Betty Dodson with Carlin Ross

Better Orgasms. Better World.

 0 items

• Login
• Join

Search this site:

with everything you've just said, but we are different, and the question is in a position of power how would you deal with the situation yourself 
If a competent elected democratic government is at risk of falling to a military coup of unelected idealogs, how would you deal with the request for assistance by the elected government. What kinds of rules do you think we should put around requests for assistance.

Jim Crow is alive and well today. It's called mass incarceration, it pretends it is color-blind, and what are the consequences of imprisonment? No access to education, no access to public housing, no access to employment, no access to governmental assistance, and continual harassment. All for having minute quantities of drugs in one's possession, perhaps no drugs in one's possession but being pressured into pleading guilty to something one didn't do, etc.

Yes, we now have prominent African-Americans; it's the American way to hold up a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama, and say, see, no gender or racial barriers here. But we have a hopeless undercaste now and little interest anywhere in society in changing this tragedy. As Michelle Alexander writes, There must be a movement that truly changes our American culture or something will come along to replace the new Jim Crow with more of the same.

Jake, I can't solve the world's problems, but the world would have a lot fewer problems if NATO (using NATO for shorthand for the U.S. and Europe) would stop fomenting wars all over the globe. We arm both sides (Iraq-Iran war) or we arm so-called rebels (Libya, Syria), then throw up our hands about what to do regarding the disastrous consequences to civilians. The U.S. is the world's greatest exporter of weaponry then we whine when the weapons are turned on us, which is very funny if you think about it.

The U.S. probably engineered the coup in Honduras; I think the response of the Latin American countries, which are becoming far more liberal than the U.S. and Europe, has been the only possible one: to condemn the overthrow of the democratically elected president and the resultant dictatorship. I am sure we are trying to do the same thing in every other Latin American nation; we tried it with Chavez and the Venezuelan people spoke. I don't think you understand how fantastic non-interference would be; democratically elected governments wouldn't have to be asking for help if they weren't being continually undermined.

By the way, the Egyptians overthrew MUBAREK pretty quickly. The army actually runs the country and hasn't gone anywhere, and I'm sure Egyptians would be the first people to tell you that nothing has changed. Beware the U.S.A. as a friend; it supported Mubarek for years but was ready to toss him aside as a pretense of change.

Tobysgirl thanks for answering the 1st question. But what would you do about the 2nd question. If a civil war produces a humanitarian disaster  and civilian refugees are living in an NGO's camp inside that countries borders. How do you protect those refugees.

In the 3rd question, we must all surely agree that western backed military coups that overthrew democratically elected governments were bad, but our task in the 3rd question concerns how  we change now and in the future.  

If a competent elected democratic government is at risk of falling to a military coup of unelected idealogs, how would you deal with the request for assistance by the elected government. What kinds of rules do you think we should put around requests for assistance.
 

Patrick I think your right that sometimes change has taken a long time. But as I  felt when Bush got into power, prop 8 passed and Egyptians overthrew their government pretty swiftly, aren't the ruling class in a contemprary society in fact the majority, who are online and armed with consumer dollars and camera phones.

Patrick what if you were in office, how would you deal with question 3, Would you enter soveriegn territory to protect refugees or would you deal with the problem in another way. 

Any solutions, Jake, have to be envisioned in the long term. You've asked some very important questions, but the superpower governments we're talking about are not going to suddenly start cooperating for the good of humanity. These folks have been in the cynical, selfish power game far too long. Their militaristic tendencies are very deeply entrenched in the ruling classes but they aren't immutable. Like slaveholders, the ruling elites won't willingly give up their privileges and they are unlikely to change their ways any time soon. The only force that has a chance at effecting real change is continuous popular (I don't mean violent) political and economic pressure. This is difficult partly because the ruling classes own the mass media and therefore directly control and shape the flow of information that forms popular opinion. Naturally, nearly every 'fact' we get on television and in other media has gone through a kind of template that filters out most dissenting information (although the Internet has begun to change the game.)

