The Los Angeles Times printed some interesting letters about a recent commentary on feminism, which I blogged about here.

Beth Donnelly of Austin, Texas wrote in:

I think Elizabeth Wurtzel's ideas are strange. Would an actual feminist portray a woman choosing to raise her children properly over the supposed opportunities of corporate grind as "opting out"?

Yup.  Feminists are all about “choice”, unless you choose what they don’t like.

This writer may be conflicted over whether she should be the madonna or the whore, but I'm having no such internal argument. Women like Wurtzel denigrate what women do and then bemoan the loss of the perky boobs they once allowed to be shown in every half-priced bookstore in America.

It's true, something has gone wrong with the "Girls Gone Wild" thing. But if I look over the top of my paper for only a moment, I see what women are up to: I see real art, healthy families, strong friends and even business leaders.

Exactly.

Robin Mearns of Rancho Palos Verdes, California wrote:

I have news for Wurtzel: This is 2008, and women can accomplish whatever they set out to do. Women were put into boxes in the 1950s, and now Wurtzel is disappointed that they don't want to be in her box.

Precisely!

Did it ever occur to her that women who opt out to raise their children do so because it brings them more fulfillment? Maybe that doesn't advance her agenda, but I thought feminism was about women making their own choices. I had a career before I had my son, and frankly, I don't miss the workforce one bit. Yet she calls that ruining my life. What arrogance.

Bullseye!

I'll tell Wurtzel where she and her feminist lot went wrong. Instead of embracing women's unique qualities, they decided to be just like the worst of men. So, yes, promiscuity, casual sex and "Girls Gone Wild" are the new "world that feminism hath wrought."

I wholeheartedly agree with Ms. Mearns.

Shannon Carreiro of San Diego adds:

The movement allowed itself to be co-opted by the strange and the strident, including women who wanted to eliminate "man" from the language, women who abused men for such acts of civility as opening a door and women who browbeat other women for wanting to be wives and stay-at-home mothers.

Keep up the good work, ladies.  Let’s keep things good for men and women who “get it” and not let the men and women who hate each other ruin things for us anymore.

I used to labor (and I do mean labor) under the false notions that: 1) everyone should have a significant other, and; 2) couples were supposed to work through just about everything, progressing to engagement and, unless the person was physically abusive or sexually unfaithful, to marriage and staying married.  How I wish I’d learned younger that it is okay to be single, that it is okay to keep dating situations casual and date around, and that dating doesn’t have to lead to exclusivity, engagement, and marriage – that some people just aren’t right for each other, or aren’t in a condition to marry.  Marriage is for me, but it isn’t for everyone, and people should only get married under a certain, narrow conditions.  Otherwise, you get problems like the one below…

In a recent Dear Abby, ACHING TO BE A MOMMY writes in:

"Brett" and I have been married for six years. We have no children, although I would dearly love to have one. Brett has a child from a previous relationship.

So Brett knocked up some woman out of wedlock and never married her, did he?  Sounds like prime husband and father material.  Sure, people make mistakes, but nowhere in the printed letter does it mention that Brett has any contact with his child or what kind of a father he is.  Perhaps he never wanted to be a father in the first place?  If he is in the child’s life, it would be best that he never married the letter-writer, and instead concentrated on being a father, even if not married to his child’s mother.  Or is he old enough that the child is grown?  We don’t know, because the letter doesn’t give the details.

When I bring up the subject of having a child, he agrees, but when I tell him I am ovulating, he says he's too tired to try, or he makes up another excuse.

Hmmm.  Sounds like the guy isn’t very good at explaining what he wants and doesn’t want.  Was this discussed before you married him?  Your letter doesn’t say!  If he agreed that you would have children before he married, then he’s really a jerk to be acting this way.  Or maybe is mind has changed.  He shouldn’t be making new kids, at least not until his other child is grown.

Could there be a chance that he wants to avoid fighting with you?   That is why most men seem to agree to something they don’t really want.  It gets their wife off of their back for the moment.  It’s cowardly, but sometimes men just want some peace.

