BJean

Yeah, I agree with you about beige. But I'm not sure about Ecru. What about Ecru?? I'm feeling confused. What about shades of grey? Your somewhat biased female reporter is completely correct about gender bias in this country. What is surprising to me is that most of the discrimination against women in politics in this country is done by other women. Why don't women trust women? Is it steeped in some biological urge to beat out other women for the best men? When I was in a male dominated work force (Office of Attorney General), I found that women did not trust or even like each other across the board. They didn't even respect the women who were quite accomplished, intelligent and high profile. It is very sad. Most men that I have encountered take women in business very seriously - because they know first hand how well women can compete and succeed. In speaking with friends and acquaintences about Hillary Clinton the politician, many men tend to believe she is a formidable candidate while many women think she's abrasive and harsh and that there's no way she can win. I believe that Hillary has paid her dues to the political forces that run things in this country and that if the voting machines are tampered with again, she could win. It would not surprise me, however, if Barack Obama wins the nomination and I am not sure how a political race like that would turn out. The racial discrimination in this country is not an insignificant factor either. But then again, Oprah has a lot of power. I'm just not sure if her power flows over into the political arena. All in all, most of us are sick of the race already. The way this thing will probably go is down and dirty and we may all be so sick of it, people might stay away from the polls. After all, we should be keenly aware of the Republican's ability to play that game and win.

Btw, Trixie I didn't mean to suggest that you are a Liberatarian. Someone earlier in the thread referenced that party. I was not directing my earlier post (which you found condescending), specifically to respond to your post. Politics, like religion, is very personal. Sometimes it is difficult to take other viewpoints with a grain of salt, especially when you disagree with them, as you did mine. Hmmm, that's likely to be taken as condescending. Take it with a grain of salt... after all, I'm really, really, really old and no doubt my politics are completely mired in ancient history.

Trixie: I did not intend to come off as condescending. Did you mean to come off as insulting? I do have strong feelings about politics in this country. One can't live through the past 7 years and not feel affected by politics here. I was not stating that I prefer the two-party system or that I invented it or that I work at maintaining it. (Sorry that's how you interpreted what I wrote.) I only stated what I believe is true. If you and the people your age (which is?) want to make changes, I would welcome improvements, gladly! However, voting out of the mainstream or talking about it won't get the job done, no matter how strongly you personally feel about it. I believe Jimmy Carter to be a pretty honest man, Green. He has been accused here of being an ineffective Past President. I find that curious. He goes all over the world trying to help people and governments. He helps monitor so-called elections in struggling countries. He has been lauded for his peace efforts and he has written books. What does it take in this country to gain respect? Often times, people would like to believe that they are judging the man, when in fact they are judging his politics. I don't see how you can find George W. Bush, for instance, a good man in any way shape or form. He has proven himself to be a not very nice man at all. However he says and does what some people believe to be good politics for this country so they find his behavior acceptable and think he's not a bad person. He's just someone who has made a few mistakes. It is frustrating, Green, very frustrating.

Why yes green, if we were able to have our voices heard by voting for people who are not Democrats or Republicans, it would be a very worthwhile thing to do. However if you try to lodge your complaint by voting for a Liberatarian, you will ensure that your vote is counted but as for it having a voice, no one much listens. It will take a huge mass of people in order to change this basically two party system. Liberatarians notwithstanding. It isn't like it is in Canada. Big business pretty much owns the politicans (although not overtly in every case). Lobbyists have a lot of power. It is very difficult for individuals to get elected to public office in this country without very significant monetary backing. How do you win that backing? You promise to throw your vote their way. Or in the case of Ross Perot, you pay your own way. People voted for Ross Perot and their votes were wasted as far as the real picture was concerned. He had a snowball's chance of winning the Presidential election. Unfortunately, having the nice, honest, sweet little person from some sweet little town, get elected and make important changes in this system is what is impossibly "pathetic" these days. The closest thing we've had to that in my lifetime was sweet little Jimmy Carter and look how that turned out. He promised to fight big business's control over the Congress and he was virtually laughed out of office. People still speak of how ineffective a President he was. Things are different here than in Canada. Not necessarily better, but certainly different. And just because it makes you feel empowered because you are voting for "the man" - not the party - doesn't make it prudent to do so. And it certainly does nothing to ensure your freedom.

