“Not everyone who wears a turbin is a radical fundamentalist Muslim - or even Muslim - or wearing it in order to be attractive to you. This particular man is a Sikh and perhaps you should learn about that religion before you describe it as disrespectful to women. It is anything but...”
“I would hope you see yourself as a women's advocate. I'm not defending Miley Cyrus in any way - I thought the whole thing was pathetic. I think it's sad that other performances that were actually entertaining (Justin Timberlake, etc.) are completely overshadowed by media nonsensical attention to this - guaranteeing that it will happen again and again.”
Stephen Stafford on Aug 28, 2013 at 11:14:21
“While I would not use that language to describe myself, I certainly do advocate in support of women's issues.
We are on the same page.”
“Before you defend Robin Thicke, make sure you're familiar with the words he was singing - the lyrics to Blurred Lines - pretty vulgar and nasty... even criminal.”
Stephen Stafford on Aug 28, 2013 at 09:49:05
“I think some women's advocates and such hear "rapey" things that I do not, and that very different hearing and sense of meaning deeply colors ones' feelings about the actual song.
I am much more concerned about the Marvin Gaye ripoff aspect. Ironic, because no matter how one feels, Sexual Healing is needed in a number of regards related to this song.”
Stephen Stafford on Aug 28, 2013 at 09:25:18
“Those lyrics, like most, are subject to how you interpret and what you hear when sung. The song can be heard many ways.
However, I was not defending Thicke per se, as much as noting his behavior within the context of Cyrus' purposefully and raunchy performance.
Thicke, as the artist who made the song, used sexy rather than vulgar his emphasis, and that has been his consistent presentation. Cyrus clearly chose to be as vulgar as she could imagine.”
“This issue really goes much deeper than what size clothes AF chooses to stock in their stores. The company has a long standing record for illegal employment discrimination with a landmark case settled for $50 million with the EEOC (with 2 additional private settlements) because they refused to permit "unattractive" non-white employees to work on the sales floor. They made them work in the back room. They continue discriminatory practices and were in the paper yesterday for refusing to make Holister's stores compliant so wheelchairs can maneuver safely. The comments of the CEO are just the tip of the iceberg next to their discriminatory practices.”
“Thanks for the clarification. You must see yourself as a fatty disabler. What a powerful position that must be for you. How many fatties have you disabled this week? Do you pick on the other groups that AF discriminates against too? They don't like minorities, women or people with disabilities either.”
Far-Right-Liberal on May 25, 2013 at 02:05:21
“And as for your other question, about 8 and a half.”
Far-Right-Liberal on May 25, 2013 at 02:04:51
“No, those people aren't being discriminated against for killing themselves with poor lifestyle choices.”
“So the people who are speaking up in disgust about a company that has a horrible record of discrimination and its Herman Munster CEO from super cool town Columbus, Ohio are going to die of heart disease and the company is going to recover and go on with record profits? I guess your heart disease jab is insinuating that anyone critical of AF's business practices is overweight and therefore in the crosshairs for heart disease. Pitiful. Sounds like you don't know much about health or business.”
Far-Right-Liberal on May 25, 2013 at 01:40:13
“That is, one who enables fatties, not an enabler who is a fatty, just to clarify.”
“The CEO's comments weren't just an off-the-cuff remark with no meaning behind them. The company is built on a pattern of illegal discrimination. If that is what you believe in and wish to support, continue to spend your money with them and defend them.
Here's a landmark $50 million case that they settled along with 2 additional privately settled cases for discriminating against women and minorities. One of the main claims was that they didn't want the "unattractive" non-white employees working on the sales floor, so they kept them in the back room. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-18-04.cfm
“I was referring to your comment on the chart. I understand payroll taxes and divided them when I estimated the percentages. Maybe you can explain your initial comment to me about drawing the line down the middle of the chart - I guess I missed something.”
Joffan on May 24, 2013 at 15:22:47
“You need to add half the payroll taxes to the corporate tax. Then the corporate share stays fairly steady. Whether that is enough is a different question; the article's premise was that corporate contribution to the tax base has been dwindling to nothing, which doesn't hold up so well with the payroll tax element properly apportioned.”