Besides wanting to keep his child’s life from getting further messed up, there could be other reasons he doesn’t want another child.  Maybe he married you for your body and the sex, both of which would be negatively impacted by a baby.  Maybe he likes his life the way it is – from being able to sleep, to being able to have a home that doesn’t look like a toybox, to being able to vacation in places that cater to adults instead of toddlers.  Maybe he doesn’t want to be sued because his child hugs another one at a public school.  I love being a father, but it isn’t for everyone.

I have asked for a divorce several times, but Brett says he will not divorce me.

Why can’t you divorce him?   What, do you live under sharia law?  Is there some reason you want him to file divorce?  Do you live in a state where it makes a difference (think $$$) who files?  Ah, so much this letter leaves out.

He knows I am taking prenatal pills and buying ovulation kits. I have also threatened to get artificially inseminated or to adopt. I feel as if I'm living in hell. What do I do?

Well, you could do what some married women do – and get knocked up by another man.  In most places, your husband will be the legal father and legally obligated to pay financial support.  But that would be wrong.

This one is a deal-breaker.  You want kids, he apparently doesn’t want another one.  It’s too bad that couldn’t have been cleared up before getting married, but it is time to move on now.  However, keep in mind that there is always a chance you will not find another willing, suitable man to marry and father your children.  You have to be prepared for that reality.  Hopefully, it won’t happen like that, but it is a possibility.  Either way, if this guy agree to have children but now doesn't want them, it is best to move on.

Dear Abby responds:

Forget about artificial insemination or adopting without your husband's support, unless you are ready to raise a child by yourself.

Which is a bad idea.

Your husband has serious issues about becoming a father again, and it's time you found out what they are. Marriage counseling might help you get to the bottom of it.

No, that’s a waste of time and money.  There’s nothing wrong with choosing not to conceive another child.  What’s wrong is him lying about what he wants.  Why go to counseling? He doesn’t want a child, and she does.  They aren’t right for each other.  There are times when people can easily solve their problems without counseling.  There are other times where counseling will not help.  Too often, counseling is a place to go so that the man can be told he's wrong for being a normal male.

That said, you do not need your husband's permission to end this marriage. If you have reached your limit, consult an attorney who specializes in family law. If you married Brett with the understanding that there would be children, you may qualify for an annulment.

Now that is good advice.

It's kind of hard to muster any sympathy for Senator Hillary Clinton regarding her privacy being violated with unauthorized access to her passport files.  I seem to recall something about her and Bill having a bunch of other peoples' FBI files.

The Los Angeles Times is shocked - SHOCKED! ...to discover that southern California car washes hire illegal aliens.  Gee, is that why none of them were open during the May Day Illegal Alien Commie rallies?

This is ridiculous.  What was he supposed to do?  Aren't we supposed to treat women with respect and honor their choices?  Isn't it wrong for a man to forcibly remove a woman from a room when she chooses to stay in that room?

I could just picture this guy, after this woman stayed in his bathroom overnight for the first time, saying "Enough is enough!" and grabbing her by the arm and dragging her out of the bathroom, kicking and screaming.  What if she or a neighbor called the cops for domestic violence?  It is likely this guy would have been arrested for that and possibly for sexual assault.

Could he have called the authorities earlier? Yes, but when?  The first night?  The second night?  Would the cops come based on a statement like this: "My girlfriend refuses to come out of the bathroom.  She's been there since yesterday."  Yeah, I could see them rushing right over for that one.

Either men are legally responsible for women, or they aren't.  We can't have it both ways - or at least we shouldn't.

There’s nothing like reading through the Los Angeles Times, sometimes because of the wacky stuff that goes on in California, sometimes because of how the paper covers something, and sometimes because of opinions carried inside.

City of Los Angeles Councilmen Ed Reyes and Jack Weiss have proposed stricter sentencing for those caught with illegal firearms in a school zone.  Really?  So it isn’t as bad to have illegal firearms elsewhere?  Will this change any behavior?  The guns are already illegal - the person doesn't care about the law.

Speaking of guns, there’s this from Joel Rubin:

A panel of law enforcement experts convened by Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton to examine the department's elite SWAT unit concluded in an undisclosed report that the rigorous testing to get into the unit should be changed to make it more open to women, called for tighter supervision and criticized officers for relying too heavily on force over negotiations.