In practical terms, it will take a prolonged change in consciousness that comes about through persistence and through organizing with like-minded, peace-oriented people. A good analogy might be with the American civil rights movement. It began long ago, but it was not until the middle 20th century that the hard, courageous work of pioneers like Frederick Douglass actually bore much tangible fruit. 'Jim Crow', apartheid-style racial laws were the rule in the US well into the 1960s, as I remember from my own childhood. Now that has totally changed, and similar legal rights are gradually being extended to more and more formerly disenfranchised groups. The concept that every human being has equal dignity and inherent rights would have been met with incredulity for most of human history, in which slavery was universally accepted as both 'normal' and desirable. We now know without any doubt that societies can be transformed for the better, but often in ways that appear so gradual and evolutionary that they may seem imperceptible during one human lifetime. Fortunately the work of transforming societies into more compassionate, equitable communities has already begun in the form of the human rights movements that have taken root all over the world. These movements are here to stay.  Like many of those before us, we won't live to see the complete realization of our dreams, but we can try to contribute something to that more peaceful future.

SUPER VIDEO!!!!!

Yes, the only reason so-called terrorists -- your question does not deal with the state-sponsored terror your nation and mine inflicts on a DAILY basis -- are interested in hurting Westerners is due to their perceptions of gross injustice. The U.S. basically started the first Gulf War by suggesting to Saddam Hussein that he was free to cross lines drawn by the British in the sand. When he did so, it became the perfect excuse to build a base in Saudi Arabia, which infuriated fundamentalist Muslims.

Do you dislike the government in Iran as do many Iranians? They had a democratically elected president in the 1950s whom the U.S. overthrew at the request of British Petroleum, installing the Shah, one of the world's most vicious dictators.

I strongly doubt the efficacy of UN "peacekeepers." Do you have any idea how much the Haitian people -- who continue, two centuries later, to be persecuted by France, Canada, and the U.S. -- hate and despise UN personnel? UN personnel who were running brothels in what used to be Yugoslavia? Have you ever asked yourself how Yugoslavia, a liberal, relatively wealthy nation, ended up in chaos? I have to read more about it, but there are those who say it was U.S. efforts at destabilization.

Your country and mine have done nothing except create misery all over the world, so our bleeding hearts for their suffering citizens don't mean much to me. We need to stop interfering and thinking we have the right to interfere.

Honduras had a democratically elected president overthrown by a military coup. The U.S. supports the takeover, which has left Honduras horribly violent, as it did Pinochet in Chile. My country has a long history of supporting the military coups of unelected ideologues, so I'm not worried about us assisting any democratically elected governments.

Probably the best book on this is "Surviving America's Depression Crisis" by Bruce E. Levine.  For the most part,  Betty does not say that everyone should go off their medications.  But her thoughts line up quite accurately with Dr. Levine's.  He does not say anyone should go off their medications if they are helping you.  But he scathingly questions the larger issues around anti-depressants,  the passive acceptance of chemical solutions to everything,  the ignorance of larger cultural aspect of modern life that lionize CONFORMITY and SUPPRESSION of individuality,  the fact that no one questions the effectiveness of the pills, when largely they only work if you BELIEVE in them,  and if they are truly anti-depressants,  why do they suppress sexual drive, which SHOULD be a normal, healthy and positive thing?  He also dares to ask,  Whats wrong with being a little depressive now and then?  Also, the pill solution evolved because no-one wanted to stigmatize depression.  The goal was to prevent people from believing depression was "their fault".   Yet that issue has backfired since now they are only responsible to take their pills.  But assigning blame to something else (brain chemistry) has damaged the morale and motivation depressed people need to DO SOMETHING more than just wait for their diagnosis and new pill.   This is all very disempowering.  Our culture has a lot of blame to take for depression, and yet we try to solve that problem with a pill.  For a lot of people,  they're still taking the pills,  and still waiting for results.

Do you think the only reason Islamic terrorists attack in the west  is because of the US coalitions involvement in the middle east and if there was no involvement, the acts of terror would be restricted to the middle east. 

Do you think the only response to a humanitarian disaster is to provide humanitarian assistance through NGO's and GO's or do you think we should provide refugees with UN security. 

