Dr. Robinson, A white person can see through your lie

Myth #1: Race Esteem stems from Self Esteem

You do not need race esteem in order to have self esteem, and that is certainly not where it has to come from. There are many things you can be proud of other than your race or gender. I don't seek personal fulfilment based on race. I come from Europe and I can proudly say for sure that from both sides of my family in America have never owned slaves. Even then I still can't apologize for what other people do, it's not moral to do so. You cannot demand my blood for something I cannot control, have (had) no say in, and do not wish on others.

Myth #2: Nepoleons army "shot off" the Sphynx in Giza Egypt nose

I have no clue where this rumor came from, however, Nepoleon wasn't even born when a sketch was made in 1755 and it clearly showed that the sphynx at that time didn't have a nose. Whatever the case is, it was not to deny black people of their rights or their esteem to be proud black people. I can't believe this man is allowed to be listened to. It's so rediculous I should say the Nepoleon should come back to life to kick Dr. Robinson's ass for saying something so dumb, and fly back to his burial, IN STYLE.

Myth #3: "No other race, no other people that came to Americas shores had laws on the books that forbid them to read and write."

Classic propaganda, poor black people were the only ones that were not allowed to read and write. That would upset me if that were true but fortunately it's wrong again. In Europe, alone I can find examples of people that were forbidden in the middle ages from being educated to it kept the peasents ignorent. In America, that might be true that the only laws against people in this country but unlikely. When black people originally arrived in the 1600's, they were not seen as a threat when they would read the bible for example. Usually it was at the masters permission, but even then, there were free blacks for a short period in our countrys infancy. It wasn't until later on that they started making laws that prohibited to learn reading and writing. I can't stress this point enough either, slavary in our country was not the worst that happened to black people in America. Segrigation after the Civil War, and in many ways still exist today, is the worst and most horrific tragedy of them all. THAT is what pushed the KKK to take care of the race problem by means of intimidation, lynchings, and the endless cycle of violence that existed for a long time since our beloved country was founded. I'm not proud of that fact but it's the truth and we can't just black out all the horrible things that occured, that would be ahistoric and wrong.

Myth #4: "Reprogramming of 'African Genesis" is the solution"

No, the solution is quit blaming things in history that don't really exist anymore, on people that have no part in the past. Showing a non-real history of a story of a "young woman being chased by a lepard and saved by a tribal leader" is not nessisarily a solution to the problem. No the REAL solution to the problem is seeing historical facts as it was and accepting it, not to rely on race to fulfill our self-esteem, and finally be educated on racist propaganda and how to avoid it.

Mystical Realities of Martial Arts

The Purpose of this Blog is to debunk and demystify the seemingly supernatural explanations for martial arts. "Skills of the Vagabonds" by Leung Ting, volume 1 and 2, describe alot of the "tricks" that are performed by martial artists. The Vagabonds that are in the book are the Chinese predacessors to the Japanese ninjas. While this may be a nice thing that will get your membership, it's not something that should ever be attributed to the supernatural. There is no doubt that these magic tricks that can be performed be Penn and Teller can be useful in combat. Diversion, misdirection, among other things are very important in overall martial strategy. Ultimately, not ending up in a fight is the ultimate goal. There are ways to bring this about without weapons as well. "Mind, Body, and Kickass Moves" on the Discovery channel on Kuroda Tetsuzan, a renown swordsman in Japan, that the art of swordsmanship is about being mentally invisible while someone is right in front of you. The techniques are like a game of chess, who will move when or where and be able to notice the subtle telegraphing movements in the process.

Can you burn "chi" off your fingers from "internal power"?
No, it's a lie, it's a hoax that has been used throughout the ages as a cheap gimmick.

Can people really get kicked in the groin and be safe?
Yes they can, it takes some training and skill but yes it is true. From what I know it's "sucking your testicles up into your abdominals" like when you were a child and it takes practice to do that.

Can people really break a bottle by hitting the top and the "wave of energy" transfers to the bottom to break it off with their "skill" alone?
Not likely, look up a magic trick called the "The Devils Coke Bottle".

How do you explain "erasing" a flame by pointing at it?
Cheap trick, even then it doesn't prove someone can kill you with your "chi", it's a nice diversion to quit making you ask questions or just keep away from that person.

Are there any "no touching" techniques?
If you mean punching and making people feel it, no. If you mean like quickily putting a hand in someones face to make them fall off balence from jerking back, sure.

