He's like the investment banker I used to date. The guy had a ponytail. He was a soulless yuppie douche bag. But he radiated horniness, and there are times in a woman's life when that's just her type.

There was this marketing director I used to date. The gal had a ponytail. She was a soulless yuppie douche bag. But she liked to fuck . . .

Anything wrong with that sentence, ladies?

And so what?

College is way over-rated. It's mostly a food-beer-and-sex fest paid for by parents with a dash of education thrown in. I went. It was nice. And for what I ended up doing I could've flunked out of high school.

College is mostly irrellevant. So let the boy do what comes naturally. He could be a model. A fireman. A cheerleader. A chef. A martial arts instructor. Or President of the United States.

He could join the military or become an actor. He could be a nurse, a minister, or a social worker. He could be just about anything.

Kudos to the father for recognizing this, even if his language is a bit gruff.

Zucker's comments are astute. Chavez embraces open source for the political statement. High-priced washington consultants like SAIC usually push Micro$oft. So open-source is the political alternative. Practically speaking, either platform could be secured to lock out users. And whoever holds the passwords -- and the project's source code (not the application/OS source code) -- holds the keys to the kingdom.

And what a great ad for microsoft:

"America runs Windows. Latin American socialist pseudo-dictators choose... Linux!"

When is Bush gonna sell Alaska to Exxon?

is exploring the areas of healthcare with positive externalities and negative profits.

for example, nutrients as opposed to drugs. nutrients can't be patented, and aren't profitable, but they could be very important to lower healthcare costs.

private firms won't explore areas with negative profits aggressively. but government could.

~

positive externality, positive profit :: private firm, gov subsidy

positive externality, negative profit :: gov r&d

negative externality, positive profit :: private r&d, gov tax

negative externality, negative profit :: illegal

if MS doesn't serve its customers, another firm will, as long as MS isn't a monopoly. the chinese blogger in this case will simply move to another blogging service that doesn't answer to bejing.

a competitive market, with numerous small competitors, is a far more powerful solution than political direction of a firm (the latter approach having failed utterly in the Soviet bloc).

indeed, this is why globalization is so exciting, as the market will address the demands of multiple cultures, and individuals, comparatively free of dominating ideologies which have historically suppressed demands, and freedom

O'Beirne appears to be a first-class bitch, at least in print. She attacks the author with unrelated responses, refuses to discuss obvious flaws in her own logic, and raises the old sexist notion that a man is a dumb worker ant, made for heavy labor and the defense of ladies.

Really, this woman is ridiculous. But her strategy is practiced: fight a false foe, build a bug-a-boo from nothing:

* Liberals are stealing Christmas!

* Jews killed Jesus!

* Feminists are ruining the world!

Unfortunately, as long as the Traisters of the world use forums like Salon to attack men the O'Bierne's of the world will have an audience.

Feminism was necessary in America when women were oppressed. Now the gains to be made in America are outweighed by the potential backlash. Feminists are starting to run up the score, they are the new male chauvinist pigs, and they are losing sympathy with their audience.

More, they've forgotten their sisters abroad. The plight of the American women is hardly anything at all compared to an African mutilated so that she may not enjoy sex, a Chinese girl enslaved in a sewing factory, a Thai girl made into a prostitute at age ten.

In an age of globalization isn't it time for feminists to declare victory at home and move their battles off-shore?

I've often thought about all of the men who apparently feel a deep-seated need to "virtually hang out" on Web sites where women share their points of view, ever-watchful for any statements that are something less than cheerleader-ish in tone when the subject is males, ever-ready to accuse the non-cheerleaders of unwarranted "male bashing,"....

The problem is that Salon is not a women's magazine. It wasn't when I paid for membership. So why does it suddenly have a women's only section and a new focus on feminism? Does this exist in Newsweek? Slate? Scientific American?

Moreover, if we are going to divide content by gender, where is the men's section? And please, don't tell me "Sports".

What's really happened here is that Joan Walsh took over, and she is using the revenues generated from the previous version of Salon -- back when technology and progressive politics were the meat and potatoes -- to transform Salon into a shallow-but-splashy poke-guys-in-the-eye publication that treats men as stereotypes:

"Fellas, beware: All that lobster, and she still might not sleep with you!"

This is supported by Salon financials, which have already admitted they expect to lose profit in coming quarters due to a change in focus.

So that is why we are complaining and will continue to do so until our subscriptions run out. Then the good beast will be dead, and Salon can rename itself "The Ladies Room" without fear of rejoinder from men.

It is time for a single man to take up university lecturing!