I've watched all three episodes of Cougar Town, and I've come to one conclusion: the writers of this show must be men, and they must hate women. I mean, maybe not on the surface, but deep down. Because the show is a) misogynistic (all the women are cartoon characters, devoid of real personality, horrible human beings, dumb and inane, etc) and b) has things in it that women would never do. Bikini wax the same day (nay, within a couple of hours) of a hot sexy date? Who does that?? Everyone knows you wait at least one day to let your skin recover.

I checked in to it, and yes, the show is written by men. Perhaps if they took the example of Mad Men - a show written largely by women - the show might get a little better. But for now, it's a rather paltry window into the minds of a few men, and what they think about women. Bleh.

I find it a little ridiculous that women have to be slapped with a making-fun-of-them label if they are open to dating (or seek out) younger men, but men? It's just par for the course - of COURSE they're going to go after younger women!

The idea of the "cougar" in any case is not kind to men or women. It gives the sense that these women are predatory and that the young men they are going out with are somehow emasculated prey, trapped by the predator. There are all kinds of problems with this whole concept. It's not empowering anyone, it's just making fun.

And while we're on the subject, I still maintain that the (primarily male) writers of Cougar Town hate women, and exhibit all of the ridiculous stereotypes and fears that men have about women.

The person who wrote this clearly has not spent much time in or around Richmond, or in the Bay Area, for any length of time. I feel like I have some perspective on this as a nativeof the area.

Unfortunately, this crime, while terrible, is not surprising when "Richmond, California" is tagged on to it (nor would it be surprising if it happened in Oakland). This is a city plagued by violent crime for years, with a history of gang violence, domestic violence, poverty and drug use. Attempts at urban renewal haven't made much of a difference in the city - gleaming new streets are abandoned in the afternoon, because people are afraid of being mugged in the evening and at night. The police force is violent and frequently corrupt, attempts by the city to improve things largely ineffectual.

What is worse - that this poor girl endured this unspeakable crime, during which no one came to her assistance or notified authorities, or that it's unsurprising that this happened given the city it happened in, where people expect such terrible things to happen? What do these things say about us, and about the world these young people live in?

The opposition to abortion is largely religious. Just as the opposition to gay marriage. Much of these debates are part of a group of people who don't like the idea of separation of church and state when it comes to conservative, right-wing Christianity (but they want to keep people of other religions out of their government).

As long as a fetus is in a woman's body, attached to it, living off of her body, it is her choice whether to carry that pregnancy to term or not. A fetus is not a citizen, or a person. We might have emotional attachments to the idea of the eventual baby, an individual woman with a wanted pregnancy may form a close relationship with that fetus, but it is still her choice whether to carry that to term or not.

The government should not be legislating medical procedures, period. Nor should they be legislating what anyone chooses to do with their own bodies. When a woman's health (mental, physical, emotional or otherwise) is placed as second in priority to that of a fetus that isn't actually an autonomous person yet, there is a big problem with priorities. This is not a "pro-life" stance, it's profoundly anti-life. Being pro-choice makes me pro-life. I value the life of the mother and her choices.

I'm sure I'll be eviscerated for this comment, but it matters little to me what anonymous people think about this opinion. I just think the rhetoric of "pro-life" is profoundly misplaced, and this religious discussion belongs in churches and temples rather than the US Senate.

He wants Obama to fail, and he, like the other Republicans, thinks that failure of health care reform will mean the failure of Obama.

Well, really, health care reform has already failed. It failed with the single-payer system, months ago. The public option is a weak second, but better than no public option at all. Still, Lieberman wants to wait "three or four years" because he thinks that they'll be able to hobble Obama and get a Republican in the White House in that amount of time, by killing reform.

In any case, the Dems shouldn't take this lying down. Unfortunately, if the last few months have been any indication, they almost certainly will.

The public option only covers 10% of people in this country, and is prohibitively expensive. It's a joke.