So I agree with the analysis, but how do I, Joe Internet, enact reforms or promote the conclusion?

How does Joe Internet convey the ideology up the chain?

How does the country convince the economy that it needs to do a 90degree turn? Not 180, I don't want a complete veering from the idea of competitive profit, but I do want companies, and the economy, to see workers and low-level managers as a necessary (and undervalued) component of the economy.

How doe we encourage companies to promote healthy economic strategies when the "law of the jungle" in free-market economies reward those companies with the biggest buzzsaws? It seems to me that if companies with healthy polices have to compete against companies that are cutting employee wages to boost profits, doesn't the free-market reward the company that cuts costs?

How do we re-write American culture? I don't think we can. I think the economy is doomed to bubble, burst, contract, lather, rinse, repeat.

Someone convince me otherwise?

Looking at the poster, I'm challenged to see the sexuality in it. I ask honestly, is the sexism just in the act of a woman saying yes? Is that the implication here? That without any other clarifying noun or adjective, if a woman is saying "yes", it MUST be about sex? Please understand I don't read sexuality in the poses of the ladies. I don't see it in their expressions or their clothes or the setting. Is the only connection to this reprehensible sexuality then the act of agreeing to something?

I reject that sexism.

If anything, on the face of it I see 4 hipsters that have a positive reaction to politics. I see 4 ladies, of diverse tastes, I don't reject that someone may imply sexuality, and that is to be expected with any ambiguous statement. But really? Is that where the stand is being made?

I admit that I had never seen the Joan Baez version. And how many ignorant peeps like me, have never seen that version, have no preconceived notions, are going to read sex into that poster? Sigh. Probably a lot. Sex dominates our thoughts to the point where the eternal optimist in us immediately substitutes SEX as the topic to any ambiguous answer or question.

Yes? (Sex. Yes?)

No. (Sex? No.)

Hi there. (Hi there, want sex?)

Huzzah! (Sex? HUZZAH!!)

Obama. (... I don't know what you are saying about sex.)

So what happens when we aren't thinking about sex, primarily. What happens to the message of the poster if we ask ourselves to not resort to SEX as our first thought?

So better to let it go by and do nothing at all? Let us just ignore it so it can happen again?

Ignorance is a greater evil than conservatism.

Cover it as in multi-page expose targeting the innuendo that one shade of red has over mustard? No. Cover it as disconnected from the political image she tries to conjure on the stump? Yes. The topic itself isn't sexist per se, the nuance is in how to talk about it.

As with most topics in a political year, the framing of the discussion is where the appropriateness of the question comes out.

Ask some questions about what counties in the united states are associated with the savings and loan scandaleers... see if the OC turns up.

Monkey-see, monkey do? Or old dogs can't learn new tricks?

Take me out to a bailout,

take me out at the bell!

Buy me some CDOs and devalued greenbacks,

I don't care if I make anything back,

And its root, root, root for Hank Paulson

if we cant spend, its his shame!

'Cause its one , two, three strikes your out in the bail. out. GAME!!!!!!!

Lovely how most of my life is shaped to be anecdotal, but... I ask is it really that shocking for Americans to be so uptight about sexuality?

I mean really?

(Here's the anecdotal bits) As a nation we're repressed, sensually/sexually. We have laws declaring what is appropriate for intercourse/sexual relationships. We have laws about adultery, affairs, crimes of sex, porn, restrictions on dress, rape issues... We're reproductively dysfunctional and yet nearly every portrayal of sexuality in our media is OVERly sexual, OVERly promiscuous, and it gets treated as such. We get so uptight about wardrobe malfunctions and a little skin (WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN) that we pitch a societal fit if two guys/women hug in public.

And we're shocked, dismayed, or perplexed that people are ashamed to admit they don't have a hyperactive sex-drive? With how obsessed our culture is with sex (how right it is, how wrong it is, are we having too much, am I having too little) do we really have the right to be amazed when someone admits to being nervous about sex?

Someone point me to a media outlet that deals with Sex in a healthy, both-sides-are-respected kind of way. I don't think you can, because (another anecdote here, weeee!) I never see a portrayal, in the media, of a healthy sexual relationship. There's not drama in healthy relationships (sexual or otherwise).

Increasingly drastic moves by a party that feels more and more irrelevant?

Vengeance over economic stability? Hardly mainstream policies. I suppose that is why I am more interested in hearing what they believe is an adequate alternative to the loans and car-czar plan. Will the hold-outs demand the unions disband?

And why isn't anyone asking why these naysayers feel the need to scapegoat the unions for the corporate decisions? No matter what implied oppression officials claim Union demands made on them, it was GM/Chrysler/Ford management that made model decisions, vehicle ratios, supplier contracts, and marketing decisions. It isn't like these companies farmed that out to union shops. No, they painted themselves into this corner, it isn't up to the unions to bail them out.

I do believe that the unions have a part to play in all this. I am not a union or auto-business expert, but I play one on the int0rwebz.