If that is true is there any benifit to people imagining directing energy from chi kung (standing meditation)? Yes there is, visualization is a significantly important tool in training, the shaolin monks use it to channel their abilities and grow their energy. Over time it gives them the mental edge and makes them perform better because they think they are surrounded by energy constantly within them and out.

Can you break bricks by just imagining?
NO, don't even try it without training.

Is tearing a phonebook in half proof that you have any legitimate martial skill or strength?
Not really

Are there any supernatural explanation for martial arts anywhere?
No

In answering these questions, I am not trying to deminish the quality of martial arts. I remember in my younger days I asked the Tai Chi master Erle Montigue a question. He was one of the few foreigners at the time that was able to perform a rare Yang style Tai Chi form, a combative one at that. I asked him about all these supernatural seeming things and he was talking about breaking river rock was only a matter of physics. However, there are plenty of amazing skills that martial artists learn that give them an edge in a fight or on the battlefield. Most come down to knowing someone elses center of gravity and knowing how to manipulate it in the "internal" styled arts and knowing how to break the opponent in the "hard" style arts. The most amazing part I experienced in the Aikido training I received is, when becoming the "uke" or receiver of the technique, if they are really good, when you try to strike a black belt, it feels as though if you are hitting air or you are "drawn in" to a place where you want to attack that they moved out of. It is one of those psychological effects created by perfected practice, much like Kuroda Senseis sword techniques. Not to deminish the ability of the "hard" arts because they do take a long time to master as well, but I do prefer the "soft" arts of Jujitsu, Tai Chi, Baguazhang, Aikido, Jodo, and the like. Some of the "esoteric shinto" or "buddhist" practices might be better to intill culture or calm the nerves rather than actually have a supernatural edge in real combat. The ninjutsu's finger knitting practice for example would not wish away your enemy or make you literally invisible. What is really important to know is that serious, rigerous, undying practice is important to the martial artist as well as the cultural inheritance of the arts themselves. There is nontheless, a transcendant quality about the practice of martial arts itself knowing that it can give you a chance to live another day.

Why is figure skating an olympic sport?

Figure skating is one of the many specticles that the Olympic games have to offer, one of the sad things that in our vocabulary has been linked to as a "sport". There is no question of the athletic ability one has to endure to become an athete in such things as figure skating, gymnastics, synchronized swimming, synchronized diving, and well even ski jumping. I see a sport as something that the comparison can be made by realistc means based on physical measurement. For example, someone shoots at a target, a bullseye is worth 10 points. If someone is the fastest at running, there is no dispute. If someone competes in a group sport where the team scores, there is no dispute. If someone knocks over some bowling pins, there is no dispute. If I was the judge of weather a sport should or shouldn't be in the Olympics, speed walking would be higher on my list than gymnastics. The reason I say that is because of the many things that are assumed in the amount of critiques that can be given by the judges. I mean, ultimately it is up to the judges to accept or take away points based on perception. With someone crossing the finishline, there is no real dispute who is the winner at that point. With someone trying to prove the "artistic quality" during the competition, I would have to say the judges are full of shit if they were using that as a tool for measurement of how good someone is. This is the problem I have always seen as I have watched martial arts "form" competitions. If everyone were to perform a certain "form" that there are a set number of kicks, punches, or various moves, how can everyone be expected to win if the form was supposed to be performed in exactly the same way? I have read "Traditions: Essays on the Japanese Martial Arts and Ways" by Dave Lowry to know that there are some masters that perform martial arts forms with a slight twist of imperfection on purpose. With that said would a judge know if it was deliberate imperfection? If so, would smart and young students get away with saying the tiny mistakes that the judges pointed out by saying "Oh, those were deliberate imperfections that are to show the artistic quality of the form"? What is it about a martial arts form competition that allows the young contestants to spray water from their mouth or even act assured and aggressive while presenting themselves to the judges? I think the martial arts competitions can do without this just as much as I think the Olympics can do without "artistic" sports. I know they do not have bowling anymore in the Olympics like they did one year, but I see that more of a valid Olympic Sport than synchronized swimming. The Olympics should get rid of all the showy and flashy "sports" and bring in the real sports that actually matters and actually has a place in real comparable skill.

