I think both the post and the responses here say a great deal more about everyone's ideas about women, men and sex than they do about either Colbert or Fonda. Since we haven't heard a thing from either of them about it (have we?), we can't actually make any judgments about any of it. We can only decided what we think based on what we see on the tape.

He might be embarrassed. Then again, both the blushing and the restlessness might be due to Colbert trying desperately not to burst into hysterical laughter. (That's what I saw there - a master funny man being got good.) She might be creepy, but then again, she might be teasing a good friend. The encounter might be an imposition, or an excellent satire, or missed signals. We don't know, so why get all hot under the collar about it?

The one thing I do know is - it was damn funny.

*snicker* I'm so glad I don't have a TV connection anymore.

Yes, and that seems to be exactly the attitude that Epstein has found to be the problem. We want the world to be just like

America, therefore the solution must be the American solution! (Or the Western solution, if you like.)

Africa is not North America. The cultures there are different from ours, the people are acculturated differently, and the things that makes sense to us in our context may not make sense to other people in their own contexts. The answer of "every woman should be able to have sex whenever, wherever" may work well for us (maybe), but that's no guarantee that it'll even make a dent elsewhere.

The whole point of the book is that we can't just walk in and say, "This is how things should be!" We should be listening to what Africans think will work (like zero grazing - like it or not, it worked), and not placing our worldview above the importance of getting the job done.

You don't have to be a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist to believe in god or worship god.

Yeah, because Buddhists DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD ANYWAY.

Thank you, Reverend Sharpton. Without that little cherry on the cake, I might possibly have bought the whole "that's not what I meant!" bullshit. But seeing as how you know basically nothing about Buddhism, I'm gonna have to assume you know nothing about the Mormons, either. Next time you try bringing up religions other than your own, it might behoove you to know what the fuck you're talking about.

Not that I'd expect you to break your lifetime record like that...

Joe, are you seriously suggesting that people shouldn't protest on Memorial Day because it isn't polite?? In case you haven't noticed, this entire WAR isn't polite. War is filthy, nasty and obscene - what makes you think being polite about protesting is going to do a damn thing to make it stop?

And Memorial Day being "sacred"? Oh, give me a break. Armistice Day was sacred. Memorial Day (weekend - nobody celebrates the holiday anymore) is, for the vast majority of people, the first three-day weekend of the summer, and the weekend when the first big summer blockbusters hit the theaters. Most people have no idea what it is that's being memorialized, even.

If you want to keep Memorial Day "sacred" (a holiday which started as an extremely solemn commemoration of those who died in World War I), I can think of no better activity than holding protests against yet another orgy of carnage. It's the best possible memorial to those who've died: a day of American voters shouting unequivocally, "We don't want any more death in war!"

The idea of employers firing workers for gossiping is like the police arresting citizens for jaywalking.

Uh, you just kinda blew that point, Carol, since jaywalking is, in fact, illegal.

And all these trends are going to get worse unless we deal with them.

Problem is, the only thing we can do that will have the required effect is the one thing most people would violently oppose: limiting births. (Well, it's either that or increasing deaths.) Nothing else will ever solve the problem, because you're talking about numbers jumping higher and higher every year from the one-two punch of expanding birthrate and shrinking deathrate. Unless you stop multiplying, you're gonna be drowning in numbers. And the real drain on the planet comes not from poorer countries, where the standard of living is so low, but from the developed nations. Especially the US, which uses up resources wildly out of proportion to its share of the world population.

But try telling that to people and have them take you seriously. Sure, they'll shake their heads sadly over the idea of overpopulation, but ask them if they'd be willing to give up reproducing and they'll respond with some variant of "Are you fucking nuts?" It's a choice everyone else should make, never themselves. And that is essentially why the population problem will never be solved voluntarily - when the numbers go down, it'll be because they were forced down, because we simply will not stop making more humans.

Hardly surprising. It's a hallmark of this era that most people would sooner see the world go to hell than give up something significant for the greater good. Switch to another car or stop eating tuna, sure. But the really important stuff? Never happen.

At least, not without some major meltdown in the modern psyche, whether caused by events external or internal. Who knows how things will go?