I agree, the batterer is a risk to his ex-wife and anyone who could be standing near her.

Note that I said the *batterer*, not his victim. *He* is the danger, not she.

So, perhaps we should focus on enforcement or legislation that minimizes the risk by neutralizing the batterer instead of firing his victim. Clearly, healthyskeptic notwithstanding, most posters feel Ms Beccerril was unjustly fired. Most posters are in agreement that punishing the victim by denying her employment is counterproductive to her escaping her abuer. Anyone have any ideas?

I think Catherine Price's point isn't that vegansexuals are silly for not sleeping with nonvegans. I think she is amused by their reason for abstaining: according to vegansexuals, omnivores are "made up" of the bodies of the animals that became their meals. I have no problem with the former philosophy. I find the latter worthy of ridicule.

What legitimate pageant company, modeling agency or casting agent would accept these horrifically phony pictures? They give no sense of the "real" applicant. (Did you see the one where they "aged" a toddler to a kindergartner? Like something out of CSI). There's a wide, neon-bright line between correcting overexposure, cleaning up stray hairs and airbrushing out a scrape or a pimple and transforming adorable kiddos into plastic zombies. Kind of like dying your collie's coat for the Westminster dog show ... there must be rules on that sort of thing.

I see the "retouching" starts at $40 a pop, and that doesn't include any prints. I'm sure there is profit to be made, and all those parents end up with are useless photos that sucked all the life and inividuality out of their kids.

the administration stopped watching to stare at shiny Iraq.

This was the place where we were actually greeted as liberators, and where we had a broad coalition of support.

This was the place where true democracy could have flourished, becoming a model and catalyst for other nations in the region.

Afghanistan may yet succeed, but it will be in spite of Bush & Company, not because of.

we could say "Preschoolers and adults commit theft equally" because there are studies that show 5 per 1000 in each age group will take something that doesn't belong to them. We could then say that theft among preschoolers is a serious threat to society, and something must be done to solve it. We could neglect to say that preschoolers, on avearge, "steal" $0.60 of candy before getting caught, but adults steal $12,000 of merchandise. We'd be technically correct, and yet, dishonest (and kind of silly).

Yes, women can and do assault their male significant others. But the typical damage inflicted by a female batterer is much less significant than the typical damage inflicted by a male batterer. And, how many of these female batterers are also battered by the same partner? How does that compare to women who batter non-violent men vs men who batter women who don't hit or run anyone over? (And who started the beating? Are women more likely to hit because they have been hit? Or do men become abusive because their girlfriend threw the tv remote at their head?)

I'm not trying to diminish the damage women can do to their husbands, but the severity and context needs to be reported accurately.

Oh please bite me. I never said that it was "ok" for women to kill their husbandds. Of course it's not.

But I don't buy your argument that men are equal victims of domestic violence on a day-in, day-out basis.

That doesn't make me a man-hater or a liar.

But it sure makes you an ass.