From everything I've heard, green is spot on. I have emailed my niece and she'll contact her MIL for us. My niece seriously considered the Corps for the year directly after she finished her Master's in Nutrition and became a Registered Dietician. They definitely scared her too much during the intitial orientation meetings because during her "cooling off" (my term) period but before signing on the dotted line, she abandoned the idea. It was something she had planned on, mentally, for years.

I just quickly scanned the thread for the first time (I been outta touch) and was not surprised at all the usual crap directed at Democrats. If you'll notice, people who dislike the Republican candidates usually have a reasonable reason (like lack of hair) but the people who dislike Democrats spend a lot of time bantering about the morally weak displays by certain Demos (who, by the way, aren't running). I have no problem with anyone disliking Hillary, for whatever reason. But to see that women are against her BECAUSE she's a woman is truly frightening. Is everyone here too young to remember a wonderfully brilliant woman leader in Israel many years ago named Golda Meir? And Bhutto who was assassinated wasn't assassinated because she was a woman. It was because she had power and a loyal following. If I had to vote for someone right here on this thread, I'd vote for the people who seem to be the most intelligent - green and marjon9, no contest. (And no, I'm not planning to vote for Barak Obama, although if he's the Democratic nominee, I'll have to think pretty hard about it. And green, I'm with phylliser - Edwards is the cutest Demo guy running.) If Mitt Romney (cutest Republican) or that Huckabee clown from Hope, Arkansas wins, I'm heading for Canada too! Btw, Gulliane isn't a serious candidate, is he?? :help: I guess rating any of the candidates on their looks is at least as silly as disliking Hillary Clinton because she's a woman. :faint:My bad.

laurend, I'm back from my little trip and saw your thread. My niece's MIL joined the Peace Corps about 4 years ago. She did her time in Latin America somewhere. It was very primitive - more than she expected. I haven't had the opportunity to talk with her about her experiences, but I think she was very glad she did it. She was in her 50's. So a pretty big adjustment for someone who's been out of school for so long. She taught while she was there. If you want, I can ask my niece if Diannah would be willing to email you?

Point well taken, Jack. As so many things in the corporate world across the country demonstrate, money is a very corrupting influence on people. But we are a capitalistic society and it has worked well for many years. Do you think we will go the way of the Romans?

Like has been said over and over, in a fertilized egg there is life. How can anyone dispute that? However it is not a complete life. It must have many things prior to gestation for it to become a full and complete human being. I see no difference between saying that a sperm is life and an egg is life, just like a fertilized egg is life. You can't create an individual human being until certain conditions and nourishment occur with a sperm and egg, or with a fetus. It isn't a black and white question, as Alyson said. To try to make it a black and white question to suit your argument doesn't make it correct. I very much appreciated your post luluc. Legalization allows stories like yours to happen and have a good outcome. I find the demonstrations at Planned Parenthood extremely distasteful and hateful. But they have a right to be there and until they start shooting again, I have no argument against that right. I must say that I wish the pro-choice side were as active. They could go to similar extremes by showing photos of suicides committed by women who were prevented by law from having a much-needed abortion. They could also show photos of children who have been abused and killed at the hands of adults. Alyson is completely correct: education is the answer, along with resources for birth control - both of which, by the way, Planned Parenthood provides.

To quote your eloquent earlier reply..."baloney" When something doesn't make any sense, it is usually for a very good reason. Shocking yes, but also wrong. I am sure that there is someone somewhere who has said that they did a study that shows what you're claiming. However what they don't tell you is that their study was about counting how many regulations or regulators there were on last Tuesday regulating abortions versus regulations or regulators at animal clinics affiliated with Pet Smart on that same date. Of course I'm kidding, but something practically as ridiculous is always behind those inflammatory "medical studies" that are just calculated to shock people. Fortunately most people are not that gullible or susceptible to propaganda. In fact, I am just as committed to Americans being able to have control over their reproductive organs as you are committed to making sure that they do not. I really am going to bed now. Just thought I'd pop back in before I left and although I felt compelled to reply, I actually am sorry I did. I hate this craziness. It eventually gets bitter and personal and does no one any good. On a higher note, I hope you all have a pleasant evening and a great night's rest. Cheerio~

The "holy grail of 'safe' abortion"? What kind of claptrap is that? Who ever declared that there was a holy grail of safe or unsafe abortions? Abortion procedures can be as safe as any other medical procedure. So what? Is there anyone who believes that there is absolutely no risk to having any medical procedure? Why is that an object of discussion on your path to prove that abortions should be outlawed? That is really, really digging deep to have something negative to say. Again, hardly worth my time. I'll check back in tomorrow to see if anything new has come up in this discussion or if we have once again, come full circle.