Uh, no.  The SWAT unit exists for a reason.  It doesn’t need to be easier to get into.  It has been functioning very well for many years.  In fact, they only recently had their first fatality.  How about this… how about creating several units of women prone to bad PMS.  Each unit will bond enough to synchronize menstral cycles, but each unit will stay away from the other units so there will always be a unit at menstruation.  When there is a problem such as a standoff, send the unit in with the women who are PMS-ing at that time, with bullhorns.  Let them nag, berate, demean, and belittle the suspect, describing their symptoms, until he gives up.

Speaking of sexism, Elizabeth Wurtzel chimes in with some cheese and whine in this opinion piece.

Am I the only one who feels that last week's news events prove that the women's movement has failed?

Some women make bad choices.  But they do have choices.  That’s the difference.

Even worse, because Silda Wall Spitzer is accomplished and beautiful, the whole scene serves as a grim reminder that even amazing women become sexually disposable after a certain age.

You can’t make a jerk appreciate even the best woman.  If what he cares about is youth and variety, he will stray.  Lesson: Don’t hitch yourself to a jerk.  Not all men are jerks.

Is this the world that feminism hath wrought?

Yup.

Walk onto the trading floor of any of the hedge funds that crowd the Lever House building in Manhattan and hardly a female face will be seen who is not a secretary or an assistant. Enter the software shops of Silicon Valley, go to the rows of terminals where geeky computer programmers design cleverly crafted new media. They are mostly smart boys, playing with their toys. Everything that keeps our economy running is run by men.

This is not true, but even if it was, everything that keeps our lives running is run by women.  Women have the primarily role in making new citizens.  Which is more important?

For all the dynamic, visible women who are chief executives -- like the CEOs of Xerox and Kraft -- only 16% of corporate officers and 17% of large law firm partners are female.

Much if this is due to the choices women have made.  Shouldn’t women be able to make choices?

Meanwhile, women still make 80 cents on the man's dollar. And, for whatever reason, women who do the exact same work but are also mothers make 10 cents less, according to Anne Alstott of Yale Law School.

Ugh. It is a lie that a woman makes less than a man for doing the same kind, level, quality, and quantity of work.  If you take time off, if you call in sick, if you come in late or leave early, you’re not going to climb as high or make as much as someone who is present and applying himself.

It seems that the only industries in which women earn more than their male counterparts are pornography and prostitution.

Don’t forget modeling.

My Sunday night summer viewing, which once consisted of the slumber-party gab of "Sex and the City," is now the lad-happy cool of "Entourage." I really do love that show, but most of the women -- girls -- in it cannot even kindly be called sex objects: They are simply sockets.

Some women choose to allow males to treat them that way.

I appeared topless on the cover of one of my books, a decision I stand by still. I am proud that Naomi Wolf published a book called "Promiscuities" and that Katie Roiphe wrote a book called "The Morning After." I am really proud that Susan Faludi came out with the brilliant "Backlash." But I don't think the idea that you could own your own orgasm was ever intended to teach college coeds that it is a good idea to spend spring break in a shower with your roommate in a motel room in Daytona Beach having a lesbian encounter for the cameras of "Girls Gone Wild." That's not feminism!

So women shouldn’t be allowed to choose?  What’s really ticking her off is that now males can get their jollies without any obligation to women.  Remember when your type mocked the conservative women who warned how radical feminism was going to end up changing things for the worse?

But there's a countervailing tendency: the much-discussed opt-out revolution, which many upper-echelon women have chosen as a way of ruining their lives all by themselves, no assistance from men at all. This phenomenon has been both well chronicled and thoroughly debunked. But whether or not you believe it exists, professional women are having babies and deciding not to go back to work because motherhood is a cult, or homemaking is meaningful, or the hearth has heat -- or, really and truly, because being in an office 40-plus hours a week kind of sucks. A lot of men don't like their jobs either. But it's only women who have decided the hell with it -- and, truly, the hell with feminism.

