Those women who don't want to stay home and raise kids should seriously think about whether or not they should be a parent
I respect your right to think this but I can't respect the thought itself.
Really??
You DON'T agree women should think about their parenting abilities before deciding to become a parent??
Do men participate in this child raising process?
When done correctly.
I can speak only for myself, but I can't respect said thought not because I disagree that women should think seriously about their parenting abilities but because you really seem to be making a normative statement that women *ought* to stay home if they become a mother.
Divorce is not the only reason a child grows up with only one parent or even no parents for that matter.
True...
The post was directed at the astronomical divorce rate that JP quoted.
Last post on this. I cannot deal.
I didn't quote any rate. I actually said I don't know what the rate is.
By anecdotal experience, it is high, because in my life - and this is certainly not true of everyone, everywhere - many of my friends have been raised in single parent homes, broken homes, divorced homes.
If in your case you and your siblings life was better because your parents divorced you are the exception, not the rule.
I am much better because my parents chose to divorce. Marriage is not some pie in the sky, it's hard work (as you know). If the marriage is not working, 2 happy separate parents > 2 angry parents together (this also, I think you know).
You are talking out of your ass here and I find it very offensive.
I can speak only for myself, but I can't respect said thought not because I disagree that women should think seriously about their parenting abilities but because you really seem to be making a normative statement that women *ought* to stay home if they become a mother.
I can see why you would think that.
I'm not sexist in the least....a man who stays home and raises his kids is great..... I believe one Strutter does this and it's a real testament to "doing the right thing".
Ok, I said I was going to move off this but given that I was JUST teaching on marriage and divorce rates today, here's some basic trends as gleamed from federal data (census and otherwise):
Divorce rates have declined from their all-time highs in the 1970s. They're still high in the U.S. compared to most other Western countries, but for educated, middle class couples (i.e. most of the people on Strut), the odds for a successful marriage are in your favor.
The scenario that JP describes - not knowing that many people who grew up with a two-parent household - is highly unusual if you look at the national averages. Overwhelmingly, most American kids grow up with both parents.
However, depending on where you live, who you hang out with, etc., it's possible to have it skewed in the other direction. Maybe it's a Berkeley thing - it is a more libertarian city, it's possible that it tends to attract/produce more divorced families. However, given that Berkeley's population has shifted more upper class and educated in the last 20 years, I would bet that the divorce rate has actually declined in the city.
In any case, the idea that divorce damages kids can't be allowed to just float out there without asking: how do kids growing up in a dysfunctional household where their parents don't get along damage them? The fact is, there are kids out there who are going to get emotional scars REGARDLESS if their parents stay together or not.
When it comes to kids and family structure, one of the greatest predictors for future success is *stability*. Children of divorced parents who grow up with a single parent have better educational outcomes than children of divorced parents who *remarry*. And the reason is that a single parent household where there's no remarriage at least maintains a consistent set of parental figures. In contrast, children subjected to a parade of step-parents (since the divorce rate amongst 2nd marriages is higher than it is among 1st marriages) experience a loss of stability, a lack of consistent parental figures.
So basically, the BEST thing you can give your kids is stability. And if you and your spouse are warring with one another and clearly out of love and completely disinterested and disrespectful of one another, that is NOT stability. Divorce sucks but it's not a worse alternative than forcing two people who can't get along to stay together.
In class today, we were talking about why you'd want easier paths to divorce (e.g. the introduction of no-fault legislation, for example) and one of my students raised her hand to say, "I think divorce should be made easier; I wish my parents had gotten divorced earlier than they did."
I didn't stop to check to see if she's emotionally scarred though.
I should add: the male breadwinner, female homemaker model is one of the grand myths of American history. It never existed as a reality for the vast multitude of Americans who - because they are working class and not middle or upper - absolutely needed both parents to work. This was certainly the case when America was largely an agrarian society, it continued to be true during and after the Industrial Revolution when men and women alike (and children too) were employed in factory work.
The 1950s ideal of "Leave It to Beaver" was a fiction. While those families existed they were always the exception, never the rule for *most* Americans.
I can speak only for myself, but I can't respect said thought not because I disagree that women should think seriously about their parenting abilities but because you really seem to be making a normative statement that women *ought* to stay home if they become a mother.
I can see why you would think that.
I'm not sexist in the least....a man who stays home and raises his kids is great..... I believe one Strutter does this and it's a real testament to "doing the right thing".
