Guy N. Heels

With most of Canada speaking English, then the Providence of Quebec, I've heard they want to change the flag of Canada from a Maple leaf to nine beavers pissing on a frog.

ROFL! Hoo, boy! That's a hot one! But, what ever works is okay with me.

Be careful of what power you give to any government to control your day to day activities. Ban smoking. Ban fatty foods. Who knows what's next?...

Right you are! George Washington said that government is NOT to be trusted. To empower government intrusion into people's personal lives anywhere is to invite intrusion into personal lives everywhere! We must never forget that all laws are doubled-edged swords.

I'm also a daywalker. Some of my lower heels 1.5 ~ 2 are pressed into daily wear for work.

I too, am a skywalker - er , daywalker. I wear my heels and skirts as if nothing's amiss. (Really, it's my usual mode of dress.) Just this morning I had to ask a woman in the supermarket who was loligagging at the ATM if she was planning to use it. I was dressed in a knee-lenght skirt, 3.5" espadrilles with .5" plats, and I also had in my earrings . Just typical atire for me. Oh, I was also wearing my usual "Abe Lincolin beard". Why anyone needs to gets all perturbed about such things is beyond me. Just go about your business and everything is A-Okay.

Hi guy in heels, thank you for that welcome. This is all new to me.

Well, just jump right in here and start sharing you experiences with us. TNT! Tain't nothing to it. We've got high heel lovers around the world who are willing to share their experiences with us here.

There's another thread around here where you can introduce yerself and tell us a little about your experiences.

When I drive my car to the border of Quebec, the Canadian Customs agent will run my Vermont plates in the computer before I stop and open my window. Then ask me where I'm from in French, I reply, "English, German, Or Vietnamese if you don't mind." then he'll ask where I'm from in English.

Well, just what did you expect in Quebec? Any day now they're liable to wake up to the fact that they're no longer a French colony and actually join the Canadian Commonwealth. Why don't you just jump right in with German or Vietnamese and see what happens?

Now there's a new saying. What is it from, and what does that mean? I'm curious to know! :-)

It's a Japanese word for "WHAT". Typically it's delivered in a very scornful, condescending, and abrasive manner much like you might yell a rebuke at someone. WHAT!?!?

With a little practice you will soon be able to get the tonal inflection just right in order to sound like an offended diamio overlord. !!!NUGA!?!?

That's a stupid reason for leaving someone IMO. "Man enough to resist crossdressing" - is that some sort of measure of manhood? I'd go the complete opposite and say that's it more manly (brave) to be experimental. Show's you've got balls. If she think's you're less strong for doing it, why the hell does she ask you in the first place? Some sort of test is it? I don't think I'd want to date a woman who measure's my manhood on my ability to resist crossdressing...

Well, my experience has been that women come in all different shapes and sizes and mindsets. The most passionate lover I ever had couldn't stand me wearing earrings (and that was back when I wore my hair down to my collar). Yet, I've received many compliments from different women on my shoes and earrings. So I'd say it's a very individual thing. You really need to find out what works for you and your partner and travel that path. But my advice is: If you're forced to choose between passion versus fashion - go for the passion.

The constituencies are traditional (by and large) and many of the boundaries have not changed since the 18th century. Moreover, some constituencies contain large populations of people who are disbarred such as foreign nationals which is the case in Hackney.

So I take it that the constituencies are, by and large, defined by geographic bounderies as opposed to population?

...Here in the UK (like the States) unless you vote either Labour or Conservative you are wasting your vote. Many people who vote for the main opposition party are actually voting against government in protest but some of those can't bear to vote fo "the enemy" so tend to dump their vote on a minority party.

Your analysis is correct. Here in the states we fundamentally have a 2 party system and any votes for any of the other minority parties that come along are essentially wasted votes. 3rd parties don't have a very good survival record in this country and I don't think we've even had a 3rd party worth mentioning in the past 100 years. Abraham Lincoln was first elected by a pluraity, which is a graphic demonstration of what 3rd parties do - they split the vote.

The main problem is that the 2 major parties don't usually have the best candidates. Typically, the 3rd parties have the smarter candidates, or ones more responsive to the needs of the people. But then you are left with the vexing questions of: 1] How to get them into the office(s) and; 2] how to keep them from becoming a lame duck if you should succeed in getting them in? I suppose we could just have an "open" election, but then there would never be an end to the run-offs.

One quick question: You mentioned constituencies. How is that determined and why would one be larger than another? Here we apportion by districts and, at least in theory, the districts within a given state have the same population count. This has little to do with geographic area, as a state like Alaska is 4 times larger than Texas and is probably well capable of encompassing the whole of the British Isles.

