it was actually more coherent than pretty much anything bush jr said as president and most of what Bush Sr said. It is an interesting question whether it was oblivious or intentional, it doesn't really make sense either way, but obviously one of them has to be the truth. I am really be curious to know. I have to admit that in spite of her warped politics and religion she is entertaining. Bush's voice and for that matter Bush Sr and Reagan just grated. It was like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard so I avoided it, the last Bush was the worst. I don't have that reaction to her.

That absolutely is the reason. That is what is so entertaining about the entire Palin spectacle on so many levels. It's so blatant and yet nobody can seem to figure it out, or at least figure out what to do about it.

are really, really, REALLY devoted to defending her. Even compared to the most devoted Bush defenders something is different (and if there are any for whom it ISN'T different I really don't want to think about it).

if Palin or anyone who thinks like her ever gets back into power we will be in deep shit, again. Even if she is a woman, even if she is cute.

What policy solutions do you propose to deal with the fact that 20% of women and 80% of men are treated as if they don't exist because they are so physically unattractive. Even if I agree it is offensive I don't see a good policy solution, why do you assume there is one for this or for other situations where "large blocks of people are ignored as if they don't exist".

the worker was blocking everything. Is this it?

other govts., such as France, made great efforts to point this out publicly. The fact is that Bush and the neo-cons used American stupidity and cultural resentment combined with 9-11 hysteria to bulldoze their preferred policy through and most American politicians made the political calculation that they couldn't afford to oppose it.

all the concerned crocodile tears are pretty obvious if you look at what actually goes on and the real effects of what goes on.

this isn't going to be an issue for long, really it isn't most places now, (other than the fact that you have to catch them and prove it).

Evert single one, if he thought there was the slightest chance of it getting him laid.

then they can do whatever they want and nobody can prove anything.

I don't think she'll have any trouble. Probably no trouble getting the guy to show his face either, although a few might be too smart for that.

By precisely the same logic, and precisely the same facts in every meaningful way, the govt should also be able to listen to all my phone conversations because they are occuring in a public place. Is this your real belief?

so in a way it is anything but surprising that marriage custom is reflecting this.

if it can be seen in public it is public, if it is covered by clothes it is not public. If you use technology to look through, or under, clothes you are committing a crime. If it is covered with clothes it is like being inside your house. If it is not covered you are outside. It isn't really very complicated.

obviously you couldn't need one or it would be impossible to publish photos of crowds, etc.

this distinction seems to be lost on some here (of course stalking and harrassment ARE prohibted and determining when that is, or is not, occuring IS, in contrast to the upskirt "question" a real question).

in order to prove his innocence on the unsworn word (therefore not legally accountable for anything she says) of any women in public, who could be on drugs, insane, anything, is a MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM than anthing, anything real that is, that has been discussed so far. It really validates all the paranoia.

No, they don't.

and does not have and will never have any effect on you.

share of the blame goes to "Regan democrats" a lot of whom were industrial union workers who should have known better.

Very true. Since the couple consists of either two women or no women there isn't clearly a woman in charge and a man kissing her ass in the way that is the norm with heterosexual couples.

it probably isn't a smart tactic to hold yourself out as superior, (and by implication more manly) because you are "producing real things" than the people you are asking to pay to help you. It's almost inevitable when you do that that some people's emotional reaction will be: "I guess they haven't suffered enough yet". Like any political question a few points at the margins can make a difference. Don't be stupid.

POSSIBLY the techniques used to enforce discipline are shifting SOMEWHAT away from certain kinds of violence, although it isn't clear that there will be less violence overall.

men still want, or at least are willing, to put up with womens' crap but women do not want to put up with mens'.

women have their problems too though, for instance they will MARRY a man (and expect him to be faithful to them), who they aren't strongly sexually attracted enough to to have a no strings one night stand with. That is as twisted as anything men do, (apart from the torture and mayhem, I guess). I don't know if social engineering alone will do the job, maybe it will, but I think a little biological tinkering will be, at least, a strong temptation (arguable the univeral distribution of sex suprressing anti depressants in an early manifestation of this).