That’s because raising children is much more rewarding than earning a paycheck, but men are still expected to be the providers.  Most women, even if they don’t want children, still expect to find a man who earns more than they do.  And if they marry a high earner, they expect to have the choice to work or not.

Somewhere between childbirth and a no-fault divorce, a lot of smart women have chosen to engage in some risky behavior. Opting out is not a feminist choice. It's mostly just a bad idea.

Not if you CHOOSE WISELY and TREAT KINDLY.  It is a smart investment to have time and energy to spend on your husband, your kids, and your home.  There’s also- oh, pre-nups, saving and investing, insurance, alimony, and child support – all there in case something goes wrong (death, disability, divorce).

Most things have their time, place, and purpose.

Often, when libertarians, conservatives, and anyone in favor of “limited government” says that the government should not be doing a particular thing, some people respond with confusion and worry, anger, or any other number of negative emotions.  Breathless, they ask, “But don’t you think it’s a good thing for kids to receive an education?  …for people to have homes?  …for people to have transportation?  …for people to have enough healthy food to eat?  …to take care of our elders?  Don’t you think it is a good thing for people to have health insurance?”

This kind of response belies a thinking that people are incapable of producing and exchanging, of serving others, or finding solutions without government control or assistance.  Some of these people act as if nothing would ever get done, as if people are so incapable and careless that they won’t seek to fulfill their needs and those of their loved ones, or that only the rich would ever get what they need.

There are many services – many programs and projects of various levels of government – that we think are good, at least in concept or goal if not execution or all results.  However, we do not believe that is the government’s role, or in some cases the federal or state governments’ role, to provide these things to people.  There are several reasons for this.

First, if we’re going to govern through a constitution, then we need to be consistent about doing so.  We do have a Constitution, and it limits the federal government to only doing things specifically assigned within the text of the Constitution.  All other things are supposed to be handled by “the people” or the states.  It isn’t the role of the federal government to do these things, and there are reasons the Constitution was written this way, as I note next.

Second, the government can only accomplish things by force.  The money to do things is forcibly taken from some people; if participation in a program is mandatory, this reduces personal liberty and increases centralized government power over our lives.  We have forced association and support instead of voluntary association and exchanges.

Third, a monopolistic entity like the federal government is often inefficient and ineffective.  It is not possible for something being run from Washington, D.C. to really know the needs of all of the people.  Even for things that government should be involved with, the founders of our nation saw the benefit of letting the states come up with their own solutions, so that they can be examined and compared as well as tailored to the population of that state.

Fourth, this can increase dependency of an impersonal central bureaucracy instead of self-reliance, personal responsibility, and personal accomplishment.


The concept of roles has been largely lost in our present-day society.  Roles bring certain duties, obligations, and boundaries.  Traditionally, men and women have had certain roles.  Husbands and wives have had certain roles.  Mothers and fathers have had certain roles.  Friends and family...  religious congregations... charitable and civic organizations have had certain roles.  Teachers and students have had certain roles.  Employers and employees have had certain roles.

Despite what some people would have us believe, men are men – they are not women.  Men can be sons, brothers, husbands, or fathers.  They can’t be daughters, sisters, wives, or mothers – only women can.  Unless you live in a messed-up family, your spouse is not your sibling, and neither is your child.  As a parent, you have a certain role to that child, and while you should love them, your role isn’t to be their friend, at least not while they are growing up.

I bring all of this up because my point is that the government is not your parent.  It is not your sibling.  It is not your church.  It isn’t there to hold your hand.  Its role is to protect you from others, not yourself.  It is there to prevent crime and prosecute criminals, not ensure equality of outcomes or that you have high “self-esteem” or that someone else pretends to like you and everything you do.

There are many things that I think are good, but it isn’t the government’s role to provide them to me.

As a husband, I can tell you it is nice to wake up to some lovin’.  But suppose I wake up to find that the person “lovin’” me is not my wife, but some neighbor I barely know?  I had been enjoying myself, so what is the problem?  The problem is, it is not that person’s role to do that.  Some of you might like this scenario and wouldn’t be bothered, especially if you are or have ever been the Governor of New Jersey or New York, but you get the idea.  That’s one of my wife’s roles, not my neighbors.  