“For everyone with the "too little too late" comments - the Church is 2000 years old and has over a billion members - more than 400,000 priests. It's not going anywhere. This pope, in a very short period of time, has made statements and decisions that indicate that he is the most progressive and inclusive pope the Church has ever had. We, in the United States, are only one country of the Catholics - there are many that are far more conservative than we are. Is everything perfect? Absolutely not - but I don't see how when he is clearly changing many of the ways of doing business in the Church (creating transparency in sexual abuse cases, prioritizing poverty, inclusiveness) he does not deserve support for his effort to change the course. You can't turn the Titanic in an instant.”
Aeropage135 on May 23, 2013 at 13:04:23
“Yes, those "too little too late" statements are amusing, given a) atheists' opinions on it mean precisely nothing in terms of effect, and b) the atheists are to only ones -guaranteed- to be eliminated, according to -themselves-.”
“Due to protocol, it would be appropriate for all accusations to be turned over to the AG for an INVESTIGATION. This is in no way inappropriate. What is questionable is to go public with a press release using this language that is technically not libelous but leaves the reader with the impression that this priest has done something terrible without a single supporting fact that he has done so.
Maybe he has - and if he has, the facts will come out - but it looks like they want him out and are trying to destroy his reputation. It happens all the time.
Also understand that it is perfectly legal for someone to open an investigation about you and print that they are investigating you in the media.”
Dieter Zerressen on May 10, 2013 at 10:51:52
“Sorry, at this point in time, for me, all priests are guilty until proven innocent. Maybe they didn't bugger any little kids themselves but many knew what was going on. The RCC has a huge image problem ALL brought onto themselves. I don't feel sorry for any of them - let the Devil sort it out.”
“Where do you get your 80% statistic on gay priests? Does that include the sexual abuse of females? It's interesting that you alone know this since the records on all sexual abuse within the Church have never been made public. It is a myth that homosexuals commit most child sexual abuse. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the majority of substantiated sexual abuse is committed against males by males who self-identify as heterosexual (in one study by 98 %). When we focus our attention on one group - inaccurately - it permits abuse to go on undetected because we are unaware.”
“This press release is worded very carefully to avoid out-and-out libel while surely attempting to ruin this priest's reputation. There were "accusations that he misused funds in his home diocese and that he was engaged in an “inappropriate adult relationship.” ACCUSATIONS? Who made them? Absolutely anyone can make an accusation. As for an "inappropriate adult relationship," for a priest, that includes any adult sexual relationship at all. And that is probably at the core of all of this... If they had anything else on him, they would have laid it out there. Let's wait to see how it all plays out before we jump to conclusions that because an "accusation" is made - the individual is guilty of what he is accused of and more.”
Dieter Zerressen on May 9, 2013 at 21:02:20
“it was turned over to the state AG which means it wasnt some random accusation. The Church can dismiss a priest without trail and legal recourse. Thats been the problem in the past, the Church didnt act and the evidence was too old. This time probably because money not kids was involved the Church jumped right on it. Funny and sad.”
“There is a way to message privately on Facebook to one person (like an email). There is also a way to comment where others (you can select who) can see what you post. If you mean that they are not private in the sense that they are written on their individual phones and someone can pick them up and read them from their device if they don't delete them - that is true. Or in the sense that nothing online is ultimately ever private, that is also true. I am just making the point that young people communicate differently now and we need to work with the technology rather than deny them access to the internet for social communication.”
“I am so surprised by the comments here. "Just saying no" to technology and the internet for teenagers is not a realistic answer and neither is reading their private conversations between friends. By the way, the subject of this article is teens - not children.
A cell phone is the single most important device a teenager can have for their safety. They can use it to call 911, to call parents, for maps - I could go on but you get the point. This is not my opinion, it's the FBI's - many schools are reconsidering permitting students to carry cell phones silently with them to class. They can be a life saver in the event of a tragedy.
The assumption that young people are online trolling for trouble constantly is just wrong. The belief that they text or Facebook things to each other that they wouldn't want their parents to read is probably accurate.