"The Invisible Children", don't buy into their activism

I'm sure we all feel great when donating to a cause that seems imaginable, attainable, and wonderful. I remember when our class was taught how to perform CPR in high school so we all could be certified to do. Later on in life, I took a class again 100% voluntarily while in the military and I renewed my certification. I cannot thank the American Heart Association and American Red Cross enough for the training and retraining of people that are able to recessitate someone when they are in danger of losing their life. I would say from my personal opinion that the American Heart Association and American Red Cross would be a wonderful cause to donate money to. The "Locked Up Abroad" series by National Geographic shows the episode where a man was held captive in Columbia shows that agencies like the Red Cross helped him recover, it was only possible for the Red Cross to exist because of the ceasefire mutual agreement that was given between the agressive guerilla forces. But what about other organizations that claim to be helping the world?

Let's take the documentary "The Invisible Children" for example, where they claim they are going to "Rescue" Joseph Kony's child soldiers. The film itself is wonderful and does raise an important issue of concern. The Lords Risistance Army has been active since 1987 started by a warlord, Joseph Kony. It's been a endless cycle of violence since then from that god forsaken country that still exist today. Historically violence has existed on the continent for some time before 1987. The film highlights the child soldiers that were on guard while the peace talks between the Ugandan government official and the fact that Joseph Kony never showed up. It's absolutely clear wheather or not Joseph Kony actually wants to end the conflict and adding children as soldiers to make his army grow. Having said all this, I have to make a position against the activism equated to the film.

I am going to use the evidence given by the activism portion of the organization to draw my conclusions. Beyond all the craze and all the celebrity faces like Pete Wents and Kristen Bell, there is something that seems so attractive about the "grassroots" organization. The nice slick videos the proclamation of how much money they were able to raise. It's amazing to me that the "Roadie application - 2008" video has a young man in there, Marcus, that is "eating left overs and sleeping on the floor". I mean, if this organization is profiting the way they say it is, the roadies should be pretty well fed and I wonder how well the non-profit activism CFO and the film producers are making. I mean are they the same people just trying to profit as much as they can from the film? Seems like according to the financials by the 2008 annual report, the 5 people that actually get compensated from $60k-$70k a year from the Invisible Childeren Inc. charitable trust. But wait a minute, can't you make more money on the side from doing other projects? Ben Keesly is the CEO and he gets paid $40K a year as a trustee. Of course you can and bet the activism, Invisible Children Inc., is not the only gig they are doing to make ends meet, but i could be wrong. I will say however, that much money when all your food, lodging, and transportation needs are already paid for by the organization, is quite a bit of money.

Well, back to the Invisible Children website, I found through the TRI campaign about what they did in, I'm assuming, 2008:

-28 handwritten letters hand delivered to senators and the office of the President
-14 activists sleeping outside overnight in protest
-$3,510 sent to northern Uganda by the US government
-Part of the historic appointment of a US diplomat to the peace talks

The first 2 are empty activism, "advocacy and awareness" seems to be a trivial way to protest by trying to make an already poor and poorly equipped country do something about the situation at hand. By the way, one of those 14 activists is probably that guy I mentioned earlier that is sleeping on the floor and eating the leftovers from his previous meal. "Displace Me Event and subsequent lobbying efforts in DC" does not make the appointment of a US diplomat possible, the US government does that on it's own terms. If they really were serious they would spend millions of dollars in resupplying the army that Uganda has to fight off the tyrannical LRA.

I highly recommend "Lord of War", the one quote that I don't particularly enjoy. If you have not seen the movie, watch it first before you continue reading. From what I've seen thats true is this "They say that 'evil prevails when good men fail to act', what they ought to say is, 'evil prevails'". If the main character didn't sell the guns to the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) that day, someone else would be willing to do the same, and that happens all the time, with or without your knowledge or approval. It's definantly sobering moment for any one watching the film, once you think this is an isolated situation that he loses not only his beloved family member but gains a hard lesson that is very real in the world that actually exists. What makes Uganda the morally superior place to show activism for? I mean I can think of Sudan right off the top of my head when in the last year alone the UN estimated that 400,000 people died, we seemed to not really do anything about that. On the same continent, Somolia is a hot bed for terrorism and a place where the pirates and the negotiators get paid for doing their job. Further more it is a muslim country that has human rights issues related to the religion it calls home, reports of violence using sharia law is not unheard of. Lets just say right now after hearing that Uganda is still a priority in fighting against tyranny in this world, what about places that have nuclear power? What about Iran that has a very avid interest in aquiring apocolyptic weaponry with some clergy that want to bring destruction in the world? Forgive me for trivializing the conflicts but I think above all that would take that priority over a few children in Uganda and the conflicts that go on in that country. I mean, if you can imagine a nuclear weapon detonated on our soil and then we try to help any other country afterwards, that would be difficult at best.

