We all know the corporate media was complicit in the lead up to the Iraq war. For God sakes, the Washington Post was basically a propoganda piece for the administration. The New York Times as well. Why? Because the neo-conservative agenda of waging war on Israel's behalf resinates with the the corporate media, many of which, like U.S. News and World Reports Mort Zuckerman are not even ashamed to admit to it. Others have admitted to bias toward Israel.

Now we have Jane Harmon, making deals with the agents of foreign governments, to try to quash the AIPAC investigation into espionage? What the hell is going on here?

I would vote for him. Why not? The people of Massachusetts keep sending back Barney Franks. Franks had engaged a prostitute (male), used his congressional office to fix 33 tickets for the prostitute, while the prostitute turned tricks in Franks' apartment.

Why would Spitzer's situation be any different? The argument of Hypocrit is weak. Law makers, who are also law breakers, are by definition hupocrit's.

"@ KitchenGirl, who asks

"That there is no such thing as hardwired sexual orientation?"

"...Not for many women, for whom preference is fluid..."

Baloney. Heterosexuality is not fluid. But I believe that you believe its fluid. Though, it is exciting to pontificate the ramifications of such. For instance, if sexual orientation was fluid, then the gross misrepresentations and politicalization of the facts by the rape and domestic violence industries would be a reasonable way to lure more women into lesbians. If sexual orientation fluidty were real, demonizing manhood would actually swell the ranks of lesbians. To some extent, it works, i.e. philosophical lesbians (straight women who hate men and therefore identifiy as gay such as the late Valerie Solanas). If orientation was fluid, I'd expect to see more homosexuality in other species.

Being a tranny myself (who, BTW, would never be mistaken for a genetic girlie), thinks that my sister tranny should have disclosed. That being said, she did not rape the dude. This is the problem now that we've expanded the definition of rape to the point where you're guilty if you fail to call the next day. The rape industry is reaping what it sows with the arguments being presented here that the murderer was "raped."

I don't like hate crimes either. I think the guy should go to prison for murder. I hope my little tranny sister has her wings up in heavan, and is looking down at us and laughing.

R.I.P. sister

"Females: Equally violent!

>"There is growing evidence that women attack men in relationships almost as often as men attack women. Of course, one major difference is that women tend to do less damage when they attack than men do..."

I'm not a feminist, but this argument is baloney. It is being spun around certain circles for a long time, now. It's crap. How do I know? Just go on mydeathspace.com,and compare how many women are killed by their partners as compared to men killed by their partners.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are ideological entities pushing falsehoods about both rape and domestic violence. The rape and domestic violence industries should be called out on the crap they push through advocacy research. But both common sense and any investigation into violence leads to the conclusion that men are more violent, and more dangerous. Sorry guys, testosterone does that to a person. Although I'll admit that when women do perform violence, it is more devious.

Swampdog's piece is an example of the arguments that you will be bombarded with all your life.

So we should teach boys that the "rape lobby" has turned boy's inexperience in matters of intimacy into a potential prison sentences and a life as a registered sex offender. We should teach him that, ironically, although prison rape is funny, date rape doesn't elicit the same chuckles.

We should teach them than the concept of a false rape allegation is politically incorrect, so he'll have to pick up the tab if his partner has "fuck remorse." (See Duke Rape Case.) We should teach him that because he is young, strong and intimidates the weak, that he will be vilified in all media, especially Lifetime, television for women.

We should teach him that because he is young and awkward, that he is unsympathetic to all but his family, and that any ambiguity is decided against him. (See Duke Rape Case)

We should teach him that if he is unlucky enough to be both young and poor, and therefore unable to afford a place to take his girlfriend, that necking in his car may result in being approached by police, getting pulled out of your car, hands on placed your head, so the police can assertain whether or not your girlfriend is all right. Since this happened to me on at least three occassions, its a pet peave of mine.

We should teach him that just because society is unwilling to teach him the rules and realities of intimacy in this time of the gender wars, if a partner accuses him of fathering a child, and he fails to have a DNA test (because he is unsophisticated and has no money), he may be stuck paying for decades for another man's child if it turns out not to be his.

We should teach him that although older women are looking out for younger women, older men are not looking out for them. In essense, noone is looking out for you. You're on your own.

We should teach him that girls sometimes lie about being on the pill. Even before getting to girls lying about being on the pill, we should teach him that girls sometimes lie. He'll find this hard to believe because there is an industry of women trying to push the idea that girls don't lie in these situations.

But, most of all, we should teach him to reject the rules of "respect" being taught by an educational system that doesn't respect him.