...And I absolutely love these for some reason:-

Those ought to get some attention in most any crowd.

I thought that's what the Americans already had!

Dr Shoe with a helmet on hiding behind a sofa.

I'd laugh if it didn't hurt so bad.

...Consensus politics, like democracy, is the politics of mediocrity. It's rare to get a decision that seems superb in retrospect, but it's also rare to get one that seems absolutely crazy. Conviction politics, on the other hand, allows the full range from genius to lunacy...

Well, to my mind, the entire notion of consensus politics is absolutely crazy! Consensus politics is nothing less that rulership by the man in the street. Not only do you ensure that you will never be led by the best qualified, but in effect, you are saying you want to be ruled by the least qualified. Who, in his right mind, wants that?

...But in general, whenever it goes in the trash can, it's public domain and is up for grabs by anyone that wants it. Therefore, anyone in the US can legally obtain virtually anything that goes into somebody's trash can. This is one of the main reasons that shredders are such big business here. Any documents, including old bills, etc, can be legally removed from the trash can by anyone. Therefore, the only way to protect sensitive information is to either shred it or burn it. In most cases, burning isn't feasible...:

Just a follow-on to my previous post, the other day an employment agency was evicted from their downtown Washington office by US Marshalls (presumably for non-payment of rent). However, in the process of tossing them out into the street they also indiscriminately threw out all of their personnel files. Therefore, all of the people who had ever submitted sensitive personal information with that particular agency were placed at-risk because all of their sensitive information was literally out in the street! And of course, all of the legal ramifications I mentioned previously apply. When the Marshalls were confronted about the matter, they simply shrugged and said they were just doing their job.

The good weather has finally arrived here in Rochester,NY and the gals are slowly starting to venture out in their heels here in downtown. On Monday it was in the mid-60's and a young lady was walking smartly on Main St. with old-fashioned black 4" spiked pumps...

60 degrees in Rochester??? I thought you guys only had July, August and winter up there.

I won't stand on too high of a soapbox here (I'm tall enough in my plats as it is!), but it just grates on my nerves when someone asks me if I speak their language....IN their language! It's bad enough when they ask me if I speak Spanish in English, but to ask me IN Spanish? Thankfully, I know just enough (outside the typical Taco Bell menu) to say "No I don't speak Spanish" back at them.

One couple who had the nerve to ask me this IN Spanish, I simply replied "Iie....zenzen wakarimasen yo.", then walked away...

Actually, you don't really have to say that much. Just shrug your shoulders and say,"Nuga?" then walk away.

well we're pretty annoyed about it, as itsyet another intrusion into our liberty. Do they honestly think nobody knows of the risks?

Lets get real, how many people go home from the pub after having 10 cigarettes and beat their partner up? How many have 10 pints and beat thier partner up? How many smokers go to accident and emergency after 10 cigarettes, with a broken arm and bleeding face and proceed to abuse and hit the nursing staff?

We're hardly a risk to other road users either.

Yet pubs are allowed to open longer, teenage drinking is out of control....

Backhanders for sure......

Well, anybody who is that passionate about it most difinately needs to ring-up his MP. But the way I see it, smoking is nothing less than death on the installment plan. It has been called the "revenge of the Indians" and it is working. Still, I believe that I have a right to clean air I can breathe. So the question then becomes: Whose rights will prevail; my right to breathe clean air; or the smoker's right to smoke at the expense of befouling my breathing air? So far the courts and the legislatures in this country seem to be siding with the anti-smoking, clean air people.

BTW, don't be deceived, smoking does compete for your attention and does affect your judgement while driving.

Ditto GWB and T Bliar...

Well, I really don't know how Mr. Blair came to office, but in the 2000 election George Bush took the White House by the thinnest of margins. Thanks to our goofy way of tallying the presidential vote, the entire election hinged upon the state of Florida. That one may be a source for political arguments for decades to come, but I believe Bush actually won it. But the re-election in 2004 (even though I did not vote for him) was a clear-cut majority vote for Bush. Again, our goofy way of counting the votes is a "winner-take-all" approach by which the total number of electoral votes for any given state is awarded to the candidate who won the greatest number of votes in that state. Therefore, it is possible for a candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election (which I most emphatically state did NOT happen in 2004). So, unlike Baal Clinton, for at least one election George W. Bush did win both the popular vote and the electoral vote. Clinton never won the majority in the popular vote, but did win the election - not once, but twice!

