I do not applaud the actions of the "Jena 6." It was a bad idea, and waking away would have been smarter (and less prosecutable). But, their options were limited, because the system had failed them. My beef is with the the uneven justice meted out by the school board and by the prosecutors. The "Jena 6" have been told by their school and by their justice system that black lives matter less than white lives.

This was not a random attack, a hate crime, a robbery, a drug deal, or a gang warfare issue. The "Jena 6" were lashing out after a long series of physical and psychological attacks against them, *solely* because they were black, with narry an eyebrow raised from the authorities. The white beating victim was not an innocent bystander, but an active participant in the harassment and beating of the black students. He wasn't beaten "just for being white" but in retalliation for beating, and pointing a gun at, black students. He may (this has been suggested but not proven) have been one of the noose hangers.

Also, the victim was not "severely" beaten, as many have alleged: he was released from the hospital within hours, (which, given the time I've spent in ER's means he was looked over, maybe sutured or xrayed, and sent home with some bandaids and Advil) and was well enough to attend a party that evening.

None of this excuses the "Jena 6," but it should change the picture. The hyperbolic charges filed against the "Jena 6" is one more attack, one more statement of "black is worth less than white".

Yes, long ago, girls got married at startingly young ages (by today's standards). Some things to remember when this factoid gets mentioned:

1. Most young marriages were amongst the upper-class land-owning or royal types. They arranged marriages as young as infancy, and had marriage ceremonies when tthe bride and groom were still children (and sometimes took place when one or both parties were absent: grown-up representativestood in for the child, saying "I do" in a mariage by proxy). Marriages were not expected to be consumated until both bride and groom had reached full maturity. And these non-consumated marriages could be (and wer) easily broken. The common people didnr' marry until the male had enough of an income to support a family, and the woman was sexually mature, and emotionally ready to take on the duties of running a household (typically she was in her late teens or early twenties).

2. Most marriages lasted less than 2 decades (on average), and more often than not ended in the death of the wife, from childbirth or its complications. Men often married twice, or three times, finding a woman to care for the children the first wffe left behind when she died.

3. Though different times and different places varied slightly, generally speaking women could not own property, sign loans, make financial agreements on their own. They needed the consent of either a father or a husband. Fathers often could not leave much of their fortune to their daughters, and brothers were not legally obligatd to care for unmarried sisters. So, there was financial incentive to get daughters married. A married woman was considered "secure," while an unmarried woman was regarded as a burden on her family.

4. The other option was a nunnery.

Not much from above applies to the case at hand.

The idea that teen boys (and girls) are averse to using condoms doesn't surprise me. (How many Catholic boys have said "The Pope says condoms re bad", while forgetting that that the pope also frowned on premarital sex!?)

Which is scary, since condoms prevent so much more than unwanted prgnancies.

But, guys who would undermine a girlfriend taking a birth control pills? That one's harder to wrap my head around. (I mean, I understand the reasons outlined in the article, but I still don't "get it").

maybe 10 years ago on Dateline or something. They were injecting fat from patients' posteriers into the backs of their hands. The theory was that fat migrates out of hands as we age (does it!?). The result: fat, old-looking hands.

Well, that sucked too.

Women might have had an annuity from her husband, or she might have been able to use the inheritance left to her children. If her husband's estate was a business or a farm, she had to hire male help to run it, unless her sons were old enough. Or it could be sold (though the proceeds held "in trust" by a male relative) or confiscated, or managed by a male relative.

But most often, she was penniless, dependent on the kindness of her brothers, sons or father. Or on the street. Or dead.

referenced it. The Dursleys lived in the suburb of Little Whingeing.

as a metaphor for the entire Bush II Iraq War.

A man, with a specific agenda, gets ahold of some documents that seem to prove his case. He goes public. The documents are revealed to be fake (or at least less "slam-dunk-y" than originally thought).

Why does Dan Rather then get fired, his reputation shredded, his career marginalized, while Bush gets reelected, and Congress rolls over and plays dead? Can we compare the harm from the "memogate" story to the harm from the current "presumptive strike" on Iraq?

Good luck, Dan!