Domestic violence is NOT A GENDER ISSUE. It is a HUMAN ISSUE. DV is still a massive social problem because it's been politicized. Get rid of the ideological agendas, and we'll solve the problem.

What do you mean it is a problem because it has been politicized?

That is a meaningless statement. It is a problem because people get hurt.

Clearly you are too young to remember the days when domestic violence was known as "wife-beating", before the more inclusive, polically correct term became standard, which is fine, but it is still predominantly a problem of men attacking the women they live with.

The problem is inextricably linked with poverty, alcohol, drugs, criminality, machismo, testosterone and various other factors. It IS a human problem, I guess, (though don't rabbits tend to do this too?), but one that is deeply embedded in American society. It would be nice to think that come the Glorious Revolution with justice and parity for all, everything will change, but a good start would be to teach all little boys never to hit little girls, stop indoctrinating little American boys into the philosophy of violence, and to ban violent themes from the mass media.

Did you see today the story about how Jamaica is banning violent and explicitly sexual songs from the public airwaves? Click on my name for the link.

We should also include in this exposure the fact that, statistically, women are at least as likely as men to initiate domestic violence.

Yes, but statistically women are much more likely to need treatment in an emergency room for their injuries.

You have to distiguish between family squabbles and beatings. Not the same thing at all.

Although it is certainly true that some women do start physical fights with men, in most cases men are strong enough to avoid harm or temporarily restrain the women until the danger is passed.

Punching a women in the face (or elsewhere) is almost never justified unless perhaps the man really feels he is at risk of serious injury.

A friend of mine once had his wife arrested for domestic violence. What happened was that she found a condom in his wallet and put a gun to his head when he was in bed and asked him to tell her who the other woman was, on penalty of having his brains blown out if he did not answer.

He coolly picked up the bedside telephone and dialed 911 and the cops came and arrested his wife, who was an esteemed member of the local community. She got probation, and as far as I know, ten years later, they are still together.

My former wife once hit me. I complained to the sheriff's office and a deputy came round and warned her. She never did it again.

That is how you deal with domestic violence.

It is true that people are entitled to defend themselves when physically attacked, but my understanding is that for this to be a legitimate legal defense, the level of violence used in defence has to be proportional to the attack and has to be the minimum necessary to enable the attacked person to escape further assault.

Rihanna, judging by the photo, appears to have been struck in the face more than once. I would say at least 4 times. (Click on my name to see photo.) Once on each temple, one time on the right cheek, and one time on the mouth. Maybe more.

Now, if she had the young fellow's testicles held in a vice-grip, this may have been necessary, but without seeing his injuries we cannot be certain that his response was disproportionate.

But it sure looks like it.

He (Taguba) explained his support in an interview with Salon. Taguba agrees with many attorneys who think it would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to prosecute former Bush administration officials.

Why? Would they kill themselves rather than surrender, or would there be an armed insurrection by Republican militiamen if attempts were made to arrest them?

... who say that this is no time for recriminations, time to move on etc. quite realize that we are in the middle of a slow motion civil war against those who

1) impeached a rather successful President for lying about a blow job from a young women (who wouldn't?),

2)parlayed this into staging a coup d'etat via a politically subservient Supreme Court that prevented a proper recount,

3) started a suicidally expensive war on totally false pretenses, and controlled an ignorant populace via control of mass media and TV propaganda, (in spite of well-publicized warnings by the future President Obama of exactly what would happen),

4) violated international treaties by introducing widespread use of torture, including waterboarding, for which Japanese officers had been executed after World War II,

5) looted the financial institutions and more-or-less bankrupted the nation as their final coup de grace.

This is not a game. It is not a case of saying, sorry about the mess-up chaps, let's try and do better next time.

It is a fight for the future of civilisation, and if these snakes are allowed to rise again, they surely will. Now is the time to chop off a few heads, before they can grow new ones.

People today often say they don't understand why the Germans didn't resist when the Nazis took over. I think now that we can see why.

... the Nobel Prize for Economics?