It DOES seem ridiculous that the U.S. is spending billions overseas to fight AIDS, when our own healthcare system is such a mess, and people are still failing to use adequate protection when engaging in sexual activity. On the other hand, if we are going to be spending the money overseas, it's intensely frustrating that it's being spent in such an ass-backward, nearly useless way. If I were more of a conspiracy theorist, I might theorize that the U.S. actually doesn't want the AIDS fight to work in Africa - that relations with and control of African nations might be much easier if the populations were decimated by disease. But as evil and idiotic as the Bush administration seems to be, I hope they're not at that level. I hope.

But I imagine that many parents are not so lucky. Though those unlucky parents probably have themselves to blame - if you buy your daughter a bunch of Bratz dolls (which are, I believe, the creepiest things ever - particularly the "baby" ones, which look like toddler streetwalkers), is it at all unexpected when she wants to look like a streetwalker herself? Sure, kids are going to beg and whine for whatever the marketers are telling them to want, but your role as a parent has to be to find the middle ground between deprivation and overindulgence. So many parents just seem willing to overindulge themselves and their kids.

Clark-Flory's tween days were a decade ago. She's the author of the Broadsheet post, not the article.

I WISH we could trust that women in power would always be reasonable, and make good decisions. But, just as with men, there are good female leaders and bad ones. Tshabalala-Msimang seems to be a particularly bad one. We have to hope that people will remember that (just as with male leaders), one bad female leader does not mean ALL female leaders are bad. People have to be judged on the basis of their own individual actions.

The statistic came from a question in which the people were told to label the U.S., and were given no credit if they forgot to mark Alaska and Hawaii as part of the U.S.

seems downright cowardly to me. I understand why the functionality is there - the topic of rape, in particular, might benefit from anonymous posting (a poster may wish to share a rape experience, but not have it thrown back at her/him when posting at another time on an unrelated topic). But to expect your ideas to be taken seriously when you consistently hide behind the "Anonymous" function is ridiculous. If you don't have the courage to put a name (and not even your real name!) on your ideas, why should you have the right to attack the ideas of others, and why should anyone respect what you have to say?

Heck - most of the time I STRONGLY disagree with brightstar, but at least he has the chutzpah to put a name to what he has to say.

Not only cowardly, but also prone to hyperbole. As I said, you don't have to use your real name. Very few of us do. It's a matter of consistency and being able to respond to ideas. If, as in your example, you used the name "Publius", I could address this post to Publius, just as you addressed your post to Emmers. So I've given you a courtesy (a name by which I can be addressed) that you have not given me or any of the other people who read this website. I also specifically stated that I thought there was a purpose to anonymous posting (to speak about a personal/sensitive issues). But I believe that making a run-of-the-mill post about how women don't have it so bad/men are abused too/feminists have bad ideas doesn't merit that protection. So I wasn't saying that Salon should stop you from posting anonymously - that's your right, certainly - I was just saying that you are a coward for doing so.

Eh, I'm not buying it. If I think of men I've seen labeled ballbusters, they're REALLY tough, really in your face, they don't let anyone get away with anything - like drill seargeants in movies. And Hillary may be tough, but is she really drill seargeant tough? I don't think so - that simply wouldn't fly for a politician, and she is a politician.

Also - "That is so perfect! I have often said, when she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs."

Shouldn't Tucker Carlson be really ashamed for saying anything like that? Why ARE some men so ridiculously insecure in their masculinity that a woman and her IDEAS can make them afraid? And isn't leg crossing supposed to be effeminate anyways? "Real men have balls so big they can barely walk!" or something like that?

I think a great deal (even most?) people who buy series DVDs are doing it for the "collection" value of it. You've already seen the show, you buy the DVD because you love it and want to have it for always (a need that is not fulfilled to nearly the same degree with electronic files). Who would buy a DVD just because they missed one or two episodes of a show? Also, by the time the DVD comes out, the season is already over - meaning that there's no real suspense factor - whereas you can watch the show you missed on your ipod BEFORE the next week's installment comes out. I just don't see how the two things cross over - I think they're completely different products.