Comments on: What Is ‘A Normal Life’?

By: Grace

Grace — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:20:43 +0000

The subject of barren women vs fertile women is one I am interested in knowing more about. For many years of a girl’s and woman’s life, her ability to bear children is both valuable, but also oftentimes a burden. A barren woman is not valuable for obvious reasons, however there are also no worries about getting pregnant – every month! If anyone were to weigh in on this I would like to know. And not to be biased but alot of a women’s value in society is determined both by social mores and men themselves. Whether or not, a woman could or could not bear a child, would make no difference to a womans value in an all woman world, imo.
In our current world: How valuable or desireable is a woman who cannot bear children? Does it depend on what other skills she may have? Or does human life itself have inherent value? Is it always what a person can contribute? Why do we bother with all it takes to keep a comatose person alive? Ah, so many questins today. Thanks, all.

By: wagelaborer

wagelaborer — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:51:27 +0000

Therese’s input doesn’t apply to the foot-dragging of the US.

Yes, many Americans were against involving the US in the war. But the US DID enter the war in December 1941. And Roosevelt promised Stalin that the US would open a second front to help the USSR in their struggle against fascism.

And they did. Three and a half years later.

By: David G

David G — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:04:00 +0000

Therese, thanks for your additional information. The tribal influence in world affairs is something that is often ignored.

Wagelaborer, I too have a split personality like you. It’s a difficult position to occupy even for someone like me who was born in May.

By: wagelaborer

wagelaborer — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:42:22 +0000

Yeah, David, I have a split personality.

There’s the rainbow loving, hearts and flowers part of me that wants all the people of the world to live in perfect harmony.

Then there’s the clear-eyed realist who sees ruling class ruthlessness for what it is, not what its propaganda declares it to be.

I was born in the month of Janus, maybe that helps.

By: Therese

Therese — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:46:29 +0000

Roosevelt had promised America that he will not get us involved in another world war; that was one of his platforms, and was that pushed by at least one of the Repu blicans that ran against him. I tend to think that the average joe and josephine here felt that WWI was enough, that we had no beef with Germany (once most Americans were of German descent), and wanted to give peace a chance as pacifists and isolationists. Certainly those of Irish descent had no desire to affiliate themself with Churchill and the British royals wars.

By: David G

David G — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:33:05 +0000

Wage Laborer, your answer comes as a complete surprise to me. I guess I always thought there was some lofty or noble reason for the delay. To think there may have been some base reasons…well, things are never as they appear!

Thanks for your valuable contribution.

By: wagelaborer

wagelaborer — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:44:26 +0000

The US delayed entry for two reasons, as I understand it, David.

One is that many US capitalists supported Hitler and wanted to see him succeed. They apparently thought that Hitler would not attack the US, and there is reason to believe that he wouldn’t have. There would have been a gentlemen’s agreement to divide the world between the 2 empires.

The other reason is that stated by Harry Truman, when he was in the Senate. You know, the “liberal” reason, as opposed to the outright fascist reason. They wanted the Germans to kill as many Russians as possible, while the Russians killed the Germans.

Then the US would swoop in and take the spoils.

And that is what happened. After the Russians fought the Germans, while losing 20 million people, and started winning and their troops started heading west, the US invaded from the west, racking up as much territory as they could before they met the Russians.

Then the US brags about “saving France” and prances around acting all uppity. It’s pretty outrageous.

By: David G

David G — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 22:00:27 +0000

Therese, I guess the ‘barren’ women syndrome must have its roots in the time when life was short and each community needed women to keep producing so the tribe would survive. In an overpopulated world this kind of thinking is anachronistic!

Do you know why the U.S. delayed entry to WW2, Therese, while most of Europe was burning? It’s something that has always intrigued me.

By: Therese

Therese — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:38:34 +0000

Not SOONER having entered — corr.

By: Therese

Therese — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:35:41 +0000

“Did Hitler Want War?” by Patrick Buchanon, can be found at yahoo news. I know that it is considered ‘normal’ to you, David G., to be scolding about the USA not having entered into the fray, we now call WWII, and that if there was not same, you would be now speaking German or Japanese, and although Buchanon is not considered normal by most, I invite you to give thought to the facts he presents in this artic le, David, and all. Thanks so much.