My dog is my pet, not dinner.

We all have our roles, and with many things, it simply isn’t the federal government’s role.

I heard a bit of Michael Medved today, detailing the latest exploits of Alan Keyes.  It makes me sad.  I backed Alan Keyes in the 2000 POTUS primary, knowing his chances were slim.  Then came his embarrassing Illinois campaign in which he was trounced by B. Hussein Obama, a campaign during which, as far as I can tell, Keyes jumped the shark.

Is John McCain perfect?  Was he my first choice for 2008 GOP POTUS nominee?  Is the GOP currently doing a bang-up job of implementing and popularizing conservative policies?  The answer to all of those is “no”.

But Alan Keyes isn’t going to improve the situation one bit by leaving the GOP and continuing to make a ruckus.  Alan Keyes has spent any credibility and political capital he had, and that’s really sad.

There are many issues where I agree significantly with Keyes:

-I’m pro-life in the sense that I believe human beings have a right to life from conception until natural death, and I don’t think killing an innocent person because they are ill should be legal.  (If someone wants to kill themselves, it is kind of hard to stop them.)

-Sex outside of marriage is wrong, and that includes sex that is filmed for someone else’s entertainment.

-School choice should be the norm – parents should be able to send their children to any school that agrees to take them.

-Our national borders need to be secured.

-The Constitution recognizes that the people have the right to bear arms.

-We must be diligent in fighting terrorists.

-Our tax system should be overhauled.

-Judges should interpret and apply the law – the laws of their jurisdiction under our Constitution, not make law or look the laws or decisions of other countries.

So on, and so forth.

Are there a lot of Republicans who disagree with us on some of these issues?  Are there Republicans who care more about their personal power than anything else? Of course.  Is the solution to leave the GOP or sit on our hands?  NO!

The reality is, we have a two party system, and it is going to stay that way for the foreseeable future unless something very big and unusual happens.  We have two parties with which to work.  Right now, the GOP is more friendly to our concerns than the Dem party.

As I’ve said before, if you’re not happy with our candidate this year, the solution is to identify and build up viable candidates for the future.  Are conservatives running for school board?  Local office?  State legislatures?  Congress?  Governor?

The unions, especially the government and teachers unions, are controlled by Leftists, and that’s not going to change.  Academia is going to be largely Leftist.  Most newsrooms and Hollywood productions are going to be Leftist.  Many religious institutions are going to continue to drift Left.  Large corporations are going to continue to support and lobby both major parties.  People who make money off of killing babies and experimenting on human beings are going to keep fighting for more government support.  People who stand to gain through promoting gender confusion are going to continue with their efforts.

But we still have our votes, our voluntary contributions, and our voices.

What we do with our voices is especially important.  We should encourage, but not preach to the converted.  We should not throw pearls before swine.  It matters who we talk to, how many we talk to, and how we talk to them.

Talking to 30 delegates of a political party that will never have any power is a waste of time.

Our elected Republicans are more likely to listen to Republican voters - voters who actually vote.  We showed it with shamnesty, we can show it again.  Let’s elect Republicans, and let’s strengthen conservative principles within the GOP.

Ever notice that many of the richest Americans came from modest beginnings, and many of those dropped out of school before getting a college degree?  How many of them are immigrants or the children of immigrants?  When you consider how many of these people started out poor or in the middle class, and you add in the people on the list whose parents started out poor or in the middle class but left behind considerable wealth, it becomes very clear that our nation has been one of unparalleled opportunity for those who are willing to work hard, sacrifice, and innovate.

We are not a nation of the permanent classes of the “haves” vs. the “have-nots”.  If you are born into a low-income family, you are not destined to be poor all of your life, especially if you are ambitious and take responsibility for your life.

The Leftist Democrats would have you believe that the people on that list are just lucky – that they’ve “won life’s lottery” and are living it up at your expense, unfairly enjoying the high life while you struggle and suffer.  The Leftist Democrats want you believe that the only way you’ll ever be successful is with their help, so you’d better vote for them and support them.