I can't comment on the law in the US, but the one that's about to come into force in the UK will make it illegal to smoke in indoor public places. Smoking will still be legal it's smoking in indoor public places that won't be. The sale of tobacco will be unaffected, and you can still smoke outdoors or in private places eg your home or car if you want to.

I've said before I have no problem with people smoking as long as I don't have to be exposed to the smoke.

Chris

News Flash! It looks like the great state of Maryland will be the next to go "smoke free". The bill has already passed the house and is now in the senate. If it passes in the senate Martin O'Malley has pledged to sign it. So I expect that any day now, Maryland ( the Free State) will also become the "Smoke Free State".

The problem is is that that'll split the "anti-bush" vote so the Republicans will get in again!!!

It's better to persuade disaffected republican voters to vote democrat in protest....

Your point is well taken. That's exactly how Baal Clinton was able to get into the White House and stay there for 8 long years without once ever getting a majority vote.

Hi Giovanni, and welcome to the forum.

That's exactly what I mean. Guantanamo Bay is just the thin end of the wedge...

That, along with a host of other things, is precisely why the Democrats are in power in the Congress today. Most Americans are totally fed-up with the arrogance, the lies and the prevarications. But kaiser Bush's total disregard for the rule of law has now prompted some widespread alarm.

Don't be surprised to see the emergence of a new third party - The Fed-up party - before next election.

Might is not always right, just ask the survivors of the Nazi death camps or Stalin's purges... What is Moral Relativism then? It is the lesser of two evils. Killing in self-defence would be one situation but in this case the prosecution always proceeds on the basis that it was murder for the defendant to prove that it was self defence. In other words they are guilty until proven innocent! Now I see that GW Bush wants to remove Habeas Corpus, the basic right to a fair trial. This means that YOU could be tried for just about anything the state sees fit without any evidence at all and it is up to you to prove your innocence. Enemies of the state beware...

No, we need laws to prevent an anarchic wild west culture where the strong prosper and the weak suffer...

Bravo!

But one point of order... Habeas Corpus literally means, "produce the body". Therfore, the revocation of habeas corpus is not so much a threat of being tried on any whim or caprice, but rather, the denial of bail or release from custody because of lack of evidence. In other words, once you are seized by the state - they could "bury" you in their prison system and you might never be heard from again. In reality, it represents a far more serious threat to individual freedom than the notion of being tried on a whim, or even presumption of guilt. It smacks of the kinds of things that totalitarian governments are wont to do.

Good advice on foot pain: work upward gradually, aspirin as needed, no alcohol. Alcohol makes me retain water, which in turn makes my feet larger, shoes smaller, pain more... vicious cycle. Those gel pads mentioned earlier really help to cushion your step.

Hi there Ladielizzy, and welcome to the forum.

Most of what I'm saying is just a little common sense. The main problem is that common sense ain't too common these days. But the simple fact is that I have 'til yet to hear of someone being born wearing heels. Therefore I must conclude that, much like riding a bicycle, it's a matter that must be learned. So to my mind, take it easy and learn how to walk in the lower heels before you try out the skyscrapers is just good sense.

Now my question to you is: Do we need a medical forum to discuss these problems?

Thank you, Ozzard for a fine response. However, as you have correctly surmised, I find such notions about as sensible as building a house on a sand-dune. With everything always shifting around, it would be impossible to guarantee any kind of stability in the structure. Perhaps our society is experiencing a very high degree of instability because of this same kind of thinking?

On the other hand, the ancient Greeks had a term for a person who upheld one set of standards one moment but a different set of standards the next. They called such a person an "actor" because he was wearing two faces. It is the same term we use today in perjorative sense - hypocrite.

For myself, I find instructions like: "Thou shalt not commit murder." a lot more sensible than: "thou shalt not commit murder, except..." (you fill in the blanks).

...I'd rather be protected from the lunatics.

But then, I am an utter moral relativist - I do not believe one can "stand up for what's right" because I do not believe it is possible to define absolute notions of right, wrong, good or evil. I rather suspect Guy N. Heels and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum here.

Now let's see if I understand this business of moral relativism correctly. According to my understanding, all morals are determined by their relavance at the moment. Therefore, under the correct circumstances it may be okay to murder someone who is creating a problem in your life, but if some thug has the barrel of his gun stuck in your ear - then murder is absolutely morally wrong.

Or is it morally okay to have an affair with your secretary at work under the correct circumstances, but if your wife decides that she needs a little sexual variety in her life, then adultery is morally absolutely wrong. Is my understanding correct?