Personally, I think the entire issue of men's rights in regard to all sorts of family law issues is due for an airing. Having endured the institutional presumption that my ex-wife is somehow a better parent, and human being for that matter, than I could ever be, by virtue of our sex only, I can say there is unnecessary and counterproductive bias surrounding the entire issue. I understand whence the bias and presumptions, but that doesn't mean that fairness is a hallmark of this arena.

I can certainly understand Traister's reasoning, but I think I could also apply her logic, fairly, as follows: Women had their chance to make a decision about abortion's legal status. Before the election. I have a son and a daughter. I've passionately defended a woman's right to bodily self-determination. A pivotal election came, and went, and I think it's fair to say that enough "security moms" voted to keep the belligerent chimp in office—another example of people voting against their own self-interest in response to the hysterical fear-mongering of Rove and Co.—that they themselves could be probably shoulder the blame for the election results and subsequent Alito-Roberts appointments.

I don't know from the timing of this guy's case, and I presume that he'll lose. But, even as a hypothetical situation and conversation point, the "facts" of his case have merit.

If a man makes clear that he doesn't want a child, and is assured by a woman that it isn't possible, or even just that she doesn't want a child either, that understanding should count for something. One person shouldn't get to hold all the cards when a mutual decision has an unforeseen, and undesired outcome. Yes, indeed, being a mother more profoundly complicates a woman's life than does becoming a father a man's life. Woman get stuck holding the baby, and all that implies. Yet, women have had two options for a while now (we'll see what happens to them) that, together, pretty much preclude an unwanted pregnancy: birth control and abortion. Women can change their minds (couple agrees no children, woman doesn't choose pill, insists couple uses condoms, pregnancy ensues, woman wants to keep, rather than abort, guy's screwed, no recourse), and men are legally on the hook. Men can't change their minds with any similar standing (same as above, but guy wants to be daddy, and woman wants to abort. Again, case closed.) Basically, the underlying logic is that women who want to have sex (and are therefore willing to risk pregnancy) get all choices, and men, just one. To remain celibate, or cede financial autonomy to someone else.

As Feit correctly points out, the logic that supports a woman's right to choose does ultimately make a universal human case.

What this all indicates more than anything is a need for a form of male birth control that allows men to choose whether or not they want to procreate, or just have sex.

I dunno, but I figure Hillary has got to be the most polarizing candidate possible. Sure it's time for a female president, and maybe this fact alone would get her there. But I have to think that nothing would turn out every conceivable Republican vote, not to mention every conceivable Republican dollar, faster than Hillary. Sure I'm no expert, but my gut has long said her candidacy would be a disaster for the Democratic party. If she's as unstoppable as this article implies, I'm thinking Dems have managed to shoot themselves in one foot, and have now reloaded and are taking aim squarely at the other foot. I sincerely hope I'm wrong. God help us.

I couldn't agree more with Juan Cole here. Any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-Semitism, which is, on its face, ludicrous. But there it is. And naturally, when you criticize Israeli policy, or US foreign policy in regard to Israel, you're an anti-Semite. There is nothing more inimical to democracy and the civic dialogue than such cowardly and disingenuous ploys. An extreme analogy would be calling someone racist for deploring Idi Amin.

Naturally—given that a large part of the animus motivating the terrorists who threaten us is our image as a dishonest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—it is to be expected that Israel's apologists would attempt to tear down any honest critic, to tar and smear, lest the "stranglehold" finally be broken. The divergence in our interests (which is not inevitable, given that we ostensibly, as democracies, should share the same greater interests) is finally plain to see, and this clarity is of course to be obscured, since the underlying facts themselves cannot be. Just as anyone who is critical of the looming urge to theocracy in this country is automatically anti-Christian, or anti-religion, so too must Israel's critics be destroyed. Who shines a light must be impugned, lest what the light shows be viewed on its own merits.

And yet, in service to our long-term security, and indeed to our political and ideological integrity, we must be able to consider our relationship with Israel, and Israel's actions, honestly. Otherwise, Israel's unwavering apologists will simply continue to demand that the US sacrifice its own interests and tie its fate, indeed, perhaps even the world's if the Middle East situation spiral out of control, to Israel's, without any even-handed consideration.

I've always thought that in exchange for propping up Israel, the US deserved some concessions to its own legitimate security and moral interests. But Israel apparently expects no criticism, and believes that it owes the US nothing, even going so far as to believe that the US should sacrifice its own self-interest on Israel's behalf. This is not how an ally and friend in a "special relationship" ought to behave. It's a one-sided relationship at best.