crystalhaidl's Comments (12)

“..and then, of course, re -whetting your appetite with the aperitif?”

“I don't know if ER is the best example. The entertainment industry and the Arts often have different goals and values. A wise national education movement would embrace the importance of a holistic, liberal arts education, along with the understanding that the sciences and math are synergystic with creative expression. The (liberal?) entertainment industry is often even more culpable than politicians in valuing the money trail of easy content. Even so-called educational TV like The History Channel aka the "Conspiracy" Channel target fodder slanted toward myth than multi-faceted fact. In music, literature, the visual and performing arts, the financial kudos rarely go to middle-brow, let alone the high- brow.

What's missing in the American ethos is a financial and moral value for connected knowledge-- artistic, or otherwise.”

“Isn't it wonderful that sex comes with so many continuing options? Slow sex, a quickie, soft touch, hard thrust, orifices and erogenous zones for every desire and choice.. it's a new menu of possibilities each and every time.”

“No offense, but I'm hoping you're not a teacher or professor. Professor Stone's essay is a brilliant A++. Perhaps, Malkin72, you might consider reading up on the censorship of sexual free speech in America. Start with The Comstock Act of 1873, which formed the mindset of sexual censorship even to this day. Then research the vagueness of "community standards", the Supreme Court's answer to localizing morality. Then, maybe you'll have an "idea why this article was written."”

“Lauren, an illuminating piece on many levels. I'm as envious of your writing as I am of your $100.
There must be some online temp employement site that has a handle on this new niche-- the founder of which certainly would make an easy million or more before the year is up. Capitalism does imitate capitalism-- it would be interesting to see a landscape where more fake jobs exist than real ones. Oh yeah, we already had that the past decade.”

“The word "politikos"=civic, with "polis"=city and "polites"=citizen.

Is it grossly irresponsible , or perhaps fitting, that leaders in a "democracy"= common -people- rule have increasingly chosen to "rely"=hold fast to "religion" for its "religare" = to bind, as a moral law, without addressing the "psychology"=soul of "relegere"=to consider carefuly?

Perhaps it is the most moral failing that social scientists have not engaged their knowledege more intuitively into politics, aka citizenship, as religious leaders have. It's one of the reasons that utilizing education has somehow become synonymous with elitism, while religion is considered grass roots and in-touch with the people.”

“Right to bare arms? Not if your naked hand is touching a dildo sold in those gun loving states of Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia. Guns kill, but dangerous things like sex toys are apparantly even so much more threatening to the public welfare that the Supreme Court has continuously refused to hear challenges to these sex laws.
The "pursuit of happiness" seemingly applies more patriotically to target practice than intimate pleausures; Sex Pistols, anyone?”

“Andy Warhol---"Fantasy love is much better than reality love. Never doing it is very exciting… The most exciting attractions are between two opposites that never meet." --

Warhol addresses the cultural expectations for fantasy as its own climax, while acknowledging the potential greater intimacy of the “almost”, an intrinsic "what if" without needing to know what happens after the "happily ever..". In many ways the excruciatingly exciting yin/yang intensity that you speak about in the wait, Belisa, could increase the investment through its recurrent closer and closer almosts, but no guarantees of greater long-lasting value than two who just took their chances diving right on in together.

What Warhol says about fantasy being better than reality and your valid point about "not being attached to the outcome" are each a tight rope to walk-- if we amuse our libidos only with fantasy ideals, without real possibility, as much of the entertainment media teases us into, then intimacy becomes a reality of the abstract; and if we don't attach ourselves to possible outcomes how do we attach to commitment? Our bodies ooze pheromones and endorphins with that anticipated roller coaster of sexual plateau. If not in the first glance, in the wait or the actual climax of outcome, certainly in its after-play the intersection of real-life and desires gives us continued opportunity for that greatest of fears and thresholds—the challenge, and thereby possible loss, of self union.”

“A metaphor is only a way of comparing different themes to allign an understanding.
Sports, like food, sex ,engineering, health and the weather etc-- pretty much anything under the sun (or even beyone the stars)-- are all fair game to analogy.

Perhaps what is more bothersome is that our political process itself is itself a real sports game. Look at how we campaign, support our sides, and the very visual election night coverage of the red-blue team mentalities. Our stats are combination popularity poll and baseball analtics.. Americans thrive on the sensationalism of victors and competition. We deemed the cooperative idea of "cumulative voting" that Lani Guinier, one of Clinton's candidates for attorney general, posited back in '92, as somehow anti-American http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lani_Guinier . And lest we forget the rules of torture were ballied about last month as changing the "playbook". Or how about let's play Star Wars again, anyone? Or back to this post-- Fowler scored, but was it a foul ball?”

“The high level and range of thoughtful discourse in the comments to this post is an absolutely exciting example of democracy at its best. It compels me to almost take the time to list myself as a "fan" in everyone's profiles here, because it's this type of conversation that should be what our media and our politics is also about.
Fowler 's tactics as a reporter were wrong in the same way that MoveOn and many a blogger-- as inaccessible, unapproachable players in the democratic process-- are flawed. Fowler utilized her double-fumble of not identifying herself and using a sympathizing preface to Clinton as a sort of mea-culpa/ mea bragging point to her successful "scoop", whereas Clinton's fumble, though certainly self-aware that he is always in the public eye, was not abreast of her advantage. This is not to excuse Clinton for his many guffaws. However, I liken Fowler to MoveOn and the many up-and-coming political bloggers because two-way accessibility, openly acknowledgeable identity, along with a respect for fair-play are critical to not just the rules of democracy, but to any sense of heightened humanity. If we all so disdain Bush's tactics against our privacies, and against our nation itself, how can we hold our heads up high if we honor anyone, no matter the cause, whose example of achieving democracy is "do what I say, not how I do it" ?”

“Well said, and importantly positioned, Rob.

The comments from this Roman Circus increasingly make me wonder if people truly comprehend the difference between idealism and the real world. Evolution is slow, and running mates are often like bedfellows who compliment each other for the mutual task at hand. The Republicans win because they state their beliefs as if it's an obvious facts and they strategize for the win; climax-- nothing less.

Hillary has a strong voice. For my money, she's not yet shown it-- partially due to her own flaws, partially because any woman who has fought for anything can tell you, the world IS a man's way of doing things. that is an undisputable fact. It's exceedingly tough for a woman to navigate how she should be perceived in anything to get ahead-- should she wear the pants, show a little bit of her feminine side, androgynous, mother, sister, unemotional or emotional, supportive wife or independent woman.

As VP Hilary will fight like a momma protecting her cubs. And though Obama is too young for this analogy to fit exactly—yes to the good cop-bad cop--- and also a bit of “mom and pop” (Ok slightly younger brother/son taking the helm) protecting the business for the benefit of the whole family AND the surrounding villages.”

“I'm 47 and have been low-income most of my life. It plain sucks. Even the liberal men I date tend to condemn me for my poverty.

My oldest friends are wonderful and usually insist on paying for dinner the half-dozen times a year I venture out. I, in turn, usually insist I pay at least a portion of the tip-- sometimes they kid me into why they're overly fortunate and it's only fair they pay.And you know what? usually they're right. But Christine, your answer (and the excerpts from other) for this young woman is really wrong to make her look at why she's feeling inadequate. Those who have so much money should be looking at the probable inequities of why THEY have so much MORE.

Those of us who are poor, wouldn't be so in an economy that values hard work and integrity more. "Work smart, not hard" doesn't infer intelligence but that savvy strategy, at almost any expense will do.”