It's sounds like she thinks women getting into shooting is bad. It's hard to tell. I can't imagine why she would think it's bad, though. Women who started taking up target shooting and even hunting would seem to be what feminism is all about; if a woman wants to target shoot, she should, regardless of whether or not it's a gender apprpoiate activity.

At this point, I am sick and tired of the gun control debate. There should be regulations on gun ownership; most people, myself included, agree with this (and I own guns). But regulations can only accomplish so much. We have as much chance of eliminating guns as we do of eliminating drugs. I understand that some people are put off by even the idea of guns, but I can't imagine that anyone seriously beleives that guns themselves are the source of crime in general. Most gun owners use their guns legally, for recreational purposes, and I don't see any reason why women shouldn't participate in gun sports.

All those soldiers are "CGI", roughly speaking. Those images were taken from the game "Battlefield 2".

http://www.ea.com/official/battlefield/battlefield2/us/

It's a multiplayer game that is played mainly on the internet, so it's pretty impressive that they were able to get enough people on to approximate the bouncing ball commercial.

The phrase "Bunny Hopping" at the end of the commercial refers to something that people do in the game; while running, a player will repeatedly jump, making him harder to hit. It's really annoying.

There is an increased chance that I will tune in to America's Next Top Model just to see what happens to this woman. What is she thinking? She hates gays (or at least completely disapproves of their lifestyle or whatever euphemism bigots are now using when they try to interact with polite society) and she getting into modeling? That like joining the Navy when you hate boats. This I gotta see.

Is it fair that a women can choose to have a kid and demand child support from the biological father, even if he did not want the child? No. Probably not.

But - and this is key - the debate about whether a father should be able to opt out of child support turns on what should be legal and what should be illegal. The law is too blunt an instrument to successfully parse a situation such as DuBay's. Who could ever know if either of them are telling the truth? DuBay himself chose not to use birth control; can he prove he was %100 sure his ex-girlfriend couldn't get pregnant? Even if he was, he was obviously mistaken; since nobody anywhere thinks he should be able to compel this woman to have an abortion, why should he not bear the some of the burden for an error of judgement that they both made? Do we really want to make paternity law to become more arcane? I can't imagine a law that would make DuBay's situation more equitable without creating a host of other new problems.

If the anti-abortion crowd has their way, an undesirable situation for men's rights will become much worse. With abortion legal, there is a way out for the man; the woman can choose to have an abortion. If men's rights groups are worried about men paying child support for unwanted children, they should think long and hard about how many more unwanted pregnancies will be brought to term if abortion rights are completely rolled back. It is also important to keep in mind that we can now easily acquire the identity of the biological father through DNA testing. It won't be like it was before Roe vs. Wade; if the woman get's pregnant, there will be no such thing as a fling you can walk away from.

If it is true, as Mel Feit says, that "..we all are in this thing together.", then he should realize that a case like DuBay's is a minor skirmish, and keeping abortion legal is the whole war.

There has to be someway to describe the real financial difficulties that younger people face without resorting to indefensible hyperbole. When compare how we live to the way things were in the depression, we definitely come out on top. We also lose sight of the fact that we have, in this country, a much better standard of living than a lot of other places in the world.

The job market really does seem to be more difficult than it was for my parents (in the 60s), and job security seems very difficult to come by. We may have to come to terms with the fact the prosperity of the post war period was the exception, not the rule. When you consider that most of the industrialized world was either closed off behind the Iron Curtain or recovering from World War II, our ease in finding markets for our manufactured goods in that period and the difficulties we are having now make sense.