Betty Dodson with Carlin Ross

Better Orgasms. Better World.

 0 items

• Login
• Join

Search this site:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/19/the-naked-imperialism-of-humanitarian-intervention/

Patrick it's a  question that makes us jump into the shoes of the people we're criticising. When we do this we gain a greater understanding and greater credibility in the eyes of those we're criticising and our crit is more affective. If your scared of proposing ideas that are criticised how would you feel if you actually had to deal with the problem and your ideas were what happened and you had to answer for your failures.  

So I'll start. I'd vote in the UN security council to send a UN force to protect the government but only on condition we use a dampening force, while seeking from day one to talk to both sides and bring about a peaceful solution and effect change through the ballot box. I can explain what a dampening force is with the example of a bar room fight. Current military force picks one side and helps them pummel the enemy until death. Most bar fights are stopped with restraining force, which is both parties are held so they can't fight. Dampening force leaves both parties unrestrained but intercepts blows. There's no restraint so there's no assault. Dampening involves no lethal weaponry. In any war both ground and air fighting is extremely difficult to do and very easy to disrupt. Weapons are smoke, radio and radar jamming, acoustic misdirection.  Anything that makes fighting impossible for both sides. For example  CS  gas couldn't be used because it's an assault. But try fighting with music everywhere or a constant message to stop fighting. In a war you don't know where the enemy is anyway but with no way of finding out and with no visibility, fighting is impossible. All this is possible now and is has been used very effectively in Europe by hunt saboteurs who have very little money. That it's so easy and never been tried is kind of proof that a conflict is currently seen as a means for major powers to conquer and change the chess board in their favour rather than save lives and preserve peace and self determination. So your praise :) and your crit is very welcome and your own ideas would be lovely. 

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.

In the above post, you mention vibrating/masturbating for 1-2 hours for those who have never orgasmed (like yours truly, age 30), but the instructions for the hitachi magic wand that came in the box indicate that for safety reasons, it should not be used for longer than 25 minutes continuously...? 

Have you ever considered hypnotism. While your on meds and stable you have the freedom to try new things. Hypnotism reprograms your subconscious and it's that part of your mind that causes your depression. If you have free consultations with several hypnotherapists they could advise you on how they may be able to slowley reduce your meds as the alternative treatment slowley takes over. Then choose your hypnotherapist.  It may work and I think it's worth a try. 

Betty-
As a Gender & Sexuality Studies major, I respect the advances you have made to the field. However, I have to disagree with your dismissal of antidepressants and unwillingness to help people work through their issues.
I'm reading through this section because I have never had an orgasm because I am on antidepressants. I was hoping to find information on how to have an orgasm without sacrificing my medication/mental health. However, all I'm seeing is condemnation of anyone who takes antidepressants. Here is my story:
I was put on antidepressants after a year of crying every night, not being able to do anything, hating myself, self-harming, wishing I was dead. I was 18. If you think that's wrong, well let me tell you something: I would have killed myself if I hadn't been put on antidepressants. 
When I became sexually active in college, it frustrated me to no end that I couldn't get off. I knew it was because of my antidepressants, so I started seeing a psychiatrist and she started reducing my dosage so I could actually experience orgasm. Far from having the intended effect, I became so suicidal that I went to the emergency room and spent a few days in a psych hospital. That experience still haunts me. Afterwards, my psychiatrist raised my dose again and put me on Wellbutrin.
Now that I'm more stable, I'm going to try to reduce my dosage again, while staying on Wellbutrin, because my lack of orgasm is causing me the most stress/anxiety in my life, and I'm more confident in my support system. 
Here's the thing, Betty. I see you reading these comments and then completely failing to acknowledge them. I'm sure you've never had depression, otherwise you would understand. I read the article by Marcia Angell, you don't have to throw that at me. So what if my meds are only 20% effective? 20% is better than nothing. So before you condemn people who take antidepressants, maybe you should readjust your worldview and try to teach them ways to have orgasms without going off the meds. For some people (like myself), antidepressants have literally saved lives.