Just to be clear, I haven't called Love anything. Well, except a trainwreck, but my point is that the general public reaction to her is not simply, or even mostly, a case of a double standard against women rockers or celebrities.

Now that was funny. You like her and some others don't. It's that simple. Their dislike is not evidence of a country gone to hell in handbasket or pc run amok. It seems like you're engaging in some of the same overblown behavior that you're criticizing.

Man some of you are really reaching...

"That's another thing. It's supremely arrogant to think that you are more prepared to call plays and run the offense than some of the best football minds on Earth."

That's nonsense. Until fairly recently, most QBs routinely called the plays. Were they all "supremely arrogant" as well?

"The point was made last year that the Steelers had Peyton's number last year in the playoffs but because he calls his own plays no adjustments were made to change things up. You can blame the Colts lousy playoff record on their defence and Marvin Harrison's taking most playoff games off but Manning's jumping bean imitation isn't helping things."

That doesn't make sense. BECAUSE he called his own plays he couldn't make adjustments? Why not? Of course he could have. Also, how does Manning gesticulations at the line not help his team? I don't think they have much effect either way.

Cool. I got where you were coming from and you're right about some of the letters, particularly the ones accusing her of murder, and you're right when you say liking CL doesn't make you a "rotten feminist". We all have our likes and dislikes.

"I can answer with cold authority that any feminist who speaks out about rapes that happen to be interracial, let alone speaks out about the disparate use of hate crime laws, can expect to be pillored by a quite diverse range of people."

Yeah right, it must be tough hanging on that cross. I remember when you lamely tried to spin the facts of the Central Park Jogger case awhile ago. Don't blame other feminists or "a diverse range of people" for not following your agenda.

Golden Boy,

Huh? Help you out with what? Are you responding to my letter, which itself was a response to a tangental issue rasied by another person, or are you asking me to "help" with your view on this matter?

I'm not sure what help I could give you since you seem to have a...umm...predetermined...opinion when it comes to all things relating to Muslims.

So, I'd imagine your view is set but I could be wrong.

Yeah, I agree with that. People really do have strange notions of what their "rights" are. Overall though, the whole thing seems to have been blown out of proportion by both sides.

"Lastly, the Civil Rights Act guarantees a woman's right to feed her baby whereever she is allowed to be. This is a Federal Law. This is where the discrimination ensues. You cannot ask a woman to leave because she is feeding her child."

Firstly, the Civil Rights Act does not have any such guarantee and it is not Federal Law.

What you are talking about is a proposed amendment (HR 2790) that's currently stuck in a subcommittee. The proposed amendment is really just a cheap tactic by the more zealous breastfeeding advocates to try and lessen the rights of private property owners (e.g. airplanes, resturants, etc.) by asserting that breastfeeding is a "civil right" that can't be infringed upon.

You are probably conflating the various state laws and how the breastfeeding issue is handled in terms of publically owned property.

Anyway, even if the dubious amendment passes and it becomes part of the CRA, Delta wouldn't have been in violation because they didn't refuse to allow her to brestfeed nor did they ask her to leave because she was feeding her child. They asked her to leave because she refused to cover herself when asked to do so.

It's not a "right" simply because some may want to do it when, where and how they please.

The H.R. 2122 (BreastFeeding Promotion Act) you're talking about was just introduced in 2005.

See below:

"109th U.S. Congress (2005-2006)

H.R. 2122: Pregnancy Discrimination Act Amendments of 2005

Status: Introduced

This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise bills before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee.

Bill Overview

Introduced: May 5, 2005

Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY]show cosponsors (28)

Last Action: May 31, 2005: House Education and the Workforce: Referred to the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations.

Full Text: Text or PDF"

I looked at Maloney's website and all I see is a 5/20/05 press release trying to garner support for her bill. I could have missed it though.

BTW, most public-use airports though they may get federal funds or were originally federal property deeded to local govts, are owned by local or state government entities. In any event, Delta's planes are not federal propety.