As much as I would like to see Britney get her act together, I do wish people would stop the worship of Britney as a musical artist.

As a local DJ stated recently, "You'll never have a Britney Unplugged - Ever!"

I guess she just makes so much money for the celebrity machine, that the industry just can't let her rise (or sink) to the proper level for her kind of talent.

Once the sex tape is released, perhaps Britney will get a reality TV show and a chance to tap her shoes on Dance with the Stars.

Sex tapes didn't hurt Paris, or Kim, or even Pamela's "careers"

I think they all made a little money on them.

What are the chances that the Baby Daddy will have income "supplements", to keep him "married" as long as the GOP needs the image?

Best thing for those two high school droppouts is if Mom doesn't get to the White House (or next door). Then the arrangement can take it's natural course, one way or the other, with out constant media scrutiny.

Palin is beyond the pale for using her children for polital gain.

I guess if abortion is outlawed then having a down's syndrome child will be less of a morale high road - because it won't be like women have the choice, eh?

I've a good friend who can replace an alternator without a second thought, and another friend who loves to cook for an appreciative audience.

One is female, one is male.

What a pity that we have to slot individuals according to gender. Sort of like the French pronouns for things - some are female, some are male, you wonder why certain jobs are "manly" and others "girly"

And you have to wonder why a lot of the "girly" jobs are considered of lesser value. It is funny to go to some other culture and see how a "girly" job from my own is considered a perfectly good occupation for a man.

I think what Atwood was saying that women who get into power are rarely egalitarian because in order to get to the position of power, they have to emulate, as much as possible, the value systems of the "alpha males" in that society. And there is nothing but hierarchy in that group. And women are at the bottom of that particular ladder.

Margaret Thatcher was indeed a good example of this type of adaptive behaviour.

There has been a lot of unfairness and unfair burdens on both generations for the past eons.

If you want women to fight all the wars for then next X thousands of years then men will have to die young after X number of children, men will need to be denied education and the right to not only own property, but their own children (wasn't until less than 100 years ago that children started going with the mother in a divorce), men will need to be stoned if they have sex outside of marriage and have to be content with being in a multiple marriage with one woman in control.

Lot of unfairness throughout the ages.

Preferable is to get over our grievances and go forward towards a more egalitarian society.

Oops - meant "both genders" and not "both generations" in my last post.

@ hyblaean

Yeah - I understand the idea and the longing to get some sort of power and THEN be able to start achieving the better society.

I don't know though. I think Thatcher was an okay PM. Didn't represent my views and was not very effective in stilling the racism in her country. But she was okay.

However, there are a lot of women who appeal to the "right" who I would doubt any good coming out of them.

I think of an election sometime ago in Algeria where the (extreme) religious party was winning against the military sponcered candidates. The religious party was using the democratic election to get in, but planned to return the country to a "traditional" islamic kingdom.

People were voting for them because they wanted more religious representation - even though they would probably lose democratic rights if they won.

So I think of say, Ann Coulter, for example. She is on record for saying she didn't think women should have the vote. Should someone like that be supported merely becasue we want to see more women at those ranks?

I do understand your point. And I am fine with alpha male acting females getting to the top - I just couldn't support one who I think will curtail opportunity or rights for women. Just like I won't support a man who I think will do that. McCain and a number of very qualified conservative women to choose from - he chose Palin, who appears to me to be a small town ambitious crackpot made good.

(Oh - for the record, when it was clear that the religious party was going to win the election, the military moved in and did a coup. It sucked to be an Algerian, no matter which way they voted)

We already have huge problems, or haven't you noticed?

The last 8 years have been a disaster for this country: economically, socially, internationally, security, jobwise and otherwise.

Who ever takes over in January will have a frat party mess of national level to clean up, and nothing in the kitty to do so.

Which party is more likely to do the cleaning up?

Historically, it is not the Repubicans.

Why don't you keep your little no nothing in Alaska, where she can find her way around. Besides, there is getting less and less to ransack in America - hard to believe "conservatives" still want to run the place.