Comments on: One Messed Up Value System

By: Aletha

Aletha — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 08:08:05 +0000

Hey, Mr. Anonymous, do you not realize how silly a question that is to ask of a heterosexual woman such as myself? There are a few men who make a good faith effort to disaffiliate themselves from this value system. Do you?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:50:21 +0000

Does being male automatically affiliate me with the general impending doom that you foresee in our society?

By: Aletha

Aletha — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:31:38 +0000

Since you are so trusting of what I consider one of the biggest scams ever posing as scientific progress, your preference for President comes as no surprise. However, plenty of Democrats are in your camp. I will say, nuclear power has solved no problems and never will, though it has created many problems that never had to exist.

By: A geek who will not be named

A geek who will not be named — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:07:58 +0000

Ok, I’m going to sit back from the /i/nvasion for a second and give some serious input.

I was actually taking the time to read your arguments until you started bashing nuclear power. Seriously, until you know a fraction of what I do about the atom, you have no right to complain. These substances already exist in nature, we are just making use of what is already at hand. The only risk is created by unsafe handling practices and by a malicious individuals who wish to misuse the atom against the benefit of the human race. The atom will solve all of our problems when we embrace and understand it. An RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator) the size of a “D” cell battery gives us 500Watts which will never run out due to strenuous useage, but rather slowly degrade over a period of about 80 years as the radioisotope degrades naturally, whereas a solar panel the size of a car hood gives us only around 75Watts.

Personally, I would like to see a REPUBLICAN woman as president.

By: Aletha

Aletha — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:46:34 +0000

Only three years? US foreign policy has been a disaster in the making for a lot longer than the six years Bush Jr. has been President. I think we are a whole lot less safe now, and I do not see any Democrat likely to come to the rescue! For whom was this a country of hope and prosperity before Bush? Not for most women or minorities! As for the belligerence and fear, that has long been around below the surface, but the bipartisan knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 has brought it all out in the open.

By: Antibush

Antibush — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:56:23 +0000

Bush and the Republicans were not protecting us on 9-11, and we aren’t a lot safer now. We may be more afraid due to george bush, but are we safer? Being fearful does not necessarily make one safer. Fear can cause people to hide and cower. What do you think? Why has bush turned our country from a country of hope and prosperity to a country of belligerence and fear.
Our country is in debt until forever, we don’t have jobs, and we live in fear. We have invaded a country and been responsible for thousands of deaths.
We have lost friends and influenced no one. No wonder most of the world thinks we suck. Thanks to what george bush has done to our country during the past three years, we do!

By: Aletha

Aletha — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:20:56 +0000

Hey, thanks, Heart!

By: Heart

Heart — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:47:51 +0000

Rock on, Aletha!

I love this paragraph:

All these are consequences of male models of winners and losers, dominance and submission, power over, cutthroat competition. This subordination principle is supposed to be practical, the only way business and life can work. It may be the only way those in power can imagine, but theirs are not the only minds on this planet. There are always better ways to do anything, though improvement may range from minuscule to monumental. This is a consequence of the nature of existence; since nothing can be perfect, everything can be improved. The primary reason bad, stupid, destructive ways persist is that they benefit people in power. That goes from governments to big business to relationships; many men are pacified of their resentment towards more powerful men by taking it out on women who love them.

And this one:

To refuse to talk to an enemy is to renounce diplomacy, or a ploy to get friends to lean on the enemy. The war on terror is futile, unwinnable, escalating while the targeted nations deteriorate further into chaos. This approach is not the only possible way to deal with fanatical enemies. Talking to them may reveal why they are so infuriated as to resort to hostile acts. That can reveal ways to deal with legitimate grievances fairly, not just rebuilding after victory, whatever that would mean. When a friendly puppet can take over maintaining some shaky semblance of order? Diplomacy has the best potential to defuse conflict, despite being ridiculed as appeasement, but that refers to a failure of diplomacy, being outmaneuvered into conceding to unreasonable demands or grievances. War cannot solve the problem of dedicated enemies, but all such problems are created by distended male egos, and as such can be solved by thinking women. Belief system incongruity does not make people incapable of reasonable negotiation, but it can make bellicose men prefer war. Women who have sold out will solve nothing, though they may think up minor reforms, since they are part of the problem by choice of allegiance.

Yours in revolution,

Heart