I'm sorry if I implied there is no danger of psychological damage for boys who are victims of statutory rape by older women. There may well be. I was only saying that the social stigma is much less prevalent, which mitigates the negative sociological and psychological ramifications.

Ideally, women/girls wouldn't feel guilty about being a victim of older men. In our culture, that's a tall order, which is fundamentally unfair.

The Clinton campaign has just put out a web video in which they use the dead Ann Richards to "endorse" her -- against the will of Richards' two sons. Could backfire in a bad way:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gf97fT9TeFGux6d4utCMmZkMj6CwD8V2EDH81

The video is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOqzK-TDAK8

Clinton video in which the dead Ann Richards "endorses" Clinton (over the objection of Richards' sons):

AP Story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ann_richards

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOqzK-TDAK8

Why not blog on the Clinton ad that co-opts a dead person against the wishes of her kids?

AP Story:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1131ap_clinton_ann_richards.html

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOqzK-TDAK8

It tells me that Clinton isn't my candidate.

Any candidate that campaigns on fear of darkies hurting our white babies won't get my vote. Eight years of Bush fear mongering and racism is plenty for me.

Clinton picks up the phone and on the other end you hear: "Hey, Hillary, Big Pharma here. We need your help..."

Look, this ad's undertone is pretty clear: "freaky Arabs are trying to kill our babies in the crib, and this candidate is ready to take them on."

It plays on racism. Anyone who thinks Islamofascism is a bigger threat to American values than our own homegrown version should move over to the GOP. Peace loving people in the US deserve at least one party.

...answering the phone at 3am when my kids are sleeping in their beds. Good grief.

Who is she protecting those kids from in this ad?

1) Swarthy Muslim terrorists

2) Corporate polluters?

3) The bank about to foreclose on the house?

I'm sorry about your friends, but does that give you a special pass or certain wisdom to endorse racist violence?

Over 3,000 US soldiers and close to a million Iraqis have died as a result of our racist spin-off to 9/11. Unless you are a hypocrite, you must support surviving Iraqis' right to kill you and me. It was our elected government that killed their friends and family; I doubt anyone voted for the 20 hijackers.

I have very little patience for people flashing their 9/11 badge as an excuse to support racist killing, so go ahead and join the GOP. They will welcome you.

And did you read what I wrote anyhow? "...bigger threat to American values..." But to be honest, I'll go further and say that I don't believe Islamofascists are a bigger threat to anyone's life or property either -- at least they wouldn't be if we treated the world's people with dignity, which you don't appear willing to do.

When the ad asks who you want answering the phone in "a dangerous world," what human form do you think the ad makers expect that danger to take in the heads of their target audience? When the ad asks "who understands our military," what kind of respect/response do you think the ad makers expect their target audience to have for the vague sources of danger invoked?

I would say that the human form is likely to be someone with brown skin and a different religion, and the respect they deserve is a blunt explosive.

I would say that is not only racist, but breathtakingly callous coming from a Democrat while the bloody war on Iraq is still ongoing (especially when she enabled that war). You do remember that -- whoops! -- mistake of a war that has now led to the death of a million brown-skinned people who had nothing to do with ANYTHING that either hurt or even threatened us? Sorry! Thought there were weapons there, even though people who knew better (inspectors) said there weren't. Sorry for the death. Now get your political house in order because we're sick of "protecting you!"

I suppose you wouldn't get the racism in a 1950's ad for Strom Thurmond that showed white kids going to school while asking whom you trusted to protect your children's educational environment. "But everyone's concerned about education," you'd cry out.

If you think it's okay to stir up fears of a "dangerous world" that requires our military -- especially in an era of genocide in Iraq -- why not switch parties? Given our media, there is only one "danger": dark skinned people that resist our imperialism. (I'm not talking about 9/11 -- 20 people, none of whom have been shown to have come from Iraq or Afghanistan -- not all of whom have even been identified.)

The Democrats are unlikely to push a domestic economic program that is vastly different from the GOP (especially given how Democrats in Congress are unwilling to stand up to unregulated capital, huge defense spending and unbalanced budgets), so we are really voting for foreign policy. Since you clearly view as legitimate a foreign policy that employs a lens of fear and military response, why not leave the rest of us a shot at having one of the two parties focused on something more peaceful?

Of course you don't see racism here, just as those who wanted to preserve our "way of life" before desegregation didn't have any problem with the darkies, so long as they kept to themselves. Just keep in mind that your views are not based in the facts of our age.

What does your reality register when you hear "dangerous world?"

Seriously.

Clever by half. Clinton's ad invoked military response (check back if you doubt me). Tell me how any of the situations you name require military response at 3am.