To all the money that doesn't go to a privatized security detail around the community to protect the children, it doesn't matter how much money is going to the schools, the crops, and the way of life if they can be bombarded at any moment. The LRA rebels want to KILL, they will stop at nothing, the violence sonce 1987 has shown that again and again, you think empty activism is going to stop people from pulling the trigger while you do missionary work and depend on a government that doesn't really have a fully capable army? Wake the fuck up! Remember Sudan? The humanitarian missions that are going on there right in our midst is ransacked by the very government that exists currently. UN and African Aid organizations were effectively kicked out, now the aid organizations that are left are the charitable ones that are unarmed and probably unwilling giving aid like food to the very terrorist or rebel groups that operate in the country. Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, as I speak to you I want to emphasize that this is not a matter of just "abducting" children back or making a "rescue" by means of something that really works, you are only knocking down a symptom from the overall disease that may or may not ever get taken care of. In short, do not waste your money, when they catch Joseph Kony, you only need one copy of "Invisible Children" to show an International Court.

A fair assessment of Miss California's position

(AP Photo/Eric Jamison)

Miss California on the night of her "would be" crowning where she said the that she does not support same sex marriage because that "it is the way she was raised and no offence to anyone else". I know this answer disappointed Mr. Perez and many homo and hetrosexuals in people around the country alike. Many celebrity homosexuals, and perhaps a small largely unheard voice of hetrosexuals, had an immidiate reaction against her position. I think it is fair to say that she incorrect in saying that "in America people can choose same-sex marriage and opposite marriage", there is no choise. But the immidiate agitated reaction was bitter and contemptable coming from Perez Hilton and Buck from the What The Buck show on YouTube. Reacting by personal attacks against her looks and character seems to me the only thing that people can say when they can't attack a beautiful woman like her. She never said she hated homosexuals and she made it clear that is what she was saying. She said the she was not being "politically correct, she was being biblically correct", if she says she doessn't agree because she is Christian, she is correct. Yes, the bible does say in the Old Testament that god killed fags. No there is not a clear connection between that and the "love they neighbor" in the New Testament that came several years later. Several people can disconnect the two ideas while reading the Bible in order from cover to cover. So I make my point, do I hate Christians? Do I hate fags? No, but can a "holy scripture" entice someone to dislike or disapprove of the way they are treated in society? Of corse it can, depending on your interpretation of it. Even if thats not true, her opinion is still clear. That doesn't make her any less American by saying what she said. There no doubt that marriage in America was brought about because of Christianity. I feel sorry for anyone that can't stomach the fact that marriage is a religious institution that was allowed into the legal system and is innately prejusdice against others. In this instance, I can't help but say that the Muslims and the Mormons are quite generous for not getting upset at this on this point. It is their belief to allow the practice of polygamy, it is legal by means through their eyes of their god. How would the Federal Law treat these people which should have no authority to judge? Prison time, a prison time that allows only a mandatory sentence and no chance for parol. A sentence that is sure to tear families apart as in, the recent past, namely Texas and occasionally in Utah against people that are only practicing their religious beliefs. The remedy is to get rid of the institution of marriage completely from our legal system that has so corrupted family ties, showed prejudices in many forms, and ultimately is a religious institution that does not belong outside of a church to begin with. Thomas Jefferson said the reason we have in the First Amentment to the Constitution, is to have a "wall of separation between church and state". To remedy the problem of discrimination, shift everything over to civil unions and make it the dominant form of a legal institution that is run by the Judicial system. With civil unions, allow gays to join hands and religious members to practice their beliefs. I think this goes beyond the capacity and means of a beautiful California Pagent whos only interest should be on the crown, not the gays. What has she said that will really impact weather or not people will actually make a law or not? When you answer this question, I think thats exactly the point I'm trying to make. What she says will not dictate weather gays get their marriage or not. What she says does not make her any less American than you or I weather we see eye to eye on an issue or not. And finally, If she says that she is being "biblically correct" I rest my case. My faith is just as high to defend her rights to my death to believe what I do, as her right to belive. With that said, I rest my case.