I don't think having one stay-at-home parent is "doing the right thing" if that means NOT having that arrangement means you're doing the wrong thing.
I think raising your kids in a loving, supportive household is what's most important.
Lots of dudes out there beating the shit out of their wives & kids, drinking up their paychecks, so on.
And this dude sucks, and failed miserably at being a Father/Husband.
And if the woman moves for a divorce, it's not out of selfishness. It's out of self-defense and doing the best thing for her kids. Lots of exceptions every single day that don't fit your simple rules.
Lots of dudes out there beating the shit out of their wives & kids, drinking up their paychecks, so on.
And this dude sucks, and failed miserably at being a Father/Husband.
And if the woman moves for a divorce, it's not out of selfishness. It's out of self-defense and doing the best thing for her kids. Lots of exceptions every single day that don't fit your simple rules.
I'm not claiming BOTH parents are selfish.....most times it's only one selfish spouse....like the drunk asshole in your example.
Two selfish parents = "You're Fucked Lottery Winner".
Are there people walking around the world w/o emotion scars?
I don't think I've ever met any. If it isn't one thing it's another. Nobody grows up perfect, and I doubt if they did they would be ready for the unforgiving reality of life.
I don't hang out in too many airport bars but I do have friends that are doctors and they all agree that a good percentage of the tests they recommend are unecessary and strictly a CYA move to avoid malpractice suits.
Tort reform needs to happen sooner than later.
Yes but the question is what sort of tort reform. The Republicans used to want to cap awards at $250,000 & out of that you'd have to pay the lawyers and the cost of the lawsuit, experts, etc. That's not a lot of $$$ if some jackass doctor f*^ked you up for life.
The AMA still supported this HCR bill without tort reform.
i have a lot of doctor friends and it is makes me cringe every time they bring up malpractice. first, why the f*ck should people who suffer horrible injuries and death have a cap on their injuries? it is a total mockery of our legal system that some arbitrary cap gets placed on pain & suffering. second, there is absolutely no proof that putting caps on pain & suffering would lower malpractice insurance and also lower general insurance rates. we are talking about the greedy, unscrupulous private insurance companies. third, the absolute maximum that malpractice cases could be responsible for amount to less than 2% of healthcare costs. fourth, the idea that doctors are practicing "defensive medicine" must be balanced with the truth that they get paid for every "service" they perform. the more tests they give you, the more $ they make. this was covered in a great article in the New Yorker that was quoted by Obama in the fall.
moreover, let me dispel the myth that malpractice cases are often "frivolous". in pennsylvania, let me tell you what goes in to initiating a malpractice case. first i have to get copies of all the medical records (average cost is $500-$1000). next, i need to send it to an expert for an evaluation and a certificate of merit (average cost - $2,000). then, if my expert thinks its a good case, and our firm believes it is not only a good case, but one that we can eventually (probably several years down the road) make money on, we start suit. after spending thousands of dollars on depositions, expert reports, traveling all over the place to depose various people and god knows whatever extra misc costs, we get to trial (tens of thousands of dollars in pre-trial costs on a decent sized case). at trial, a majority of jurors instinctively don't want to see anyone get paid and believe that doctors can do no wrong. if you can get past all those hurdles, even with a great case, you might have a 50/50 chance of getting a decent jury verdict because the average juror is an idiot who won't understand anything that is going on and was probably sleeping half the time.
so why the f*ck would a lawyer spend all of his own money on a frivolous case? the deck is stacked against you anytime you sue a doctor (its like suing the cops, but worse).
This is some of the craziest shit I ever heard on Strut since the beginning.
For real though, Rock is always coming with the, "people who don't live their lives exactly the way my parents and I have are doing it wrong." Pulling the crazy generalizations right out of his ass. But this one is by far the worst of this shit I have ever seen. Self righteous baby boomer bullshit.
It doesn't take any longer to cook a meal than it does to drive to a restaurant, order it, wait for it to get there, eat it, pay the bill, and drive home.
Even if you were to go to the drive through, its still about the same.
What? A trip to Wendy's takes me around 5 minutes, there and back, off-peak hours. I couldn't even cook a hotdog in that time.
My neighbor says she doesnt have the time to cook yet she watches tv from the time she gets home to bedtime. A good 4 hours.
