There is not enough in the letter to justify this as date rape. By the standard as stipulated in the letter, I have been date raped as much as I have had consensual sex; getting drunk and having horrible, semi-conscious sex is essentially what happens (to me at least).

This is not to say that the writer is wrong, but merely that the information provided, taken at face value, does not merit the label. Based on this, the advice is correct. The young individual is clearly in pain and a center could direct one to a doctor whose background suits the cases of rape.

Who is he? And the answer is "no."

This is quite a bit of tsk-tsking from the publication that output much more in depth analysis of just about every part of the first lady's body... hair, ass, arms.... please now, you must see some bit of silliness here. Talk about anti-feminist....

Stinks: so your rant there pretty much comes down to 'watched pot never boils' on a global scale? In fact, as has been pointed out, evolution as a process is not a theory, but clear observation. Records clearly can illustrate the process of species mutating. There is no question about that. The debate is about the eruption of new, unique species, and whether we all come from a common ancestor (in lieu of being created)... so you don't even comprehend the basics of the debate.

brightstar: Matrix Theory?? You mean string theory? That would be physics and is irrelevant to the matter of k-12 biology textbooks. And 'panspermia'... I am not sure how that enters into it at all. Panspermia is a theory regarding the origin of life on planets, and really is not oppositional at all to evolution... sort of a prequel, really. But as for your debates about explaining love and mind: irrelevant. Nothing in evolutionary study is attempting to take a dramatic swing at the entire Theory of Mind. This is not a debate about explaining all of human existence, nor for that matter does evolution necessarily refute the existence of God or religion, as can be seen in the number of church-going biologists out there. Evolution is merely a process. The ID people want to crush it because they are literalist radicals inasmuch as they believe the world was created as described in Genesis and, most troubling to them, evolution (and carbon dating) assert that they world is much older than their version of religion states.

Both of you are twisting and expanding a discussion well beyond the reasonable limits. To that end, you are arguing in favor of the IDers.

This series has exceeded, I think, many of our highest expectations. The reactionaries have splayed out a great series on non-topical vignettes to extremism. At least the loyalists couch their alignments in proto-nationalist 'dignity.' The leftist jacobins are actually far worse -- a series of off topic rants about how the police are all evil and despicable to a man. It is ironic that the same people labeling the word fascist are so able, themselves, to dehumanize a swath of people. And this is coupled with the sort of exaggeration normally reserved for right wing protesters who demand presidential candidates proffer their birth certificates: "Police get off with murdering unarmed civilians ALL THE TIME" or "murder THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of innocent civilians a year. The ability to dehumanize so thoroughly is the font of bigotry and fascism and is tantamount to sociopathology.

I was more than happy to protest the Philadelphia Fraternal Order's overtly anti-Mumia alignment. This was not because I don't think Mumia was guilty (and he was), but rather that such a public alignment is too political given the background, and not helpful. Some of these statements here are just stupid and too polemical. I can only assume these are reflexive rants here are not reflective of the full feelings of the individuals.

More recent posts seem to illuminate that the 'super-pro-polce' side (leaving aside ideological labels) does NOT, in fact, sublimate their rhetoric into creepy nationalist 'dignity' but also plenty of 'it's the blacks'-style rhetoric. Oof... what am I doing reading this... we all knew this would bring out the crazies.

"and the race of the cop who was harassing him and his son outside the stadium. (I'd be willing to bet $20 that again, the answer is...white.)"

well, that is utter speculation, although I assumed the same you did. On the other hand, in personal anecdotes, I have only had a cop pull his gun out once regarding me (he did not point it thankfully) but just waved it at the pavement while being menacing. Given that you brought it up, you may have guessed already that he was african american.

Indeed in 2 incidents in the past three years, in Philadelphia, involving police brutality (or alleged Police brutality to some), non-white police have been involved. Without getting into various sociological and existential debates 'explaining' why (and possibly bringing NWA, of years gone-by, into this) it is clear, in corruption trials and such incidents, that minority officers are just a susceptible to this mentality.

Indeed, why do not people injecting class and race into this particular incident not don't also address the poor pay police officers receive. This pay scale ensures these law enforcement jobs are not appealing to individuals with a broad spectrum of educational and work backgrounds (nor does it pay for the work dangers).

"Khat is controversial but legal and wildly popular in Yemen, and chews are often the scene of lively and wide-ranging discussions."

For one, I think many people already know what khat is. But author makes it seem quaint and curious, when chomping on khat is essentially like sitting around for a smoke. It is only controversial because, under Islam, any psychoactive substance is generally verbotten. Consider the following:

"Dog parks are controversial but legal and wildly popular in Philadelphia, and hanging out in dog parks is often the scene of lively and wide-ranging discussions... about supermarkets."