Segragation in America was WORSE than Slavary

I don't know how many time throughout my life that there have been lies that have been perpetrated throughout the years on the subject of racism. The very people that belive they are being rightous and fighting for a "good cause" are the same people that perpetuate myths, political agenda, and further racism. I am talking about Afrocentricism. The biggest afrocentric arguement that I have heard through out the years other than "Jesus was black" and "the Sphynx's nose was broken off to deny the black people their freedom", is that slavary was the worst thing that happened in the history of the United States. As if you could ignore things in history, like holocaust deniers, segrigation in America is probably the worst thing that has happened in this country. The Nazis used labels to make not only Jews but other ethnic groups, political prisoners, sexual deviants, and the like to exploit others. I wish I could remember the name of the female sociologist that I saw a video of in college that was showed. She conducted an experiment one day on her students in a school by means of basic differences of eye color. By reenforcing differences and stereotypes in the childeren, even knowing it's just a game, by the time recess started, the childeren were fighting over their differences. I can equate attributing or designating particular months to certain races or ethnic groups by the Federal Government, or any other institution for that matter, to have the same consequences. I forsee the same thing happening if you were do the same thing to religion, creed, country of origin, or other exclusionary attributes of human kind. Kamau Kambon's comments about the aftermath of cleaining up what Hurricane Katrina is a great example of what some black people in America actually believe in their hearts. I think that most black people do not belive that white people should be "exterminated". But I think there is a whole lot more propaganda that is maybe partially historically true that people tend to still believe at least partially true. I blame things like my high school that did not place enough emphasis on the fact that segrigation was worse that slavary. Slavary is big money for especially any black person who wants to become rich, much in the same way hip hip capitalizes on the suberviant culture that loves listening to music of racial violence, defiling women, and materialism. It's because it commands attention of people who are ignorent and choose to see the history in a distorted way. It's almost like watching a car accident occur or listening to a someone tell you that you are going to hell for your "sins" if you don't redeem your worthless self. The reason I am making my claims is because slavary was a business first and foremost. It is never in the interests of people to enslave others for them to die on them unless they really have a surplus and little value to profit from. I don't mean to lower people to such callous terms but you have to look at it from that perspective. When segrigation occured, it was not a business interest. It was about intimidating a certain group of people by means of slander, harassment, lynching, witch hunts, rape, and Jim Crow laws was for no reason other than sheer racial prejudice. I can't applaud anyone more than the work that Henry Louis Gates Jr. did to bring help and comfort to black people who want to know about their true historical origin and not whats transmitted by word of mouth. Backed up by means like DNA and actual slave records that exist more than most people usually imagine. Without Oprahs Roots from PBS, I would not have had such an impacting revelation about how much information about black peoples ancestors actually exist. It's people like him that make other truely free from the bondage of ignorence and add to the amazing tale about themselves. It's propaganda like the historical fiction show "Roots" that actually perpetuate the the steriotypes and has no bearing on actual historical fact, except many of the accounts that happened. Making the word "nigger" above all the most vilified word in America and demonizing it's use at every corner by getting offended only perpetuates the censorious instinct. Out of my personal top 3 comedians of all time, Paul Mooney is on that list. As a matter of fact, all of them are black by coincidence. I could not disagree with him more on proposing that not saying nigger or nigga on his comedy shows will get rid of the racism that exists in America today. Another great comedian Gary Owen, on one occasion, played on the way that white people tend to look around the audience for approval to laugh at a black comedy show. Until we can all laugh at the rediculous and racist jokes, we cannot appriciate how stupid the racist propositions are and play on our basic instincts to seek patterns throughout our primitive long lives. I think if anyone really is serious about history of America and getting rid of racism, we have to present ourselves as people how stand for historical truth, not propaganda. We can start by saying taking charge and finally recognizing our true original sin, hate crime in America by means of segrigation, not the slavary. Perhaps the reason that black apologist want to propagate the fact the slavary happened moreover the fact that segrigation happened, is probably because it will get people to realize that the black apologist continue to segrigate people on their own without help from anyone else.

Dealing with Virgins

There were a few occasions when I have delt with virgins in my life, here is my way of dealing with the situation. First and foremost, let any girl know where you stand in the relationship before you jump in bed with her. It really all comes down to honesty, there is nothing in a relationship that doesn't. One of the consequences of being an attrative person is that you will attract every kind of person, men and women, virgin or experienced alike. When this happens, there is little you can do to stop it unless you really just don't give someone the time of day. This is a kind of dilemma though, do you stop being friends with someone and have the potential to lose unexpected people or just act like nothing wrong happend or act you are not interested. The way i handle it typically is that I deal with it in a way that I befriend everyone. By doing so, I am indiscriminate about who I attract and I don't shut anyone out. Back to the topic at hand, you can't help it if people are attracted to you and you are an attractive person. When dealing with a virgin you have to keep three things in mind:

