Perhaps the real reason Palin quit is that some of the facts about her personal life are about to get wide publicity. For example, her first-born child, according to the medical report released by her personal physician, but only on the very eve of the presidential election, was "full" term, which means 9 months plus or minus 2 weeks of gestation. But this baby was born April 20, 1989. Yet the lady's marriage, by an apparently hasty elopement, took place less than 8 months before, on August 29, 1988. DO THE MATH. It seems very unlikely that this child was conceived after the wedding. It's an almost certainty that the baby was the result of premarital sex.

Now ordinarily, this would not be such a big deal. But this person is such an avowed right-wing moralist, such an abstinence-preacher, so opposed to sex-education, such a "holier-than-thou" fundamentalist -- that it seems clear she is also an outrageous hypocrite. A do-as-I-say, NOT as-I-do moralizer. Seems like a case of like-daughter, like-mother, perhaps.

I did not read this article. I will not read this article. She has no expertise, wit, or even one idea in any of her crap. This is why I quit Salon.

This is a hurried response as time is short this morning. Your facts seem to by off. You say we only cover 50 million with our insurance system. I think that is upside down. We fail to cover 15% of our 300,000 million population. That is what all the studies say including Obama's. furthermore, these uncovered persons do not go without care, the are just absorbed be the rest of the system.

But the biggest canard is your statement that in a single payer system we would be providing health care "at no cost". I guess that is because none of the doctors and nurses providing services would have to be paid? And we would not have to pay the manufactures of the medical equipment, or the manufacturers of the medicines used? Are you saying that in a single payer system, somehow we can obtain medical care for everyone at no cost? How does that happen?

I did not read this article. I will not read this article. She has no expertise, wit, or even one idea in any of her crap. This is why I quit Salon.

-- No One Cares

Your moniker says it best. Really. No one does. No one ever will. So, why waste the text stating what people don't care about?

Who gives a FUCK about someone who posts: 'I did not read this article'

-----------------------------------------------------------

Is it me or is the IQ supply tightening rather dramatically?

First off, Palin had a "cadre of trusted pros" when she was running for VP, and numerous sources (Vanity Fair is a recent one) have established that she refused to accept their advice whenever at all possible.

Second, relying on talk radio callers as a barometer of popular sentiment is about as reasonable as relying on Jerry Springer for insight into the lives of average Americans. About 99% of callers to any station (liberal, conservative, sports talk) are wild-eyed obsessive idealogues with too much time on their hands, and not enough bolts bouncing around upstairs, if you catch my drift. In short, claiming to understand popular sentiment because you listen to the radio is pretty much the most removed, aloof, elitist thing i have ever heard. It's like saying you "understand" what it's like to be black, because occasionally, you listen to rap. Great job, snob.

You might also say "To question that woman's very short skirt and flirty mannerisms and the fact that she went home with that drunk guy is to be floored by her foolish exposure to the severe risk that she could be raped. Anyone with a brain behind their eyeballs should be able to ascertain this easily without directly assigning blame to the victim."

What part of RISK don't you fucking get?

The thought process you are trapped behind presents a person who lives a life with no thought to what circumstance she allows herself to be under the control of at any given moment.

ANYONE leaving a bar with ANYONE they have zero previous knowledge about is exposing themselves to RISK. If they are killed or raped, are they to be blamed? Of course not! This conversation is about choice and the resultant risk.

Can a hottie in a tight skirt formulate a BETTER decision than leaving a bar, alone, with a drunk man she does NOT have abundant knowledge about? Yes.

You are responsible for your own capacity to minimize personal risk.

Your mind is so inflexible that rather than viewing this as a conversation about risk assessment you'd rather extrapolate it to include the entire goddamn justice system and the process of legal responsibility.

Except you can't make that argument in any credible court of law these days, as the court system now recognizes that those style of arguments were, indeed, usually attempts to divert attention from the actual crime and "blame the victim."

Bullshit. You are wandering in the wilderness here. The point of the entire conversation is about assessing and avoiding risky situations NOT allowing criminals free reign because you fucked up.

'cause like, "no" still means "no," and just because someone likes to cruise rednecks doesn't mean they're "asking" to be brutally murdered. It might shock you but, historically, there's been a lot of people picking up other people in bars, even picking up drunk and/or stoned redneck guys and gals, and even in twos and threes (there's probably at least thousands doing it right now as I type), but the vast majority of these people don't murder someone or get murdered.

And these people are all stupid fucks who have exposed themselves to risky situations that present the potential for serious personal injury WHICH is exactly what this conversation is about.

Criminals ARE out there. People who are INTENT on hurting or killing. To make a decision to unwittingly expose yourself to harm is foolish and should be avoided.

Obviously, this conversation is not occurring with enough frequency because a lot of bad shit still happens to people who are NOT properly assessing the risk they expose themselves to.

Bars and similarly-styled meeting places are geared in a unique fashion to facilitate and expand upon social connections. Due to the lack of previous knowledge about the characters one is about to sojourn with it is best that all people employ self-protective measures to insure they are not taken advantage of. Simple.

Shepard was gay and he felt previously threatened by his environment for some reason. The rage against gays by some is no secret. With all of the factors combined here Shepard should have assessed his situation far better and NOT left the bar with two shady characters.

What the last paragraph presents is knowledge that other gay men SHOULD apply (and, frankly, ALL people should apply). It is NOT an exercise in how to blame Shepard for his own tragedy.

After-the-fact social information can help others make better choices.

And you have a problem with this... Unreal!