Priorities may be out of wack, but cooking = work. Watching TV doesn't. Most Americans don't want to do MORE work after they just got done, ya know, working. This is especially true if you lack basic cooking skills (like me and most Americans). I know the Strut has a high perecentage of foodies and whatnot, so I feel this fact is becoming a little lost in the debate.
And cooking at home winds up being a lot cheaper than eating out - even fast food.
This is true if you happen to live in, like most of the Strut, a middle class, middle-aged home. Your home is already stocked with all of the basic cooking supplies. This includes working appliances, as well as knives, pots, pans, plates, silverware, etc. These are all cooking "costs." Basic pantry items as well: eggs, milk, butter, oils, spices, grains, etc. These all add (significantly) to the cost of a meal if your pantry is not already well-stocked. Think of them as "start-up costs" if you want. For me, and many Americans, they are prohibitive. Especially if, as I have already mentioned, you lack cooking knowledge.
You guys are ignoring basic economic reality by claiming that cooking at home is cheap and efficient. If it were, everyone would already be doing it. If you want to pacify yourself by claiming we are all simply "too lazy," go ahead.
Yeah, it depends, but not every meal is a steak either. A package of 96/4 burger patties and a package of whole wheat buns goes a lot further than the same amount of money spent at jack-in-the-box.
This goes to the heart of my earlier point. Making a burger is nowhere near as simple as this. It requires a working cook top and basic patty frying knowledge (OK, not that high of a barrier). It also requires condiments, if you don't want to eat a piece of meat on a piece of bread: lettuce, tomato, mayonnaise, cheese, onion, etc. and oil for frying. Secondly, are you going to make all these burgers at once? If yes, you better eat them before they go bad. If no, then you better make them before your buns spoil. If you take into consideration all of these factors, the cost of a McDonald's cheeseburger and a homemade one are not even close to comparable.
NOW BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND:
I'm surprised there is so much concern over excessive testing, etc. being expressed in here and no one has mentioned that the bill does provide for "outcome-based" evaluation of Dr.'s performances. This means less bullshit and more effective care. I think there is some malpractice reform, as well.
Part of the basic Republican platform is that small government and free-market solutions are better than large government and extensive regulation/social programs. This version of health care reform is an expansion of social programs and regulation and as such, is anathema to the Republican platform.
In other words, teh poor people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and pay for their own health care.
Beyond the ideological issues, what Frum is referring to above is a specific kind of political gamble. If the GOP could defeat this bill, basically they demoralize the Dems and more importantly: Obama. At the very least, it would have given them momentum going into the fall elections with the ultimate goal being 1) forcing the Dems + Obama to have to compromise on any kind of legislative agenda for the next three years and 2) taking back both Congress and the White House by 2012.
A month ago, this didn't necessarily even look like a bad bet. You could be a more moderate Republican who thinks health care reform is a good idea but ultimately, you'd vote against this bill because, in the political long-term, it's better to embarrass and weaken the other side and then try to push through reform - on your terms - down the road.
The problem, as Frum points out, is that it became an all or nothing gambit and a rather cynical one. No doubt, they'll try to spin this somehow but for now, there's no other way to see this as anything but a huge L.
This is exactly the problem, which I think the health-care debate has highlighted more than any other issue. CONGRESS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM THERE IS IN THIS COUNTRY. I can't emphasize that enough. You need evidence? Look at the extents to which these clowns will go to keep their cushy gigs on Capitol Hill. We need term limits, period. And now. I heard one congressman say (I think on Bill Maher) he would gladly support this bill even if it meant his job (which it might). This should be the attitude every elected official has anytime they cast a vote. Their job is to represent their constituents by making the choices they feel are correct, NOT GETTING RE-ELECTED. I am not one to bash the system or complain about "how bad things are now," but this debate has really highlighted for me how desperately we need congressional term limits.
the mandate will clear the way for a complete take over of healthcare.
let's hope so - the 'fee for service' model for healthcare is a straight up FAIL - in addition to being immoral & ineffective
it's still a fee for service model you dumb shit. The only difference is who pays. Only a true fascist would think that paying for your own healthcare or receiving it at the charity of others is immoral while a system based on force and theft administered by histories bloodiest and least humane institution is an example of social progress.
You're all disgusting little despots who lack moral swag and get their pussies wet just thinking about the destruction of the american ideal. You don't seem to have any political beliefs which don't boil down to wanting uniformed men with guns forcing people to do whatever it is you want them to do. Vicarious tyrant mufuckas
The willful ignorance at work in this country is repulsive and shameful.