Don’t believe it.  We need polices, especially government restraint, that will keep our nation a beacon of liberty that fosters free market capitalism.  We should be encouraging growth through encouraging investment, efficiency, innovation, voluntary cooperation, and hard work, and letting people enjoy the fruits of their investment and labor, instead of finding new ways to confiscate them.

No, really.  A woman wrote in to Dear Abby and complained that her husband bought her diamond earrings as a gift.  This is another example of why some men are on a marriage strike.  Ticked Off in Rhode Island writes...

I recently turned 40, and because I don't get along with my husband "Ted's" family, I chose to celebrate out of town with my parents and siblings. At the end of my five-day trip, Ted picked me up at the airport and barely greeted me.

Your parents and siblings?  You wrote that you were 40.  Perhaps you meant to write 14?  You left your husband (you know - the man you are supposed to cleave to after you leave your family of origin) behind for five days, and then are ticked that he didn't make a big deal when he picked you up at the airport?  You are darn lucky he picked you up at all.

When he finally handed me the box, Ted didn't even wait for me to open it. He went off to take a shower.

Ah.  So it is okay for you to be gone for five days, but not okay for him to be gone for ten minutes.

 I waited for him to finish, then opened the gift in front of him. Inside was a pair of diamond earrings.

That jerk!!!

I have never wanted diamond earrings, and I have told him so many times. I had asked Ted for cash so I could buy a new sewing machine. Why diamond earrings?

Women tell men all of the time "Oh, don't make a big deal about my birthday/Valentine's Day/Christmas - if you're going to get me something, don't go through too much trouble."  But most of the time, women who say that ARE LYING!  And most women would pitch a fit at getting cash, or a sewing machine.  Perhaps you have done something in the past that would indicate to him that he'd be better off getting you jewelry?  Most women would prefer the jewelry, even if they tell their husband a "practical" gift is preferred.

That night we had a major quarrel, and now I'll never be able to enjoy them.

Great.  So he tried to do something nice for a woman who hates his family and leaves him for five days to "celebrate her birthday", and his reward is a fight with a whiny, ungrateful woman, who will spite him by not wearing the jewelry.

What do I do with them now?

Turn them in for cash, and get your husband an expensive call girl.  He probably needs the release.  Okay, so I'm kidding about that.  Kind of.

To her credit, Dear Abby told the woman to apologize, and then to get marriage counseling.  Dear Abby says there is a "communication problem".  Uh, yeah.  Well, if you mean that he ignored her insistence that she didn't want diamond earrings... that's a minefield.  Back when I was unmarried, I decided to take women at their word (and I still do).  I warned them ahead of time.  If she said "Don't make a big deal", then I didn't.  If I asked what was wrong, and she said "NOTHING!!!", then I would reply, "Great!  So we can both enjoy this evening."  Guess what?  I was "wrong" to listen to what these women actually told me.  So don't give me this junk about a lack of communication, unless you mean that she should always say exactly what she means.

The printed letter does not indicate whether or not they have children or this woman is employed.  If she's not employed, especially if they don't have children, it is all money he's earned anyway, and she should be grateful for the gift... and the gift of a home, and all of the other things he pays for, including the trip for her to be away from him.

Hey, I just thought of something.  Sure, it wasn't a tennis bracelet, but they were diamonds... hmmmm... perhaps he had an affair while she was away "celebrating her birthday with her family" (wink, wink) and this is one of those "I cheated on you" guilt gifts.

Today, I saw B. Hussein Obama taking questions from starry-eyed people, and one woman asked him what he's going to do about violence against women.  I noticed he didn't point out what the President Bush-led military efforts against Islamofascists has done to reduce violence and oppression of women.  He also didn't say that, as far as domestic violence, it is not the President's job to do anything but encourage local law enforcement efforts.  He didn't point out that girls are being killed in the womb just for being girls.

What he did say indicated he either hadn't developed or didn't remember a smooth stock answer to that question.  Eventually, though, he did kick in to his prepared talking points - the bogus chestnuts that women stay in abusive relationships because women get paid less than men, and because of a lack of educational opportunities.  Both of these are FALSE.  Careful studies show that women who do the same level, quality, and quantity of work in the same job as a man get paid the same as the man.  Also, there are more women in college than men, and more pursuing higher degrees.