My last post was in response to gadget's suggestion that I read her stuff. Alyson, you don't need me to validate your statements but what you have posted above is absolutely true and straight to the core of this issue.

Sorry. Just not interested. I have read about all the propaganda that I can stomach for the time being.

The lesser of two evils? Ok, that may be - especially in your eyes. But if you think that voting for the man who is outside mainstream politics will truly make a difference, you're kidding YOURSELF. And if you think that voting for the man is not endorsing his political platform, you're also kdding yourself. If you do not agree with the platform that his/her party has adopted, and you vote for him because you like what he says, you're still getting the platform and all that it represents. I have no argument with you "voting for the man" just as long as you fully understand what you're getting in the process.

Baloney yourself, gadget. Your research conflicts directly with every study I've ever seen with respect to pregnancy vs. abortion as they relate to risk factors for women. I have no desire to read the claptrap you cite here. I've spent the time to do it on several occasions and found them to be extremely biased sources that skew the numbers in favor of your viewpoint. It isn't worth the my time. You will never convince me that making abortion illegal is in the best interests of women or the other members of our society. I am convinced, however, that some of you will stop at nothing to try to impose your will upon others. And Marjon, hang in there. You make total sense and you sound like a very compassionate and humane individual.

Saying that an embryo is life doesn't contradict saying that an embryo is part of a woman's body. How can you possibly debate that? I know why you would like to make that distinction. That is quite obvious. However in my estimation, quibbling over the definition of the word "life" isn't worthwhile or relevant to this discussion.

Don't actually have the stats in front of me but I am sure some of you out there do. There are more complications during 9 months of pregnancy and the act of delivering a baby than there are with the relatively short and simple abortion procedure. Alyson's point is well taken. When abortion was illegal, it didn't take the education and experience of a doctor to carry out an abortion procedure. Many uneducated people became abortionists, with practically no medical instruction, for miriad reasons. None the least of which was to prey upon desperate women in order to make money. The question of whether the tissue (fertilized egg) could become a viable person or is an individual person from the day of conception (or even before) will probably always be with us and a matter of debate for some time. The fact that a fertilized egg must depend upon its' host for survival makes it NOT an individual - it can't be an individual until it IS an individual. Just because it has DNA that is different from its' parents doesn't mean that it is a living, breathing human being in and of itself prior to the time when it IS actually a living, breathing human being that is capable of surviving without a host. But as much as some anti-choice people would like for us believe that is the issue, that is NOT the issue as far as most of us are concerned. The primary issue here is whether the government or certain individuals can tell all of the rest of humanity that impregnanted women MUST bear any and all of those children in each and every case. The decision that all impregnanted women must bear those children should not be in the hands of the government or a few zealots who have decided that it is their right to force women to do their bidding. It should be frightening to everyone that the government be allowed to make a decision of this magnitude for all of us.

green, I've been missing you too! We've been on the Holiday entertaining bandwagon and I'm just beginning to get my head back above water.

steph: nice to see we have grammar and spelling police here! Much needed, right? One interesting note: the Republicans have used getting rid of welfare and taxes and big government in their platform and in their campaigns for as long as I can remember or read about. Unfortunately it is mostly talk and campaign rehtoric. They occasionally make a token tax cut, but they're almost always in hot water over it because the country winds up with a huge deficit; and they only cut the programs that don't harm them personally financially - like environmental issues, welfare in general, education and others, while some of the biggest drains on our tax dollars are in the form of huge weapons systems and other big businesses which they seem to increase the budgets of every time they are in control. So if you're voting Republican and thinking you're getting what they're promising, you might consider taking a harder look at what's happening versus what's promised. And no, I don't believe that Democrats are immune to being sucked in by the big business lobbyists - nor is just about politician, in fact - be they Independent, Libertarian or any other party. And if you think that an Independent or Libertarian or other minor political party candidate can be elected to the presidency, I honestly believe you're kidding yourself. If you're voting that way to make some kind of protest or statement, there aren't too many people who are impressed or listening. You'd be better off figuring out which of the candidates of the major parties is better and go about working hard to do all you can to keep them honest. Using your voice and vote to be heard seems like our only hope. Politicians honestly do listen and respond to their constituents most of the time. Otherwise, we are completely impotent when it comes to national politics and our bantering back and forth here is worthless.

