Fiannan

So what would you prefer -- that Bush NOT be firends with world leaders?

Where do you get your crazy ideas anyway? Pinching the skin!!! As long as the woman wears the correct size there is no pinching. Sheeeesh. Finnian has this inane notion that he knows all about women, including their sexuality, and now even their underwear. Sheesh! Elphaba Yeah, whatever! Most women I have ever had association with actually have complained about how bras constrict circulation. Of course you can read anything you want into that.

I also have thought that there could be other variables. For instance, women who generally don't wear bras tend to be more "earth motherish" from where I was raised -- more likely to spend a lot of time outdoors, aren't overwieght, and more natural in all respects. So maybe the bra thing isn't totally connected. However, one wonders if having something pinching your skin all the time can really be all that good for you.

While nothing is 100% effective in health -- hey, even non-smokers occasionally die of lung cancer -- here are some things that can help women avoid developing breast cancer. Too bad this information doesn't get out to the public on a massive scale. 1) Get exposure of your body to sunlight. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/h...icle2195614.ece 2) Try to minimize, or elliminate, the use of bras. http://www.all-natural.com/bras.html 3) Having a lot of kids. http://www.imaginis.com/breasthealth/news/news10.24.02.asp 4) Exercise regularly. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3093838.stm

Well, just to be fair another country that has a lot of women tricked into sexual slavery and sent there:

Not to mention how many women wind up being tricked into the sex slavery thing and wind up being bought by some wealthy Saudi to add to his harem.

You know, I am not sure who is/was the best wizard at twisting events and distorting reality -- Michael Moore or Walter Martin.

Clinton generally never told lies, he was just an expert at half truths. Oh wait, the thing about not raising taxes on the middle class, that was a blatent lie.

Then again, there's one candidate that wants us to send troops to Pakistan!!!!!!

Just curious, there are a lot of really bad movies out there that are actually really fun to watch. Anyone care to admit their preferences? I'll start: Plan 9 From Outer Space Blackula Rocky Horror Picture Show

Yeah, Renfield is actually the main person of interest in Bram Stoker's Dracula but everybody just assumes it's a story about a vampire. Sorry, can't resist.

Uh, who th heck is High Clan Lord Sola’lor anyway? He doesn't have anything to do with this guy, does he? http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Image:Count_Iblis.jpg

Okay, I get the point -- it's not polygamy that is in question here. Jeffs is a skinny, white male who wears glasses and that is the central point of the article being published.

Yeah, and so what? Is his freakishness related to polygamy or was he just a freak (like millions of other men and women in the USA) in the first place?

Hey, don't give our stake president any ideas!:) Seriously though, a female politician for the Christian party in Sweden a couple of years ago was worried about the low birthrate in Sweden. She got a lot of attention for proposing that the state TV stations should be made to play nothing but porn movies all day on Saturdays so Swedes (who may have a reputation for being all sexual but in reality generally score very low on surveys of frequency of...well, you know when comparred to other countries) would have more interest in sex and therefore start making more babies. Proposal never went further than this however.

Did forget Duran Duran and Def Leppard.

Hey, as long as the Russians promote sex and babies within marriage more power to them. It is encouraging to see one nation take an agressive role in trying to preserve its culture. I would not expect this sort of thing in the USA since leaders in both political parties care for nothing but power and money and if the birthrate is too low the solution is just to open up the borders. And most Christian leaders (except Catholics loyal to The Vatican and LDS leaders) seem to have the same philosophical outlook on marriage, divorce and birth control as the people who were labled humanistic materialists by Christian leaders just a couple of generations ago. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

For some reason this just seemed appropriate:

Brigham Young taught that people should listen to his sermons and then pray, read the scriptures and essentially test the things he was teaching to see if they seemed to conform to the Gospel message. In my experience in the Church, and this is a gross generalization to be sure, there are different types of Mormons. 1) Everything that the leaders say in the Church is absolute truth and even if it did (hypothetically) totally contradict precident and the message of the scriptures these people would accept it. 2) People who believe the scriptures and the leaders of the Church and follow BY's above mentioned advice. 3) People who try to find something wrong with anything Church leaders say -- and even question the scriptures if they disagree with the person's personal ideology. I would hope we could all be in the second category. True, we all have problems with something in our lives and know we have to improve them but attacking the teachings of the leaders is not a good idea. I've pointed out before that while the Book of Ester is not necessarily scripture it does bring up a mindset that the early Hebrews seemed to hold to. When the Persian King wanted his wife to come to his official party and parade nude for the guests she refused (hey, the Persians were known for long, drunken parties that would make college kids on spring break seem docile). The message was that she set a bad precident that should not go out to the empire because it questioned the wife's duty to listen to the husband. We can assume Ester had no problem with being naked at Persian parties. David's wife criticized him for public nudity and was punished with infertility. Miriam condemned Moses for taking an Ethiopian wife and was punished for a week with leporesy. Yes, this may come across as promoting an authoritarian mindset but I am far from a conformist. I can question things the Church does or what an individual says in a high position but I will not go to the point of attack. That is a dangerous path that can lead to apostasy. When I joined the Church I was against the stands the leadership took on ERA, abortion, birth control and a few other issues. After a while I did humble myself and study these issues carefully and that caused a shift in my opinion. Conversion is never overnight and takes effort. However, we have to have a mindset that leaves open the possibility that we might be wrong on any issue and then leave open the idea that LDS Church leaders may have an edge on inspiration or interpretation of issues and they at least deserve the benefit of our examining their teachings.

