I come from eastern Canada -- the fishery is central to the culture. I remember when the cod fishery collapsed, and the effect it had on my home. This is a difficult story... it is difficult to trust that the Atlantic salmon industry will be taken in hand and properly managed, as much as I would wish otherwise.

Recommended.

The 17 year old girl who was stoned was not a Muslim, but a Yezidi; this was a tribal honor killing that shows, very brutally, how societies rupture when they are destabilized. When the fabric of societies are torn apart by war, disease, drought, or environmental catastrophe, women are the most vulnerable to those effects. They tend to have less social and economic power and less mobility, among other things.

It's not enough, as this article claims, for "good men" to stand up. The connections between our lives and violence, our lives and war, are at the heart of the problem. There are structures that perpetuate the abuse of women, and they go beyond the individual standing-up of principled men. Fundamentalist religion is a source of structural violence against women -- diverse outspoken Muslim feminists will make that clear, as will women who hold other religious beliefs. There are other structures as well, such as socio-economic factors that encourage the abortions of female fetuses in countries like India and China.

This article brings up important points, though, and I especially appreciated that it didn't paint women merely as passive victims, but recognized that there are many brave voices that deserve attention and support. Thanks for posting.

On edit: the poster above mentioned the sex trade, and that's another important part of the interlinked chain. I remember a professor of international political economy who thought that international sex trafficking was unworthy of discussion -- not important like gold or oil or widgets. We brought him a stack of articles to change his mind. Didn't really work, unfortunately.

general? If you mean the icebergs -- that is correct; I checked in with my mother at home in St. John's, and she says the icebergs haven't come down along the water by Cabot Tower for a while now. Also, the climate in St. John's has drastically changed; the summers are much hotter than I ever remember. A "hot" summer day would have been in the high 60s, if that.

Somehow, a potential boom for the oil/gas companies doesn't make me feel much better... especially given the general penchant for destroying Newfoundland natural resources like the cod fishery.

My partner is involved in the state Democratic party, and gives his energy there. He's a yellow dog Dem all the way -- though sometimes, he jokes that a nice yellow lab would actually be a refreshing change.

His crowd sees HRC's run as all about the money. They have their favourite candidates, they will work hard for them -- but, there's no excitement about HRC and the mega-$$$ war chest, and its relation to entrenched economic/political power. They'll vote for whomever the party puts forward, but excitement about Hillary... not so much. He's got a meeting tonight -- I'll ask him how folks are feeling.

All purely anecdotal observations, of course, and I live in a pretty progressive town where a lot of folks admire Kucinich. I imagine it's a mixed bag in different parts of the country. But, based on anecdotal evidence, you're seeing what I'm seeing.

Even if humans have not one iota to do with these developments... why wouldn't you still be, you know, concerned?

I see climate change stories posted on news sites or general boards, and nay-sayers make jokes about it. Do they think it won't affect their lives, just 'cause they "got one" on The Liberals? Do they not think their food comes out of the ground and their rainfall comes out of the sky?

This, I do not get.

I spent most of my life in Canada, and I have no complaints about the health care system. I lived in eastern Ontario, Quebec, and eastern Canada. I had a surgical procedure when I was 25, plenty of prescriptions, and lots of routine gyn appointments. The only bad thing I can say about the Canadian health care system is, it doesn't save you from unfriendly doctors (had one or two of those).

I don't worry about my aging mother in Newfoundland getting proper medical care -- I know we won't be ruined if she is every injured or ill.

I never knew what it was to be frightened of an illness or an injury until I came to live in the U.S. I'd heard of that fear, but never really understood it. Now, my SO and I discuss it, and I worry how we would take care of him if his health failed. It's an awful feeling... and I even have minimal insurance.

It's a completely different paradigm. While social programs in Canada are certainly under attack, I could not imagine even explaining to my mother what people down here face.

Rossing has been very vocal that rapture theology is extra-biblical and theologically harmful.

As for Revelation, it has been a point of contention since it was written at the end of the 1st century. It was one of many apocalyptic texts circulating at the time, and some might have known other popular books -- say, the Shepherd of Hermas -- instead. Some early church fathers saw Revelation as dangerous or theologically unsound -- though what is interesting is putting it in its historical context. It's a brutal critique of the Roman Empire, and is most fascinating in that light. There's actually a body of literature that uses Revelation to critique modern imperialism, especially in Latin America.

I also just used an article that argues that Revelation can be used to critique how imperialism destroys the environment.

This is not to say that it's a nice or pleasant book, and there's also a body of feminist theory that is frequently (and justifiably) appalled at Revelation. One feminist theorist calls the Jesus of Revelation "the Hunk God" who comes to earth as a macho super-warrior. In any case, I'm doing a lot of work with Revelation, but while it makes me understand it more, it doesn't necessarily make me like it. Just saying there are many takes on Revelation, and some use it for surprisingly constructive causes.

But Jimmy Carter was president when I was growing up in Canada. I was too young to really be aware of politics, but I remember always hearing about him in reasonably respectful terms -- the qualities that Canadians admire were stressed about him, such as peacemaking, diplomacy, and internationalism. From what little I remember, the hostage crisis was seen as a messy international problem -- as you say, in office during difficult times. It was not any personal moral sin of weakness, as seems to have been the case in the US.

Also recall a general appalled feeling in Canada at Reagan.

I'd be curious if anyone else from another country has different recollections of Carter, as well. It might be just me, but it would be interesting to hear any other international takes.

Whenever I hear someone in power repeat the meme that class is off the table ("so and so is talking about class warfare!") I get upset. Class and per above, it's intersection with race and gender, are crucial issues. And yet, we lurch along, denying that these issues even exist.

I forwarded yesterday's diabetes GD thread to some people -- the thread wondering how the poor deal with the treatment of diabetes. I couldn't get that thread out of my mind. The real success story I saw there was the poster whose father had been a coalminer, and the union took such good care of him, happily.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

I suppose there's a huge cost -- not just politically, but to the American psyche in general -- in admitting all this.

the problem. We can continue these policies because Iraqis (or insert other group here) are less human than "us".

Further ripping the fabric of an already torn society does not improve human rights. In particular, handing the country over to a group of warlords who helped rip that fabric... really not going to improve human rights. This vicious meme that war can stabilize societies has to stop. Sanctions, coups, bombs, occupation, corporate ambitions -- these are not the way to build a more stable and just society.

Post #1 really struck me: "That's why America is such a peaceful place. We have an orderly politics based on futility, and a cohesive social system based on pants-soiling fear."

I'm wondering, are materialism/media saturation and social division the distractions from that fear-based system? Reinforcer? Just other elements in the holy trinity? Whatever way you slice it, it seems that part of the issue here is a society where power is enforced by *fear*. And what should we call that beast?

I mean, I'm not sure this polemic requires a response, but as much as I have my moments of existential angst, I try not to see life as trivial, self-important, meaningless. Why doesn't the guy go do some good in the world? My heroes are teachers, educators, volunteers workers, people involved in humanitarian work, peacekeeping, or conflict resolution. Why doesn't the this gentleman go join the Peace Corps, or teach some ESL, or volunteer at an animal shelter, or take up hospice work, if his life is so meaningless?

Good grief, you could create a computer generate a program for these.

"Unconfirmed sources"

"Spoke on the condition of anonymity"

"an unnamed official"

Bah.

Oh no, that would never happen, the executive branch would never do such a thing. Rather, it will be mission creep, an expansion of the current conflict, something we were drawn into in Iraq to complete the project. (Whatever "the project" may be.)