with finding an individual right to bear arms is that that term includes things like, oh, nuclear weapons. And of course it applies to children, the insane, felons, etc. There's nothing in the wording of the amendment to exclude any of that. So Scalia just totally fabricates those exclusions out of thin air all the while overturning over a century of SC precedent saying that the amendment was worded to construct not an individual right but a collective right.

And these guys are supposed to be "strict constructionists?"

Mark my words: in the immediate future, all the restrictions Scalia placed on this individual "right" will be attacked and most will be overturned, because they're totally made up. I mean where in the amendment does it say or suggest that a person with a felony record of kiting checks shouldn't have this right of self protection? Or what if the violent felon happens to be married to someone with no criminal record? His wife can own a handgun, so effectively so can he. The door is now ajar. Pushing it open further will be no problem.

of fans booing draft choices: In 1993 Houston Rockets fans got all twisted up because the brass didn't choose Harold Miner with the 10th pick in the first round. Who'd they choose? Robert Horry. Last time we looked Miner was washing Horry's car.

Harding's piece or the "study" it refers to.

The "study" is of 10, count 'em 10, women. To every sane person, then, this "study" proves nothing because that's such a miniscule sample. It says nothing about how the women were chosen, who they are, what demographic they represent, etc. Truly one for the ash can.

Harding of course subjects it to not the slightest scrutiny, which is bad enough, but her own ideas of sexism are worse. To her, women who are turned down for jobs are victims of sexism. It can't possibly be that they weren't qualified or that another applicant was better so. It's sexism, pure and simple. And people who say they oppose abortion out of concern for the child just aren't telling the truth. It's really just because they're sexist and want to oppress women. What they say - that they view the fetus as a living human being - is just cover. They can't possibly mean it.

Let's call it a tie. Both the study and the article are disgraceful exercises in anti-intellectualism.

invade Pakistan, depose its government, disband its military and assume day-to-day operations of the country. Haven't we learned anything over the past 5 years?

Your "reply" to my post doesn't make much sense. Did you in fact read what Harding wrote? Did you in fact link to the "study?" Harding and the study itself make certain claims, which, given that the "study" is ridiculously flawed, are in no way supported by the "study." Do you understand that a "study" of 10 people is utterly without meaning? I know it supports your pre-conceived notions about the topic of sexism, but you really do need to find a study which uses methodology that's at least arguably sound. This is junk. (But if you don't agree, please address why you think this study has validity. I notice that you haven't done that yet.)

If you had read Harding's piece, you'd know that the references to women not being hired and abortion were hers, not mine. My quite evident point was that she seems to consider every denial of employment to a woman and every argument against abortion to be sexist instead of what they are claimed to be - employment of a more qualified male and protection of the life of a person. That is simple ignorance (and arrogance) on Harding's part.

Finally, you call me sexist. That is false. I have supported women's rights since the late 1960s and, needless to say, still do. At times I have been quite active in doing so. If you'd like I can be more detailed about that but won't bore you if you don't. The fact that I call people on the nonsense the publish here in Broadsheet doesn't make me sexist. On the contrary, I do that in the (probably vain) hope that they'll improve the intellectual caliber of what they write. If they would do that, it would make their arguments better and their positions stronger, but what are the chances?

have always been cited as the main reason for abortion. The Guttmacher Institute has tracked this for years. Their most recent (2004) survey reports 73% of women having abortions gave "can't afford to have a child" as the main reason. So it's not just in hard economic times that women have abortions for financial reasons.

One thing that's interesting about that is that when abortion rights are challenged (as in South Dakota two years ago and again this year) pro-choice people always trot out the health issue, not the economic one. Indeed one poster to this thread has already done so. The Guttmacher Institute survey shows that only 12% of women having an abortion cite health as even one of the reasons. But when the argument comes up, health is the constant refrain among the pro-choice side. I wonder why they don't mention that, for the vast majority of women, health is not the issue at all.

If Obama is elected, this time 4 years from now, the U.S. will have at least 30,000 troops in Iraq.