On the merits of your comments, I note that both of you are similarly unwilling to engage on the specific facts of the issues I raised.
Is it your view that all men are all evil all the time, unless they retrict their speech and actions to murmuring “Yes, dear?”

FYI, I believe in capital punishment for violent stranger rapes, so Oddmommy, you really piss me off when you imply that I am concerned with the rights of the “rapists.” You made a ridiculous extreme straw man, and ignored my thrust (pardon, pardon), which was that even respectful, loving single guys can be forgiven if they are confused at the current state of thinking about what actually constitutes consent. In fact, I challenge you both to clearly articlate exactly what the standard is, and to do it in a way that reflects some concern for the legitimate rights and interests of both parties involved. I’m a lawyer, and I can’t tell you what it is with any clarity. If you can do better, show me. I understand that as women, you have an interest in preserving the broadest possible range of options for your own behavior, but some women would seem to require a notarized consent form, or else they want to see the man in a cage. You know that the actual moment is not always that clearcut. If you can’t see the ambiguity in this area, then you are just not trying to. Like the righties who don’t want to understand why “the terrorists hate us.” And if a sincere man guesses wrong, then the entire weight of the criminal justice system comes crashing down on him. Where is there any comparable risk for women as they make their sexual choices? There is none. You can even consent, and then afterwards say you were raped because the guy didn’t call you back, and the guy has no defense against that. I could cite many other examples where the women has the ability to place the man in severe criminal jeopardy, in effect ruining his life, even if he acted in good faith and she didn’t. These are real issues that are faced everyday by those who are out there dating, and it is not misogynistic to acknowldge that not all burdens are on the women, as I am equally willing to honestly acknowledge all the burdens that were and in some cases still are on them.

There is apparently no sorer point for women than being tagged with some responsibility for the way the last couple of generations of one-parent children turned out, but Oddmommy, you create another straw man when you seek to lay all of that on runaway fathers. I despise those guys too, and will never understand or defend them. But those guys are not what I was talking about. I recall when the most polular T-shirt seen on women was the one that said, “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.” Remember that? And how many women acted on that sentiment, and deliberately raised children with no father present, as a matter of ideology? Way too many. And it didn’t turn out well, because a child really does need two parents for optimal psychological development. But I think it is fair to say that the woman’s movement, like all other political movements, was willing to accept plenty of collateral damage if that was what it took to mobilize their cause. That’s fine, but then you have to live with the reality that the collateral damage came about as a result of deliberate choices you made. Like we have to take reponsibility for all the dead civilians in Iraq.

Peanutbutter, just rolling your eyes really isn’t good enough. I remember when everyone, including most women, just “rolled their eyes” at the claims of the feminists, even those for equal pay for equal work. They were wrong then, and you are wrong now, and for the same reason. You can’t honestly or effectively deal with these complex social and relationship issues by slogans or straw men or mere contemptuous dismissal.

Men have some reason to gripe about the way the issue of consent sometimes plays out, about the way custody battles get fought (where so many men seem to get accusd of child molestation against their own children as the custody battle looms, but not before),and the way every man has been transformed into a potential sexual suspect. It doesn’t help anyone to stay in denial about this. But staying in denial insures that we will never get to be the best we can be with each other.

I could go on, but I won’t. The point is that there are plenty of “men’s issues” that are worthy of serious good faith discussion, and you shouldn’t think it’s OK to give them a wholesale dismissal just because, as one old girlfriend said to me in justifying her actions, “We have all the pussy.”

One more time:
http://www.keepingamericaspromise.com/roadblock/

Great ad, Ed! Proud of ya.

I was shocked that the satellites were used during the DC sniper episode, but now that I think about it, why am I surprised?

Seems I remember something also being said during the hearing about them being used during Katrina but don’t know if they were referring to use for just storm forecasting vs. more sinister purposes.

Eureka Springs @ 72

Thanks, LS, It just occurred to me this is about as bad as capitulating on FISA last month. (if not worse)

According to several of the dims, they found out about it in the WSJ, ie. well after the fact. But then again, maybe they just neglected to read paperwork available to them. Been there, done that. /s

OldCoastie @ 31

OT – interesting brain study from UCLA on the difference b/n liberal and conservative minds…

OMG, OldCoastie – thank you! This is perfect for the book I’m writing on the difference between lib and con thinking! Thanks for the tip!

If you want to do some heavy duty reading, there was a paper by a group of psych profs on conservatives and how they think, and also a rebuttal by another group of conservative psych profs and an explanation why the rebuttal is incorrect

Click here

Summary here

Basically what I get out of it is exactly what John Dean has has been talking about in regard to authoritarian conservatives

Not much in the news about Afghanistan
http://www.usaid.gov/press/fac…..70307.html

OT – interesting brain study from UCLA on the difference b/n liberal and conservative minds…

Hell’s bells and codfish! Someone paid good money to run that piece of research? 707

Cutting edge science. /s
Yeh, yeh, scientific method and all that good stuff but next time they should just poll the Lake.

Reminds me of a psych experiment I participated in at university. They started you out on the far side of the room from a tank with a snake in it and had you move progressively closer to the snake. Final option was to take the lid off the tank and touch the snake. I have no great fondness for the critters but figured no one was stupid enough to put a dangerous one in there so followed thru’ to the end. Don’t ask me the purpose of the study; I have no idea. Lor’, haven’t thought of that in donkey’s ears. Forgot to mention this “test” came *after* being wired up and shown a bunch of pix of assorted things like spiders and other creepy-crawlies.

Ed Walker -

Good on……you added the link!

Eureka Springs @ 1:45 -

I’ve watched that twice now and talked about it here (iirc); definitely over at ew’s. The three so-called “humans” from DHS were scary enough to freeze your soul. Don’t remember there being many thugs asking questions but the one’s who were acted with the same “Ho, hum, nothin’ to see here; let’s all just move along” they’ve been exhibiting ever since they took control of what few hearings were held. The dims talked tough…………….and we see where that’s gotten us since January. ;-(

Here’s a good diary on the subject also:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/9/51544/46359

“Without this legal framework, the Department runs the risk of creating a program that – while well-intended – could be misused and violate Americans’ Constitutional rights.”

– while well-intended – !!

my bold

Oklahoma kiddo @ 58

Wonder when Rupert Murdoch will start buying up blogs.

Didn’t he buy MySpace?

I happened to see a headline on one of his earliest abominations today, the poor old New York Post, which before Murdick bought it 30 years ago was a decent publication.

Today’s front page screamer was about Clinton cutting funds to 9/11 victims’ children.

Fuck you, Rupert Murdoch.