport, travel south of the border, and smack Obama's PR bitches up. This might be a real good move. Green has been dreaming for a long time now about experiencing real bar-b-que, eh. lol

Implicit in my above post is the belief that when one is choosing a leader one must always opt to consult the head and not the heart. Though it is true that mini Bush might be a cosy guy to hang with the complexities of managing a global super-power will demand much more than simple down home charm. Bluntly put, this will require that although the individual is capable of maintaining a solid set of core values, he or she is not so rigid as to be rendered incapable of adapting and changing according to new information and circumstances. I know that many people view that a change in stance or policy is a sign of weakness. I have always taken the other view. I see the lack of change as possibly being an indicator of arrogance, inflexibility, stubborness, and an inability to learn. We live in a society that is constantly being flooded with new information. It is crucial that we are open to receiving this, learning from it, and figuring out how to take advantage of it. This is arguably the strength of the human race. This is why I admit to favouring Obama. Though I certainly do like his ideals - they strike me as being very Canadian - I am also struck by the fact that the guy is a realist and one who likes to tap into the knowledge of his team. This indicates that he will be a flexible kind of cat, one who will feel comfortable taking in new information and adjusting his strategies accordingly. Such a leader will understand Realpolitik. Unlike the rigid and sub-intellectual Bush, he will not be driven by a blend of ideological fantasies and paranoias.

I am another foreigner but I do care. You see, like it or not, America does swing the biggest dick, globally speaking. And this, given the alternatives, is a bluddy good thing. The ethical and economic health of the United States will inevitably affect the ethical and economic health of the rest of us. This is what we call Realpolitik. It is unfortunate that the mini-Bush administration was an unmitigated disaster in oh so many ways. The truth is that the invasion of Iraq parrallels the Vietnam offensive in that it was, in part, driven by an ideological paranoia, one that results in the loss of lives and limbs, the fracturing of the American soul, and the mortgaging of the American economy. Of course this Iraqi offensive has caused you to lose respect in the international community both in those little third world nations who still do hold voting power in the U.N. and, more importantly, in the eyes of the other developed nations. And of course you are aware that Bush and company opted to go ahead with this invasion even though an international team (this was headed up by Hans Blix) had found absolutely no sign of weapons of mass destruction and that Sadam, monsterous despot though he certainly was, was aggressively against all forms of Islamic fundamentalism. Indeed Blix appeared before your Congress shortly before Bush gave the okay to invade in order to state that his team had found zero signs of WMD. Yep, Sadam was a modernist in his own morally heinous fashion. He was anti-fundamentalism. And his excesses could have been reigned in by old-fashioned diplomacy, sanctions, and the usual indirect off-shore applications of muscle. In the middle east this now usually consists of throwing your support behind Israel. In the past, when America was arguing with the Soviet Union you were tossing cash, weapons, and military training to the Taliban in Afghanistan. This has now proven to be a poor policy. Those countries which do harbour Islamic fundamentalists are Afghanistan, Pakistan (a country which has nuclear knowledge), and Saudi Arabia. In fact the fundamentalist movement is tied into Wahhabism, a fundamentalist belief system which was born in Saudi Arabia. I am certainly no specialist. These are facts which are general knowledge to yer general public and this is why both the actions and the justifications for these actions on the part of George W and his gang have horrified so many of us foreigners. And this is why we will continue to feel comfortable commenting on your internal affairs - it is this knowledge that you are the single most powerful nation amongst us all. We do, like it or not, rely upon you, and why we pay such close attention to your internal affairs and not those of, say, Mali.

You might be interested to know that sometimes very unhappy children will have fantasies that they were adopted and that they really do not belong to these folks who call themselves their families.

A good idea. Afterall, they have already banned smokers from smoking.