lori in cali: Terrific post and completely to the point. I've been off-line for a while and it was so gratifying to come back today and read such an informed, intelligent addition to this thread! Some people really should take more time to read your post in-depth and think very hard about it. I have a feeling that some may have decided they didn't like the tone of it and so did not give it their full attention. I've been guilty of that when I disagreed with the initial premise of a post but have found that if I spend as much time reading those I do not agree with as I do on those I do agree with, I learn so much from the people who participate here. I know some people are not open to consider any other viewpoints than their own and that is understandable with such an important issue. But I believe that most of the pro-choice people feel that this is a very cut and dried issue - the government should not have the power over it's citizens as the overturning of Roe v. Wade would ultimately provide. But make no mistake about it - that's exactly what some Americans are wanting for this country. And lori makes it abundantly clear why that is so grossly unjust for everyone. I have a hard time understanding why anti-abortion people don't get that giving the government that power over its' people is extremely dangerous. Like I've mentioned many times on this thread, no one should be legally compelled to HAVE AN ABORTION or NOT HAVE AN ABORTION. If you allow the government to legally prevent abortions, they may decide to compel people to have abortions if "they" deem it appropriate one day. As I said, lori makes that argument perfectly. To say that the government should be in the business of saving lives by compelling women to have babies is absolutely passion-provolking, but absolutely so very wrong.

P.S. Giada is amazing. Her recipes sorta go against my natural instincts, what with all the squeezed lemon juice atop. But what a bod! And who doesn't like good Italian food? Except of course now - the combination of pasta and the band - not so much!

They did a study, I was told, where they put margarine out in nature to see what animals would be drawn to it and guess what? No animals touched it. That's because it isn't really food. It's a manufactured glob of oil and crap. I've about decided that keeping it natural is the best for me and that includes sugar. If I need sugar or butter in a recipe, I use it. That way I know exactly what I'm eating - I am not fooling myself. My dentist told me that if you use artificial sweetners long enough, they will rot your teeth too, just like sugar. I for one cannot stand that blond bombshell on Semi-homemade Sandra Lee or whatever her name is. She drives me bats! Known too many phony baloney women like her. It's obvious that she doesn't eat what she makes... except for the cocktails. Pftttt! Mew! How catty of me. Four sticks of butter in brownies is criminal, unless it's a recipe for a hundred troops of big, gorgeous, strapping, muscle-bound military men. Oooh. What a visual. Bring on the whipped cream. And Green, your comment was not lost on me. I saw that movie again not too long ago and I was shocked at that graphic scene. I'd forgotten. The movie and the book pretty much rocked my world when it came out. But in a good way. And no, to answer the obvious qestion, I'm not into that. :paranoid

To err is human.

Rachel Ray!!! It's her gravel gerty voice and really disgusting sounding recipes and if I hear "yum-o" one more time I think I'm going to goose a chicken. Give me the Barefoot Contessa with her whipped cream on everything (hoo-haa) and Paula Dean with butter on everything (that's what I'm talking about!). Oh wait a minute, now that I think of it, I'm getting pretty sick of the Contessa's bragadocious attitude and her phony laugh and Paula's overbearing accent and eye crossing/orgiastic grin when she tastes anything. Maybe I've just got to go back to HGTV and away from the Food Network!

Green, since you're checking this thread today, I just want to tell you that I hope you won't ever just one day stop posting and make us all wonder what happened to you like Carlene, Tired Old Man and a few others have. I miss them so much and I worry that TOM was sick and doesn't feel like posting at LBT. I would be truly upset if anything happened to you!