As for those women, the ones Brightstar mentions, who enjoy it so much when women do things to men, or the feminists who take so much pleasure when men get shafted (but let's think for a moment on the origin of that term, thall we?), Brightstar really enjoys telling us about them, but as for myself, I have never met a single person like that and don't expect I ever will. I certainly see no evidence of them on these letters, for example. Brightstar tries hard to make it seem like they exist by mentioning them at every possible moment, but that hasn't encouraged any to pop out of the woodworks so far....

Once again you are all talk and no evidence. Sorry but no one gives a shit about your ranting so long as you refuse to actually come up with anything other than your own generalizations and anecdotes that you expect others to accept as fact.

Since I don't think you've had much dealing with "facts" or "evidence" in a while, let me give you some examples to help.

- "Women are 14% more likely than men to live in households with incomes that are 60% below the national average - the official measure of poverty." Equal Opportunity Commission of the UK

- "Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime." Population Reports academic journal.

- "Women constitute 75% of the poorest people in the world today." CARE Report

- "Women produce half the world's food, but own only 1% of its farmland." CARE Report

So really... all your empty rhetoric about the mean, mean women and the poor victimized men? Shut up or cite some relevant evidence. You are living in a fantasy world that is convenient for your own sense of entitlement and victimhood. Get over yourself.

Obama doesn't even get it. Obviously Clinton is not blaming Obama for the remarks Clinton made. Clinton is blaming the Obama camp for twisting those remarks... which were true, by the way, last time I checked Jackson did win South Carolina... into making it sound like Clinton is an abiding racist. In the exact same way the Obama camp has twisted Hillary Clinton's similarly true-and-benign comments about the importance of LBJ in getting the Civil Rights Act into somehow being a disparagement against MLK Jr's legacy. What a load of crap from the real race-baiters in this campaign... ugh.

Brightstar is his own worst enemy on this forum. He reveals his own paranoia and misogyny at every turn. He cannot counter facts with anything but his own hysterical (ironic, eh?) assertions that women are lazy, stupid, cruel, weak, pathetic, etc.

It's funny, though, isn't it. If women are as stupid, pathetic, and weak as Brightstar thinks they are, you wouldn't think they would also have all this unseen, behind-the-scenes manipulative power and authority over men that he also thinks they possess.

It is also interesting that he insists on referring to anyone who doesn't agree with him as "you women." I, for one, am not a woman, yet the idea that a self-respecting man could possibly acknowledge patriarchal privilege instead of whining incessantly about how mean women are seems foreign to him.

In the final analysis, there is someone here who comes off as weak, pathetic, stupid, lazy, and hysterical. And Brightstar makes it more and more obvious to letter readers every time he sobs a little more about the injustices of being a man.

I, personally, am beyond the point of trying to convert or even understand people like Brightstar. Now I'm just getting my kicks by encouraging him to make himself as big a fool as possible in front of as broad an audience as possible, which seems to be working like a charm.

Obama picked up another superdelegate this morning: "Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Wednesday, calling him an inspirational leader who can unite the country."

C'mon, folks. He couldn't even unite Democrats in Pennsylvania. I don't understand why people keep following this unity line, when Obama has been as divisive as any of the candidates... arguably moreso, because his voters vote by demographic line even more closely than voters for Clinton or McCain. Obama may have the African-American and wealthy, educated white vote, but that's where his sense of unity seems to stop.

It's kind of sickening that in America, patriotism is confused with a pro-government agenda. This seems to be what is happening here. These people are not propogandists because what they are doing is not viewed, by them or by us, as an attempt to promote the government's particular views and beliefs and ideologies, but it is seen as patriotism.

See, your sense of unity seems to think that everyone who isn't white and educated and/or African-American is a "dumb whitey."

But you're leaving out the droves of women voters, working-class voters, Latino voters, Jewish voters, and so on, who make up Clinton's base.

That is one of the problems with upper-class white Obama supporters. They think that because they are voting with African-Americans, they somehow have the monopoly on voter diversity, and that anyone who isn't with them must be a racist white guy who shoots varmints in a cabin somewhere. That is a gross and ignorant oversimplification of the voting demographics that actually exist.

If you are too dense to figure out that I am talking about voting demographics and not individuals then perhaps you shouldn't be voting at all. I myself am young, white, affluent, and educated, which means I ought to be voting for Obama if I were to follow the trends. But you and I are the exceptions that prove the rules. If you can't wrap your mind around that then you need to get out more...