Happy birthday to you, Wheets, from Green. I found your woes to be pretty interesting because I suffer from them myself and this is why I dread birthdays and Xmas time. I find both receiving and giving gifts to be very, very stressful. My husband and I did go through a brief and painful period of trying to surprise each other with gifts which neither of the recipients liked. Now we are likely to simply pick up the tab when we find that one or the other of us is caught ogling an item. This makes for zero birthday and Xmas surprises but on the other hand our policy makes for zero awkwardness and zero tragic waste of cash, either. We both find this much more restful. Is it possible that you could come to some kind of similar arrangement with your mate? I know that I still treasure his gifts to me even though I have chosen them. It is just that I figure that I have excellent taste, eh..... haha

This should be considered to be a sidebar to, not as a hi-jacking of, the main conversation, but I confess that I do find this conversation to be extremely interesting. You see, my family was very tribal: my parents were fond of pointing out how my brothers and myself took after one or another of the genetic forebears. Oddly enough, they were not at all prepared to acknowledge the dark side of our genetic inheritance: this would be our severe problems with depression. For sure my parents were cherry picking when it came to acknowledging the genetic values of our particular tribe. At the same time, I find it interesting to understand how an individual might feel who has been given a very strong sense of family - for each adopted child has been actively chosen - and yet who remains in the dark about all that genetic/tribal information. Please understand that I mean no disrespect by these comments and I certainly have no desire to hurt or offend anyone.

Though this may be true, and the definition of what constitutes life does vary according to whom one consults, there still remains the question of the comparative values which we choose to place on life. This is why many individuals are comfortable with collateral/civilian damage in war zones. This is also why many individuals are comfortable with the death penalty even though it has been proven that some of the forensics and some of the police procedures have been proven to be faulty. This is also why many folks are able to skip out of a murder conviction when the background story consists of self-defense. And of course this is also why the insurance pay-outs will be adjusted in wrongful death lawsuits. The deaths of a van full of doctors will be a greater loss to their own families and to our society than that of the loss of a van full of convicted felons. In brief, society will always be forced to make compromises; these will be based on a series of competing needs In just such a way I feel that the rights of the pregnant woman must always trump those of the foetus. For the truth is that for many women who find themselves lumbered with unwanted pregnancies the situation is dire. And in the competition between the demands of the foetus and the person who is already here, the needs of that individual who is already alive and well and breathing and who is firmly planted in this life, I see no contest.

Cure, I agree with Doddie. It sure would be a drag to lose your voice here on LBT. Though it is true that the strength of this site is that it is a large one and can accomodate all sorts of personalities and interests your voice is kind of a special one for us locals. You see, you really were our local band pioneer and we appreciate being able to hear how your life is unfolding. Of course the choice of whether to stay or leave is yours to make but please do understand that one hurtful remark does not a coven of bitches make.

Argon, I don't know whether you read my post on Effexor or not but I had a very bad experience with this drug because of its side effects. One of its side effects is that it will drive up your blood pressure. My blood pressure is normally good. While I was on Effexor I had to be on meds to control high blood pressure. Another side effect is constipation - severe constipation!!! I also gained weight on this drug.

You can go to this great site called RateMDs.com and slag your doctor. Or, if you have a good one, you can praise him/her.

My parents had a place in Sarasota and the mate has fond memories of that.

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Congratulations, Ceradad, on your child. I have known other folks who were in the same situation as you yourself and your wife. In fact my own brother's second wife is desperate to have a child. I have been finding your voice to be an interesting one because you speak both as an adoptee and as an adopting parent. I, like all pro-choicers, want choice but only as a choice. This means that I believe that women who do find themselves pregnant must have the freedom to choose whether they will continue on with their pregnancies, as Cera's birth mother did, or terminate. There was a time when there were so many babies resulting from unwanted pregnancies that there were not enough adoptive parents for all of them. These children grew up in orphanages. Their early lives were bleak indeed and thus they grew up handicapped for achieving success and happiness in their adult lives. Now, because of choice and because unwed mothers feel free to raise their children without social stigma demand has outstripped supply.

Sometime ago, Gadget, you asked the question why sexually active women who had no desire to have children did not get themselves sterilized. Well, you asked that question specifically of me since I was the one who ended up having an abortion due to a birth control failure. I told you that back in those days, the 1970s and early 1980s, it was impossible for a young and childless woman to find a doctor who would agree to sterilize her and that I would ask my very hip young female doc if this still holds true today. Well, it appears that it likely does. She turns down all requests for sterilization from the young and the childless on the grounds that they may change their minds later on. She says that sometimes people do and that they then thank her for having refused their requests.