If a competent elected democratic government is at risk of falling to a military coup of unelected idealogs, how would you deal with the request for assistance by the elected government. What kinds of rules do you think we should put around requests for assistance. 

Where do I begin? The ruling classes -- some of whom are at the very top of the military -- use war to further enrich themselves by destroying resources. Use up endless military materiel and then make more; the DOD is the single largest consumer of fossil fuels on the planet.

The alternatives? I am old enough to realize alternatives will not be pursued. I can think of endless alternatives, the first one being that war NEVER makes life better for women and children. It is not your business to go to another country and tell them how they need to be decent and humane; look at yourself first. How can Americans be self-righteous about rape in India? We live in a country where rape and militarism are woven densely into the culture.

What is the first alternative? Stop supporting fundamentalists. The U.S. began funding what became the Taliban in the 1970s, all in the name of undermining the Soviet Union. We funded (are funding?) fundamentalists in Libya to overthrow Qadaffi. The debacle in Bengazi should have been no surprise; the State Department was well aware that Bengazi was HQ for the extremist fundamentalists we had been funding. Ditto, Syria. One may dislike Assad, but the "rebels" (would this sort of rebellion be permitted in the U.S. or U.K.?) offer nothing better and something probably much worse.

The only practical alternative is to inform yourself and stop thinking you have the right to tell other people how to behave through intervening in their nations. Become what you wish the world to be and learn to accept that the world is never going to be what you wish.

I will leave you with the paraphrased words of James Baldwin: You must learn to accept the world as it is, to realize it is okay, and at the same time, you must never accept the world as it is and work for justice. This is called paradox and is to my mind the essence of spirituality. And as D'Angelo says:

AIN'T NO JUSTICE, JUST US.

I envisage a world police run by the UN, rather than the US doing the policing and decision making. Cetainly there needs to be an international effort to stop people who kill innocent people but killing innocent people in the process isn't acceptable. My point is it's very easy to say what is wrong but very difficult to propose alternatives. 

If in a failing state acid is thrown at little girls going to school, that is of interest to all humanity. If people plan to bomb a passenger train in Newyork or Iraq because they resent that interest how do you deal with them. How do you protect innocent people, how do you stand up for human rights. Complaining  about the financial self interest of the US military is valid but it's not enough, we need to propose alternatives here, and criticise each others ideas so we have good alternatives. 

As an example you can say the British should get out of America, we're paying them taxes. But what do you replace the british with. Jake says let landowners elect a monarch for life. Tobygirl crits that. In the end many people create a dialogue and exchange ideas and the US constitition is born. A world constitution for dealing with conflict that isn't self interested , that pools resources and spreads decision making can come from positive constructive ideas. We all know what is wrong here, what are our suggested solutions.  

My girlfriend is plus-sized, much shorter and probably similar in weight.  Having her on top of me is one of my favorite positions, and it is not a problem for me at all.  No discomfort.  I like for her to have the control that she has on top of me, and I also like looking up at her gorgeous body and the look of pleasure in her face.  And I can reach up and fondle her titties or play with her clit very easily in that position when I don't have to support myself.  And like you said, if she begins to tire, she can lay on top of me.  It feels wonderful that way, too.  But then, I find that everything that we do feels wonderful.
We have never tried any contraptions like you describe, but that would be interesting.  Unless her weight is really a problem, I'm not sure it is worth the hassle of rigging it up, except for just some additional sexual variety.  I would suggest that she talk to him to see if her weight is a problem for him at all when she is on top.  If she finds that he does consider it to be a problem, it would be fun to work together to devise a positon or equipment to resolve the issue.  But until she talks to him, she is just assuming that it is a problem.
If it is not a problem for the woman for a normally heavier man to be on top, why should it be a problem for a heavy woman to be on top of the man. 

HUH? I find this discussion unbelievable. It assumes our government somehow has the right to stun people from above, then sort them out into acceptable/unacceptable folks. It reeks of a hubris I cannot even comprehend. The USA needs to get the fuck out of other people's countries, it being the number one obstacle to peaceful negotiation the world over. Who is going to stun us from on high and then sort us out?