For those of us who are aware of the looming ecological crisis, for those of us who've actually studied and read copiously from many sources about the effects of not only global warming, but all the other human induced environmental catastrophes, I beleive that most of us are torn between the resignation of alchimades_flum and the optimistic "can-do" attittude of Leah. Before the enormity of what is befalling this planet and of what it will require of all human societies to halt the slide into ecological collapse, I feel a lot like alchimedes. On the other hand, when I walk in the mountains, when I'm surprised by the joy of this incredibly gorgeous planet, when I feel connected to my friends, my community, I want to do what I can to preserve it. To conserve it for future generations. An old Kenyan proverb says we don't inherit the earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children.

As a species, inhabitants of, creations out of this lovely blue planet, we're in a terrible pickle. What is required will be a retooling, a re-imagining of our relationship with the planet and that will affect our economic, political and social systems in ways that many, many people will not like. If we take Leah's approach, which I admire, we'll have a gargantuan effort to drag half the human race kicking and screaming (a great deal of it rich and powerful) into the light of environmental sanity. Human politics doesn't bode well for this approach. It is really, really difficult to change human societies by will alone. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try (there are thousands of very aware, qualified people working on this around the world), but if you believe that most people will listen to "reason" you're in for a major disappointment. Alchimedes' assement, cynical and defeatist as it may sound, has some truth to it. His/her assesment does acurately describe what we can expect of human behavior's impact on the environment. That the societal changes necessary to have any meaningful impact on human behavior will be imposed ultimately by nature because we just won't/can't adapt our behaviors neither fast enough nor effectively, even if we wanted to, to avoid the catastrophe. Millions in other words may well die before enough of us finally clue in to take meaningful steps to stop it. The winning strategy for societal adaptation and human salvation will probably lie somewhere between what Alchimedes assesses and what Leah proposes.

There is no historical evidence that women would bring more compassion and intelligence to leadership roles on the basis of their sex. This is a gender conceit. There are many of these kind of conceits, for women and for men. We have come to ascribe, for all kinds of reasons (a book in itself!), what we hold to be the "civilizing" virtues more to females than we do to males, despite the historical evidence that men have played a rather significant role in the evolution of human civilization. They continue to do so. When we ascribe to the belief that one sex is somehow superior or inferior than the other on whatever basis, we do a great deservice to individual humans of both sexes.

The British Empire saw its two most expansive periods of colonizations during the reign of female monarchs. Would you rather have Mahatma or Idira as an enemy? Did Golda refrain from striking back at Israel's attackers just because some of them were children? Margaret Thatcher isn't remembered for her nurturing skills and compassion toward the less fortunate. Ever read how Catherine I, Anna Ivanovna, Anna Leopoldovna, and Elizabeth I (Petrovna) ruled Russia? So the peasants ate better? This is an unpopular view to take these days, but the problems of power in human societies, and between human societies, aren't fundamentally issues of gender. They're issues of class and priviledge and what is defined as "national interests." No indication that women are any less ruthless and terrifying in their pursuit of these goals than men can be, even if in some instances they may be more subtle.

No reason not to elect females as leaders. They do their job of holding their own and national interests on a par with any man. But for goodness sake elect them, women or men, on their merits, not on their gender!

He was asked a political question. He answered it. War Room, which I adore, needed to fill up bandwidth so Grieve wrote this speculative story, right in line with the rest of the MSM, about what Gore's intentions might be. The MSM speculates on Gore's intentions to denounce and discredit him. I don't know what Grieve's excuse is. Boredom? Although I wouldn't really include War Room in this group, would that the MSM had gone after Bush they way they've gone after Gore. Why does the press hate Gore?

Why does Salon peddle this borish, tiresome twaddle? I don't find it funny, I find it obnoxious. He bashes women and homosexual men and then says he's just kidding? What he's really doing is making fun of masculinity? Who's he kidding? And Salon gives him another media outlet to further his obnoxious tripe? Reminds me of Andrew (? can't recall his last name now!) who several years ago had the same kind of schtick.

If he really wants to repair genuine masculinity, which certainly needs repairing in this cheap, shoddy culture, wallowing in a cesspool of stereotypical "masculine" behavior (more like adolescent behavior) isn't helping. If we're to buy his justifications for it, he's being too clever to a fault. This is the kind of garbage that gets promoted as "entertainment" in this media driven culture.

He's 28 years old, what in God's name does he really understand yet about being an adult, let alone a man?

Here's a test for the psycho therapists among. Let's test your theories. Take a well-adjusted, happily partnered straight man and convert him to exclusive homosexuality for a lifetime. Then get back to me.