The reason many women feel this way is easy to understand; it is because reproduction is by its very nature asymmetrical. After the man has successfully talked his way into a woman's vagina and deposited his sperm there he is free to leave. His genetic work is done. It will be the woman who will be on the hook emotionally, financially, and physically for the following 3/4 of a year. And, as I have said before, her body will never be the same and will still be serving up the consequences of pregnancy even when she is post-menopausal, most notably in the form of humiliating continence problems. A prolapsed uterus, something which requires an operation, is another possible post-menopausal consequence of pregnancy. We are aware that when it comes to this issue of choice, you, Marjon, are on our side. This is greatly appreciated for you are both rational and eloquent. Nevertheless, when women express a desire that men butt out, this is not, I believe, male bashing; it merely arises from women's recognition of the asymmetry of the burden of reproduction. And as we all know, there are so many men who are against choice.

Some women will put up with cheating mates because the infidelity is only conducted on a sexual level, not an emotional level. These are couples who really love each other and who have come to a rather unusual personal agreement. It may seem a little unconventional to the rest of us but I personally see nothing wrong with the Hillary-Bill alliance. In fact you could say that she is choosing to "stand by her man." Their private sexual arrangements really should have zero to do with your decision to vote for Hil or not. The only question which you should apply to any candidate must be the following one: do you feel that this candidate is qualified and will do a fine job - both at home and abroad - of looking after the interests of America? This being said, I kinda regret the loss of Mitt Romney in the Rep corner. He struck me as being much more cerebral and much savvier when it came to financial management than Huckabee. As for myself, I continue to favour Obama (for what it's worth).

Yah, update please.

Ceredad, for what it is worth, even though I occupy an opposing position, I really appreciate reading your take on this situation. The situation is indeed a complex one and this boils down in part to the fact that although it is understood that here in the west it is now recognised that all women should enjoy the same rights and freedoms as men, this biz of engaging in sexual activity will always prove to be perilous for women. Of course this is because sexual pleasure might result in pregnancy. Reproduction is an entirely assymmetrical biological function and it is the female who is inevitably left on the hook. Men who are pro-life wonder what the problem is. They say that a pregnancy only eats up 9 months of a grrl's life and then she can off-load the infant onto a sterile couple. In fact going through a pregnancy is more complicated than spending 3/4 of a year side-lined. A woman's body goes through a series of complex physiological changes. All of these are stressful. She will feel a great deal of physical discomfort. There will be a phase of nausea in the first trimester and the final trimester will usher in a need to piss so frequently that the woman will not be able to sleep throughout the night. Her belly will be extended and she may well end up with stretch marks. If she has a vaginal birth her vagina will be stretched and if she has a Caesarian she will be cut up. She will gain weight and her pelvis will spread. The breasts, too, will bloat with milk. These are just the physical symptoms, ones which women who do want to have children will embrace as part of the process. There are also psychological symptoms due to those raging hormones. You must understand that the pregnant woman's body will never, ever return to its pre-pregnancy state and that she will be likely to experience further fall out from her pregnancy after menopause. A woman who has had children is more likely to suffer from bladder control problems, and to experience a dropped uterus, than one who has never had children. Pregnancy is also expensive. The pregnant woman needs medical care. She also needs a new wardrobe. And she will be missing work time. I have great respect for those women who do choose to follow through with their pregnancies. At the same time I can understand why women will opt to terminate. Bluntly put, I believe that each woman must be free to decide for herself whose needs are the most important. I know that when I found out that I was pregnant I opted for an abortion.

I've been wearing my hair with bangs for awhile now. Then one day I happened to read that many older French women like to wear bangs; this means that they don't have to worry about gettin' Botoxed. lol The loose knot/pony tail thing works really well for me. It means many fewer visits to the hair salon and much less labour on a day to day basis. (I should mention that I am a really lazy old trout!) It leaves me looking much younger, prettier, and, oddly enough, more user friendly. I am one of those people with whom strangers feel comfortable striking up a conversation, asking for directions, or whatever.... Just today I ended up in two separate conversations while buying Fancy Beast for the cat and tinned tuna for myself at the local Walmart. My theory is that people are afraid to approach women who are too carefully groomed - especially when they are skinny Minnies as well. These are women who tend to give the appearance of being far too tightly coiled. And of course that really fabulous ultra-high fashion eye make-up really does have to be left to the young ones. *sigh* Sadly, that ship has sailed, eh. *sob*