I am reminded of Grant's quote at Appomattox regarding the last bunch of State's Rights wingnuts:
"I felt anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though the cause was?one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.[/b]"
Just remember this next time your predictable bitch self laments that you share a country with the wingnuts: they tried to leave and 'heroes' like Grant stopped them.
Lincoln didn't end slavery, he universalized it, not that a little fascist like you cares just so long as he can be made to believe that the whip will never meet his back. So yeah, cheer on, cheer on loud and long. I want that cheer to still be echoing when you become a victim of that which your stupidity, venality and worship of power has helped create.
I haven't listened to that, but from my own observations, yes, it is, and I'm not even sure how this is in question.
I first re-visited America (lived there as a v.young sprog) when I was 14 (in 1991). England's economy and standard of living at that time was nothing like America's, and there might have been one or two over-weight kids in the whole school I attended (not even obese, just over-weight, and typically they were called 'fatty' by all the other kids).
When I got to Atlanta airpot, I saw more obese people in the first 20 minutes on American soil than I'd seen in my whole life. It took reserves of self-restraint I was unaware I had up til then to stop myself from bursting out in laughter. These people shuffling around like bipedal walruses looked comical. I then journeyed through Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee, and stayed in Memphis - poor states with a hell of a lot of obesity.
That was 1991. I was last in the States (Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee) August '09, still a lot of very, very fat people. The closer England has followed the American way-of-life, the closer English levels of obesity have followed America's. To question whether or not there's an epidemic? Open your eyes. There is here.
But in some areas they truly were the Greatest Generation.
I think they f*cked it all up though. They had the most to gain, but also the most to lose, and they pissed it all away. There hasn't been as much social protest since, and it feels like the establishment co-opted all of their good intentions (and every generation's since) with the consumerist world we live in now where we've never been more aware of the consequences of our actions, and yet never been more willing to turn a blind eye. IMHO.
Vietnam protests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iraq/Afghanistan protests for example
Comments
I can speak only for myself, but I can't respect said thought not because I disagree that women should think seriously about their parenting abilities but because you really seem to be making a normative statement that women *ought* to stay home if they become a mother.
Last post on this. I cannot deal.
I didn't quote any rate. I actually said I don't know what the rate is.
By anecdotal experience, it is high, because in my life - and this is certainly not true of everyone, everywhere - many of my friends have been raised in single parent homes, broken homes, divorced homes.
I am much better because my parents chose to divorce. Marriage is not some pie in the sky, it's hard work (as you know). If the marriage is not working, 2 happy separate parents > 2 angry parents together (this also, I think you know).
You are talking out of your ass here and I find it very offensive.
I am saying this in the nicest way I can.
I can see why you would think that.
I'm not sexist in the least....a man who stays home and raises his kids is great..... I believe one Strutter does this and it's a real testament to "doing the right thing".
Divorce rates have declined from their all-time highs in the 1970s. They're still high in the U.S. compared to most other Western countries, but for educated, middle class couples (i.e. most of the people on Strut), the odds for a successful marriage are in your favor.
The scenario that JP describes - not knowing that many people who grew up with a two-parent household - is highly unusual if you look at the national averages. Overwhelmingly, most American kids grow up with both parents.
However, depending on where you live, who you hang out with, etc., it's possible to have it skewed in the other direction. Maybe it's a Berkeley thing - it is a more libertarian city, it's possible that it tends to attract/produce more divorced families. However, given that Berkeley's population has shifted more upper class and educated in the last 20 years, I would bet that the divorce rate has actually declined in the city.
In any case, the idea that divorce damages kids can't be allowed to just float out there without asking: how do kids growing up in a dysfunctional household where their parents don't get along damage them? The fact is, there are kids out there who are going to get emotional scars REGARDLESS if their parents stay together or not.
When it comes to kids and family structure, one of the greatest predictors for future success is *stability*. Children of divorced parents who grow up with a single parent have better educational outcomes than children of divorced parents who *remarry*. And the reason is that a single parent household where there's no remarriage at least maintains a consistent set of parental figures. In contrast, children subjected to a parade of step-parents (since the divorce rate amongst 2nd marriages is higher than it is among 1st marriages) experience a loss of stability, a lack of consistent parental figures.