Strange, I like music from the mid to late 70s but really don't know about the '80s. Except for groups like Heart or Fleetwood Mac, some of the David Lee Roth stuff, Frankie Goes to Hollywood, Depeche Mode and Pet Shop Boys I have to say that music didn't start getting fun again until the 1990s.

Elphaba, nobody has said that larger women cannot be beautiful. In fact, there are men who prefer larger women and traditionaly men from countries like Mexico found that a light complected and overweight woman was very high up on the beauty scale (I have talked to many tourists to Latin America who were surprised that the women who got hit on the most were those those who were heavy). That may have changed due to the globalization of TV culture in recent years. However, it is not healthy to be overweight. Are you a fan of Leonard Nimoy? He has a photography website that tries to capture beauty of women of all sizes but I cannot link it due to, well, you know how many professional photographers kinda...you know.

People really, really, really need to watch "Supersize Me" and have their kids watch it too. Being obese is as dangerous as being a smoker and society should not in any way try to see it as otherwise.

Sad to say but Sono_Hito does bring up some interesting and relevant points. Why do I say that? Well... The problem is that if you sanitize "so to speak" history then the danger is that the people who want to tear you down will be the ones who are bringing the "truth" to light -- but they will do it in such a way as to try to destroy one's faith in leaders. Then they will be the ones who will then call what the leaders taught or said or lived bad or evil. Danger is, if you hide things from members then it may destroy people's faith if it is revealed by those with a negative agenda. Look at discussions we have had here about birth control or polygamy. Fifty years ago if someone said having a large family was ideal few people would have questioned that opinion -- they might not have agreed with it but it would have been mainstream enough to be considered a polite view to have and express in mixed company. In today's "modern" world if you express this view you risk being called an anti-feminist, a Neandertal, or even a racist. Maybe this is why the Church tip toes around the issue of birth control. Danger is, that if young people have not heard the Church doctrine expressed and discussed there are many who will react quite negatively and even hostile if they look at a quote from a church leader from the past condemning birth control. Same with polygamy. Live it, or don't live it...look forward to its return or shudder at the thought, but it was not and is not immoral if we use the Bible as our compass. However, if we try to erase 26 out of Brigham Young's 27 wives the same way the Chinese will take official photoes from encyclopedias and photoshop out someone who feel into disfavor with the party line then we do our history and people's testimonies a disservice.

Elphaba, the problem with screening people out in the days of Ellis Island was that the sheer numbers of people coming in made it impossible to individually process everyone. However, especially in the early part of the 20th. Century the ideal was that screening would take place. You are correct that only 1 in 50 people were denied entry but again, the notion of screening was there (it was just impractical). However, it is notable that it was the entrepreneurial people who tended to be the pioneers to the USA. The people who left Europe wanted something better. The desperately poor could not afford to leave, those satisfied there stayed and the rich stayed. Those who support the notion of the risk-taking personality (type T) feel this explains both our greatness as well as a high crime rate. So keep up the condescending attitude Elphaba -- it's still fun to debate 'ya.

What are you talking about. There's no debate about immigration. There is distress of ILLEGAL immigration - you know, breaking the law, or do you think crime is irrelevant? Given your support for eugenics, and your arrogant comments like "best and the brightest," I have a hard time believing you would have let in hardly any of the immigrants that came through Ellis Island.Elphaba The idea of best and brightest is an excellent one. It should be one criteria for legal immigration. We need all the smart gals and guys we can get. Hey, did you catch the Ali G movie where he gets elected to parliamment in England and enacts a law to only allow pretty girls to immigrate to England because there are so few there now? The screening scene was absolutely hillarious. But seriously, the immigration policy of the USA used to be based on the idea of getting the best, brightest and healthiest people here. That's what Ellis Island was all about. Also, it is a myth that the only people who came to the USA were the poor and downtrodden. Adam Smith and Charles Darwin noted that the USA would become a great nation because it was the innovative middle classes that were leaving Europe and establishing a new life in the US. Hey, a ticket to go to America was way too expensive for the poor to afford.