The world has changed. Kids don't talk face to face or on the phone like they did when we were kids. They text (privately) on Facebook and other social media sites and comment publicly on those sites as well. It is as perplexing to me as it is to the next person but there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. Best of luck to you if you try... your teen will head straight to a friend's house to go online. Better to teach responsible usage than pretend the internet doesn't exist.”
ima062002 on Dec 2, 2013 at 02:42:13
“But their conversations are not private really.”
Victorita9 on Dec 1, 2013 at 20:26:08
“There is always a middle ground. Just give them a flip phone with no internet.”
whalepeace on Dec 1, 2013 at 14:49:37
“Actually, they mostly use their cellphones for nonsense and sexting. Oh and for taking pictures of drunken passed-out girls they are raping.”
“I'm confused by your point I guess. It sounds like you are saying that truly hungry women (desperate) will become hungry enough to eat a burger (someone they don't truly desire) rather than wait for a steak (someone they do). Is that your point? And this has to do with sexual desires and companionship - correct?
What I am saying is that many women today (myself included) live really full lives with lots of companionship and sex and are fully self sufficient. I like living alone. I have a wonderful tribe of friends - male and female and a fabulous family. I would never see myself as waiting for a prince (or compare a man to eating a steak or hamburger for that matter).
I may decide to live with someone again someday - I'm not sure but I love my life right now and I plan on continuing to love my life no matter what my partner status is.”
jf12 on Nov 2, 2013 at 12:08:45
“Yes. But there's a vast difference between women who have lots of sex, and the vast majority of single older women commenting here, who have no sex BECAUSE they "don't need a man".”
“Searching for Sugar Man is nominated for the Academy Award for best documentary feature so it's not an alternative.”
hp blogger Greg Wetherall on Jan 17, 2013 at 05:00:34
“I think I may have answered this already on twitter, but in the event that I haven't adequately clarified my position, I would assert that the caveat of 'in the main' at the start of the article is a delicate acknowledgement that Searching For Sugar Man is a repetition. My assessment was on the best documentaries of the year, and my list differs considerably, save for that one feature. I hope this explains things a little better! Thank you for taking the time to read the article.”
“I have additional criticism of the United States legal system - I refuse to refer to it as a justice system. I was a victim of a violent crime. My attacker was white, educated, well-connected and could afford good legal counsel. Therefore, he was not a slam-dunk win for the elected prosecutor who runs for office and wins on those magnificent trial win numbers.
I'd like everyone in America to realize that those winning numbers are so high because the cases that prosecutors don't feel like they can absolutely win don't get prosecuted - and those criminals are free to offend again.”
njoytday on Dec 3, 2011 at 20:43:44
“It is a business and no justice is involved in many cases. Look at the divorce mill. Lawyers goad already miserable people to vent at a cost of 400 an hour and just stir up a hornets nest that has the poor couple stung while the lawyers haul away as much assets as they can.
I am almost retired, never was in a court, until recently. What an eye opener. You leave all your rights at the door and others use your need to get a divorce, which is not a crime, as a weapon to hold over you unless they deem you have forked over enough of your life savings to them. The criminals are the attorneys , where divorce cases are concerned. They lie and know they lie and they smear people who are totally innocent. They threaten little old ladies with incarceration and continue as long as a judge lets them. It is more ugly and criminal than I could ever have dreamed.”
DaydreamingTori on Nov 29, 2011 at 00:30:46
“@Anniebabe: I'm sorry to hear something happened to U, but Ur comments were eye-opening to the reality that $$ & power garnish results. When I was in the military, my Departmental Master Chief killed a teenager drunk-driving back to base. It was handled on both the uniform & civilian sides--he had done nearly 30 yrs & the arrest would've killed his pension/spousal benefits for his wife. He never saw prison, & was transferred to complete his probation/community service. The prosecution plays to win, rather than fight for justice. Is every prosecutor heartless & election-driven? No. But it's unfortunate that the poorest people are both the criminals & the victims. Mistrust for the system includes the police, the prison system, & the LAW. Ur comments speak to a serious problem, especially in inner-cities. Much healing & health to U. I respect U speaking out on a much-ignored issue.”