1. She is already attracted to you
2. You are two consenting adults making adult decisions
3. Unless she honestly is considering a vow of chastity, she is going to lose her virginity to someone anyways

I know alot of people as a matter of policy don't have sex with virgins because they can't handle the "awkwardness" or having to start from scratch in writing someones first page of sexual history. I have delt with this sort of thing on some level but I even with my objections, if I really like a girl and am attracted to her, I would not say "no". My advice is take it slow if you decide to have sex with a virgin. But also accept that you are going to have to handle her emotional part of going through having sex for the first time. Any guy that doesn't do this is going to make the relationship go down the drain. The only other thing I can let you know is if you are worried about the outcome of the relationship and the deed has already been done, don't panic. Panicking is something she is going to do while she is dealing with these emotions, you have to provide the emotional comfort that is necessary for her needs. It all comes down to honesty and the power to be able to make people comfortable around you. That trust is paramount in every encounter you come across.

Feminism is DUMB

When I first proposed this idea, I got a violent reaction from misunderstood females when I first proposed this notion. My most violent and oppressive reactionary has been Raven Masterson. I wrote my comments about how potentially harasssing comments have been blown over the proportion and it is men's nature to dominate in different ways from females, according to Louann Brizendine's book "The Female Brain". She proposes that the bars, clubs, ect. are for that kind of bahavior meaning even saying the word "honey" to refer to a female should only be reserved for such places. The idea of confining men to a certain area to get their fair share of free speech or dominance is as childish as saying you may only play in the designated playgrounds. I do not negate the more serious and clearly defined charges of sexual harassment, the example I give is the "if you don't sleep with me, you will not get promoted". However, terms of endearment in my opinion can be completely harmless and actually raise ones feelings by making them feel attractive. When I say "honey" to a woman, I do not mean in way of "you and I are lovers", I mean it in "you are a kind and darling person". The difference is being "sweet" about it and being "sexual" about it. In that sense I always hope for the best, I've had few women ever take offence to it. Two women to be exact, one being from Raven Masterson. It's completely unrealistic to expect a completely "sexual harassment free zone" as a workplace by the standards set forth by Raven Masterson. Thank the heavens she is not my coworker, I'd hate to be either an employee or the boss. I don't reduce women to the scum of the earth, I never have and never will. I am fighting against an ideology that cannot be attained at all. "This is What a Feminist Looks Like" is a video by the Feminist Majority on YouTube that explains all the wonderful qualities of a feminist. What they neglect to mention is the the mission statement is fundamentally flawed. They give the definition "Feminism: the economic, political, or social equlity for women" on the video. I can easily expand it to include "sexual" and "intellectual" equality to men as well according to wikipedia about feminism which may be true, but I don't need to go that far to disagree with the ideology. I would have a weak arguement with political equality, since in this country at least, we already have political equality. There are no limitations for a woman to become a statesman based on her gender, Hillary Clinton is a perfect example of this. I have no biased against having a female politician or a President based on her gender. The womans sufferage movement was key in our ever expanding free loving country and was a natural consequence of our wonderful evolving free nation. What I always have a problem with is the thought that we can all acheive total equality on a social or economic basis. The findings from research conducted by the CONSAD research group corp prepared for the Department of Labor in 2009 basically showed that the gender and wage gap was caused by more women than men working temporary jobs, not working as many hours, and few other factors in contributing to the cause of not getting paid equally. Economics is not equal, businesses don't care wheather they can make money using a female or a male body, hindu or roman catholic, white or brown skinned person in order to perform a function. Corporations go to a foreign country to make profits because it's more profitable, economics doesn't care about gender. Same with our brains, nature made us the way we are today through a slow process of evolution. There are clear examples given in Louann Brizendine's book "The Female Brain" where there are gender differences that are innate (hormones, muscular developement, sexual peaks, ability to rear children, ect.). As long as these very things are inbedded to our psyche, as long as the differences cannot be changed, and clearly noticable there is little we can actually do other than work with the differences we already have. No law or policy is going to stop most men dominating in ways that women find repulsive. Also, in the same way that most women will not stop networking to make the strongest alliance they possibly can in the work place. We all are advanced African Apes that have evolved throughout the ages, women like Raven Masterson clearly display tendancies that are related to our ancestors. I will not be intimidated by these frivilous displays of anger and I will continue to persue the truth no matter where it may lie and question everything.