But none of that matters, because, as Obama said, he has diverse pieces of American in him.  Apparently, whether your parents were black or white or whatever does make a difference in your abilities - at least according to him.  This blatantly racist claptrap should be laughed off of the political stage.

I would have loved to have been there in that group and risk some "tolerant" Leftist shouting me down, assaulting me, or keying my car by asking Obama, "There are more women than men in college.  There are for more men in prison than women.  What are you going to do about these gender inequalities?"

Women don't stay in abusive relationships for the reasons Obama cited.  Women stay in abusive relationships because they have allowed themselves to believe that is normal, or that they can't do any better, or that they can change the man, or that they deserve to be abused.  What do we expect, when girls are being raised without their father married to their mother, with a endless string of their mother's "boyfriends" coming through the home, more likely to abuse her?  When we encourage girls to engage in dangerous and demeaning behaviors?

It is up to women to stick up for themselves, to leave if need be, to get law enforcement involved if possible.  It is up to women not to tie themselves to an abusive man by making babies with him.  It is up to all of us to stand between the innocent and those who would do harm to them - to a certain extent.  As a father and a brother, I can tell you I would stand between anyone who would abuse my daughter or my sister - but if they chose to go back to that person and keep subjecting themselves to that abuse, there wouldn't be much I could do.  And Obama can't do anything about it.

I have a bad feeling about this.

We know the Dems want mortgage "reform" to prevent people from losing homes they really cann't afford, and to keep property taxes up.  But we also know they won't stand for the "poor" (particularly minorities) from being turned down from financing a house.

That means they are either going to use more tax money to get and keep houses for these people, or they are going to force the lenders to subsidize them.

Either way, it will mean higher costs for the rest of us, and make it harder for the self-sufficient folks from affording a house without calling on Big Government.

Sir Paul, if you ever get married again, be sure to get a very extensive pre-nup.  He had a long marriage with Linda, and so, like most men widowed after a long, happy marriage, he seeks to recreate what he had.  It isn't so easy.

Why should Heather Mills get so much?  Paul made his name with the Beatles, of course, and that allowed him to become rich.  Was Heather there when the Beatles were practicing and working hard to beat the odds?  Was she there when Paul wrote songs that have been so successful?

We need to change how we handle divorces and other things related to marriage.  Otherwise, more men will join the marriage strike.

I value marriage too much to be quiet while we punish people for getting married.

It's really disturbing that the drive-by media isn't giving more attention to B. Hussein Obama's church and pastor.  Talk radio has had to take the lead in beating that drum.  This double standard is disgusting.  How often has the drive-by media spent a good chunk of print or airtime focusing on some isolated sentence uttered by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or some other conservative Christian?  And here, there's a preacher enthusiastically an unapologetically going on and on with his hateful, divisive, and bigoted rantings, and he's Obama's longtime pastor!

Perhaps he hasn't said something about homosexuality?  Or has that been squelched?

If the Dems do select Obama as their candidate, I don't EVER want to hear another peep by the Dems about Robertson, James Dobson, Hagee, or another other conservative Christian leader and whether or not a Republican political candidate will distance themselves from something one of them has said.  AND... when they do, and we point out the Obama situation, I don't want to hear the Dems blowing it off, like they have when we've citied Bill Clinton in response to things Republicans have been bashed for as of late.

Sorry, Lefitists - unlike you, we haven't abused enough drugs to have no memory, and haven't screwed up our thinking enough to be entirely inconsistent.

I'm sorry, I don't understand how the Sheriff could recommend that this guy in the "woman stuck to the toilet for years" case can recommend prosecuting him.  She's his shack-up honey, not his minor child.  If he had pulled her out of the bathroom against her will, he no doubt would be exposed to domestic violence charges.  Don't blame a man for a woman's choice.

Perhaps there is something to this story that isn't being reported, or the story is being misreported?

He brought her food, water, etc.  He should have just refused to do that to try to force her to leave the bathroom.  But then she'd probably would have sat there and died, and he'd be charged with her murder, and there would be an hour-long documentary about what an evil boyfriend he was and how his trial went.