Kudos to masaccio above for exerpting this manly statement of what manly men mainly believe: '"A second suggestion following the acceptance of sex differences is to respect the manliness of men. Manliness is the character of men that makes them insist on being men, on distinguishing themselves from women and also from unmanly men. Manly men reproach unmanly men, but merely look down on women, who are excused from manliness. After all, they are women. To accept differences between the sexes is to tolerate this apparently irrational prejudice of men. A man needs to feel he is important. "

This reads like a Monty Python script! My 10 cent analysis is that anyone (especially one with the XY chromosones) who would read the above text (without smirking or just snorting in laughter, & try it yourself guys, I couldn't do it), is painfully hoping that some 'manly man' will sweep them off their feet & deflower them repeatedly (not that there's anything wrong with that).

To me, the best defense against these infantile ideas is complete & utter derision.

Realname said Mr. Tenet squashed a bid to free Jonathan Pollard & delivered this quote: 'You guys should be cheering about that and giving him a Double Medal of SUPER Freedom.'

Thank's for the info, Realname. That does make me feel a tiny bit better about Mr. Tenet. Having that traitourous weasel get out & be feted in Israel over his perfidious actions has been a source of concern to me over the past 10 or so years.

IMO, Mr. Pollard should serve out his natural life sentence & when he has died, his body can be released for burial in Israel.

Glenn, thank's for giving another example of why 'The Politico' suckios. So much heartbreak in Iraq & nine stories on Sen. Edward's hair gaffe.

I do say it is a 'gaffe', a minor one, but a gaffe nevertheless. I was reading a Rolling Stone article recently that was an interview with Jane Fonda & she voiced extreme regret about her photo op on the NVA anti-aircraft gun way back when & said something to effect of 'I just teed it right up there for them (her critics) & I have only myself to blame for that, etc. etc.'

I think that Sen. Edwards should have known (his staff should have known) that his locks & hairstyle was a touchstone that his enemies use to mock him & I think he should 'take it out of play' by not getting really expensive haircuts (hindsight, I know).

I really, really hate to agree with our most self-hating 'Democrat' (heh), i.e. Ms. Paglia, but she opined that Sen. Edwards ought to have cut his hair shorter & more military looking. As a tactical decision, I thought it was smarter than continuing to fend off their snide hair comments.

King made this point in his article: 'But you'd have to search far and wide to find an NBA fan who hasn't noticed and complained about the bias in favor of All-Stars and against scrubs and rookies. That's a problem that has driven fans away, and it's one the NBA should study and fix.'

Damn straight, King. It is one of the things that drives me up the wall about the NBA. A foul or walking call or whatever should be called the same whether D. Wade does it or some ex-CBA rookie does it. It reeks of favoritism in a competition where the arbitrators MUST maintain an air of impartiality.

Another commenter above had an excellent post wondering what a study comparing fouls called on heavily tattooed guys whith those called on their non-tattooed bretheren. I'd be interested in seeing that.

When it comes to calling techs, generally on TV you will never hear what the player has said to the ref. King had a good line yesterday about Mr. Jackson getting teed up for 'driving while Stephen Jackson' or something like that. Pretty funny line. His T in that situation might have been totally uncalled for (I didn't see the incident, but it sounded like when you were watching it on TV that there didn't seem to be much he'd done to get the T).

However, we never heard what he said to the ref & certain comments (especially those that insinuate you are making the call because you have money on outcome or you're getting something from the other team to make the call, etc.) will always result in a technical foul, as will schoolyard epithets directed at the referee (another example: saying 'that's a horseshit call' will generally not get you a T. Saying 'you are full of shit' to the ref will generally get you a T). The above are all my opinions from back in the day when I did some refereeing (not at NBA level, though).

Topper above said: 'Steroids just throws a huge monkey-wrench into all that, because regardless of steroids Bonds had a chance at 755. And in the wake of Sosa and McGwire and Palmeiro, *that* would have been quite a story.'

I'm going to have to disagree about Mr. Bonds having a chance at 755 w/o steroids. Had he not been juiced, I think he could have had a shot at both the single season & career doubles marks (both hoary records), but not the HR mark.

6 pi signs (or whatever that is) up above opined that the $75 K or so the lady was suing for seemed low, instead of high (as Broadsheet mentioned).

This is one of the first times I have ever agreed with anything this poster has written!!! I too think she should sue for much more than that (and then settle for a lower amount, if she is OK with that & it is less hassle for her).

As another poster mentioned, it's not illegal (yet) for people over age 20 to get drunk (in certain circumstances, and that photo didn't have her behind the wheel of a schooner or clipper ship).

So I hope she sues the shit out of them & takes a good chunk of change. You go girl!