Of course R. Kelly seems despicable, musically and otherwise. I get really tired of people complaining about music, then using obviously egregious examples to "prove" their point, when they only prove their own ignorance.

I'm not sure how new you're thinking, but after reading your complaint my first thought was of Davey Havok, lead singer of AFI. "For instance, a lot of our fans have been moved to become vegan or drug-free based on the lifestyles that we live, and that's without ever having played a festival for veganism."

Interviewer: "What drugs should be avoided at festivals?"

Davey: "I would suggest all of them. It's self-destructive, selfish, and weak, and you'll pass out and miss all the bands."

I don't know why people need role models in the first place, but there's a very talented one from the musical world, and there are many more where he came from.

All the Asian Tigers defied neoliberal principles in one way or another. When they finally adopted some, that led to problems in the late 90s, which set quite an example.

Africa and Latin America are the parts of the world that have been most thoroughly subject to neoliberalism. The answer is obvious.

Thailand, Taiwan, and South Korea were never part of the British Empire, but instead they fit my description of countries that weren't subject to neoliberalism, and were able to avoid imperialism entirely (Thailand) or mostly (the other two.) The British ruling class essentially took the economy of the Indian subcontinent, broke it to pieces, and reorganized it for their benefit. They had famines all the time in those days. Just imagine what that part of the world would look like, and how different the last few centuries might have been, without British imperialism. There aren't words for a tragedy like that, but the important thing to remember is that British imperialism is a present fact, alongside some other empires I can name. It's high time we stopped apologizing for them and started dismantling.

What's with the shot at dreadlocks? What's wrong with not looking like someone in a Norman Rockwell painting?

If you consider the circumstances, I don't know that it's fair to criticize the so-called "One Child Policy" until one can suggest an alternative that would fit that time and place. The policy has worked; I wonder what else would have. I don't like to see state coercion at all, especially in a matter like reproduction, so I wonder... would bribery have been more cost-effective?

I agree. I wasn't referring to kidnapping exactly, just the policy in general.

Other people have covered the issues rather well, so I'll just mention something that nobody has mentioned very much: Isn't it also very harmful to try and prevent people from having sex unless they're shackled (i.e. married?) Wasn't Bill Maher right when he suggested that the angry young men of the Middle East really just need to get laid? Can someone else proclaim their love (and need) for unmarried sex? I've never had sex, and I haven't even touched a woman in five years, so I won't be a hypocrite.

Shouldn't it be "rite-of-passage," as in ceremonial "rites," linguistically related (I suppose) to "rituals?"

Saudi Arabia seems like such a nightmarish, inhuman place. You can't blame the results of war (poverty and general backwardness,) like in Afghanistan. The only explanation is the incredible power of religion to stop a thinking mind. Then again, I read a very good article in (I think) either the New Yorker or the Atlantic Monthly that showed the vast, nearly comprehensive contrast between how people are supposed to live in Saudi Arabia, and the way they actually live. It was a relief.

Among other things, she opposed population control efforts. Just imagine if Kolkata, or, why not, all of India, had the birth rate of Eastern Europe.

Am I the only one who finds those gigantic buttocks highly unattractive? Do we all know the difference between curves and flab?

You use the terms "good" and "bad" as if everyone wants to be fertile.

... and not as a result of common sense?

There was a column, originally in the LA Times but subsequently widely circulated, in which the writer mentioned how he/she is seen as very strange because they actually let their kids out of their sight. Apparently parents now are convinced that, "because of the Internet," there are a lot more pedophiles these days.

It's a little depressing. I grew up in the eighties and nineties, and, possibly from reading a lot of Calvin and Hobbes books, I got the impression that my generation had a lot less precious autonomy than earlier generations. We seemed to have more than kids today.

Does anybody else have any thoughts on this? This topic bothers me on a visceral level.

This world is a tough, cruel, hideous place, and school (at all levels, with the "public," including different types of people your parents might not like) helps toughen you up for it. I'm very thankful that my school education exposed me to so many different people (I was in the largest graduating class in the country.) I didn't enjoy it, but that wasn't the point.

How many couples, and larger families, share one computer? I'm not sure if the sheer number of computers in the world tells the whole story.

Why is that a bad thing?

That's all true, but it's also true that fertility rates can sometimes fall without comprehensive prosperity coming first. Poor people have higher death rates, and often higher emigration rates, and if they die and/or leave without being replaced, their numbers drop. This is a good thing.