So basically, the BEST thing you can give your kids is stability. And if you and your spouse are warring with one another and clearly out of love and completely disinterested and disrespectful of one another, that is NOT stability. Divorce sucks but it's not a worse alternative than forcing two people who can't get along to stay together.
In class today, we were talking about why you'd want easier paths to divorce (e.g. the introduction of no-fault legislation, for example) and one of my students raised her hand to say, "I think divorce should be made easier; I wish my parents had gotten divorced earlier than they did."
I didn't stop to check to see if she's emotionally scarred though.
The 1950s ideal of "Leave It to Beaver" was a fiction. While those families existed they were always the exception, never the rule for *most* Americans.
I don't think having one stay-at-home parent is "doing the right thing" if that means NOT having that arrangement means you're doing the wrong thing.
I think raising your kids in a loving, supportive household is what's most important.
And if the woman moves for a divorce, it's not out of selfishness. It's out of self-defense and doing the best thing for her kids. Lots of exceptions every single day that don't fit your simple rules.
What I'm talmabout.
Ok, seriously though, I don't see how any of these rules are going to work without finding a way to keep premiums down and tort reform.
Legal Strutters - tort reform, yay or nay?
I'm not claiming BOTH parents are selfish.....most times it's only one selfish spouse....like the drunk asshole in your example.
Two selfish parents = "You're Fucked Lottery Winner".
I don't think I've ever met any. If it isn't one thing it's another. Nobody grows up perfect, and I doubt if they did they would be ready for the unforgiving reality of life.
i have a lot of doctor friends and it is makes me cringe every time they bring up malpractice. first, why the f*ck should people who suffer horrible injuries and death have a cap on their injuries? it is a total mockery of our legal system that some arbitrary cap gets placed on pain & suffering. second, there is absolutely no proof that putting caps on pain & suffering would lower malpractice insurance and also lower general insurance rates. we are talking about the greedy, unscrupulous private insurance companies. third, the absolute maximum that malpractice cases could be responsible for amount to less than 2% of healthcare costs. fourth, the idea that doctors are practicing "defensive medicine" must be balanced with the truth that they get paid for every "service" they perform. the more tests they give you, the more $ they make. this was covered in a great article in the New Yorker that was quoted by Obama in the fall.
moreover, let me dispel the myth that malpractice cases are often "frivolous". in pennsylvania, let me tell you what goes in to initiating a malpractice case. first i have to get copies of all the medical records (average cost is $500-$1000). next, i need to send it to an expert for an evaluation and a certificate of merit (average cost - $2,000). then, if my expert thinks its a good case, and our firm believes it is not only a good case, but one that we can eventually (probably several years down the road) make money on, we start suit. after spending thousands of dollars on depositions, expert reports, traveling all over the place to depose various people and god knows whatever extra misc costs, we get to trial (tens of thousands of dollars in pre-trial costs on a decent sized case). at trial, a majority of jurors instinctively don't want to see anyone get paid and believe that doctors can do no wrong. if you can get past all those hurdles, even with a great case, you might have a 50/50 chance of getting a decent jury verdict because the average juror is an idiot who won't understand anything that is going on and was probably sleeping half the time.
so why the f*ck would a lawyer spend all of his own money on a frivolous case? the deck is stacked against you anytime you sue a doctor (its like suing the cops, but worse).
/rant
For real though, Rock is always coming with the, "people who don't live their lives exactly the way my parents and I have are doing it wrong." Pulling the crazy generalizations right out of his ass. But this one is by far the worst of this shit I have ever seen. Self righteous baby boomer bullshit.
What? A trip to Wendy's takes me around 5 minutes, there and back, off-peak hours. I couldn't even cook a hotdog in that time.
Priorities may be out of wack, but cooking = work. Watching TV doesn't. Most Americans don't want to do MORE work after they just got done, ya know, working.
This is especially true if you lack basic cooking skills (like me and most Americans). I know the Strut has a high perecentage of foodies and whatnot, so I feel this fact is becoming a little lost in the debate.
This is true if you happen to live in, like most of the Strut, a middle class, middle-aged home. Your home is already stocked with all of the basic cooking supplies. This includes working appliances, as well as knives, pots, pans, plates, silverware, etc. These are all cooking "costs." Basic pantry items as well: eggs, milk, butter, oils, spices, grains, etc. These all add (significantly) to the cost of a meal if your pantry is not already well-stocked. Think of them as "start-up costs" if you want. For me, and many Americans, they are prohibitive. Especially if, as I have already mentioned, you lack cooking knowledge.
You guys are ignoring basic economic reality by claiming that cooking at home is cheap and efficient. If it were, everyone would already be doing it. If you want to pacify yourself by claiming we are all simply "too lazy," go ahead.
This goes to the heart of my earlier point. Making a burger is nowhere near as simple as this. It requires a working cook top and basic patty frying knowledge (OK, not that high of a barrier). It also requires condiments, if you don't want to eat a piece of meat on a piece of bread: lettuce, tomato, mayonnaise, cheese, onion, etc. and oil for frying. Secondly, are you going to make all these burgers at once? If yes, you better eat them before they go bad. If no, then you better make them before your buns spoil. If you take into consideration all of these factors, the cost of a McDonald's cheeseburger and a homemade one are not even close to comparable.
NOW BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND:
I'm surprised there is so much concern over excessive testing, etc. being expressed in here and no one has mentioned that the bill does provide for "outcome-based" evaluation of Dr.'s performances. This means less bullshit and more effective care. I think there is some malpractice reform, as well.
This is exactly the problem, which I think the health-care debate has highlighted more than any other issue. CONGRESS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM THERE IS IN THIS COUNTRY. I can't emphasize that enough. You need evidence? Look at the extents to which these clowns will go to keep their cushy gigs on Capitol Hill. We need term limits, period. And now. I heard one congressman say (I think on Bill Maher) he would gladly support this bill even if it meant his job (which it might). This should be the attitude every elected official has anytime they cast a vote. Their job is to represent their constituents by making the choices they feel are correct, NOT GETTING RE-ELECTED. I am not one to bash the system or complain about "how bad things are now," but this debate has really highlighted for me how desperately we need congressional term limits.
My man. They had their run (How'd that work out?). Now step the F*ck off.
We got this.
I accept that.
Best of luck to you.
Baby Boomers were pretty poor role models.
You could say that......but I recognize their shortcomings and therefore I don't bow down to them unconditionally.
But in some areas they truly were the Greatest Generation.
That's like "i dont have time to shit -im way too busy".
it's still a fee for service model you dumb shit. The only difference is who pays. Only a true fascist would think that paying for your own healthcare or receiving it at the charity of others is immoral while a system based on force and theft administered by histories bloodiest and least humane institution is an example of social progress.
You're all disgusting little despots who lack moral swag and get their pussies wet just thinking about the destruction of the american ideal. You don't seem to have any political beliefs which don't boil down to wanting uniformed men with guns forcing people to do whatever it is you want them to do. Vicarious tyrant mufuckas
Just remember this next time your predictable bitch self laments that you share a country with the wingnuts: they tried to leave and 'heroes' like Grant stopped them.
Lincoln didn't end slavery, he universalized it, not that a little fascist like you cares just so long as he can be made to believe that the whip will never meet his back. So yeah, cheer on, cheer on loud and long. I want that cheer to still be echoing when you become a victim of that which your stupidity, venality and worship of power has helped create.
I haven't listened to that, but from my own observations, yes, it is, and I'm not even sure how this is in question.
I first re-visited America (lived there as a v.young sprog) when I was 14 (in 1991). England's economy and standard of living at that time was nothing like America's, and there might have been one or two over-weight kids in the whole school I attended (not even obese, just over-weight, and typically they were called 'fatty' by all the other kids).
When I got to Atlanta airpot, I saw more obese people in the first 20 minutes on American soil than I'd seen in my whole life. It took reserves of self-restraint I was unaware I had up til then to stop myself from bursting out in laughter. These people shuffling around like bipedal walruses looked comical. I then journeyed through Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee, and stayed in Memphis - poor states with a hell of a lot of obesity.
That was 1991. I was last in the States (Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee) August '09, still a lot of very, very fat people. The closer England has followed the American way-of-life, the closer English levels of obesity have followed America's. To question whether or not there's an epidemic? Open your eyes. There is here.
His country has been STOLEN. It's the DEATH of FREEDOM. Wouldn't you be angry?
I think they f*cked it all up though. They had the most to gain, but also the most to lose, and they pissed it all away. There hasn't been as much social protest since, and it feels like the establishment co-opted all of their good intentions (and every generation's since) with the consumerist world we live in now where we've never been more aware of the consequences of our actions, and yet never been more willing to turn a blind eye. IMHO.
Vietnam protests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iraq/Afghanistan protests for example