Anonymous wrote:Birth control is a good thing and I completely support it to be used to not over populate but not as a way to condone promiscuity.

Can you cite anyone ever using BC "as a way to condone promiscuity?" I'm not sure I even understand what that would look/sound like.

Anonymous wrote:Notice that it's the woman who is rather consistentky held criminal here. Doctors, EMTs, medical workers, fertility clinics--all are exempted--but not the woman!

Is that correct? I can't find any exception like that here.

Anonymous wrote:Women's rights have been thrown so far backward this time, it's going to take some effort for us to return and regain our rightful spots on the gameboard. And that was part of the purpose.

I think you've gone the wrong way on the fool/knave determination here. I don't think this is a grand patriarchal conspiracy; it's just more of the idiocy of conforming private and public life to the ambiguous statements in a millennia-old historical novel as interpreted by old men playing dress-up.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WOmen will never admit to being sluts and whores and not worrying about the consequences because they're on the pill. Feminazis have ruined the real cause for female rights.

If I might respectfully suggest it, those characterizations show more about your mindset than about those women.

I often wonder if you're just F-ing with the yahoos by being over-the-top polite with them.

Re risky behavior connected with birth control, I've noticed that there is a lot of risky behavior connected to life preservers, bullet-proof vests, and space suits.

Anonymous wrote:Weren't you the party that wanted outsiders to shake up washington and focus on taxes and limited government?

Stop joking around; no one really believed them about all that, did they?

Your wife has serious problems. Either leave her or stop adjusting your behavior to accommodate her insanity.

If she can't socialize normally, stop visiting people with her. When she flips out in her jealousy, refuse to talk to her about it until she can calmly discuss it, and suggest that she go to therapy. Hiding things from her is just making the problem worse in every way.

In short, stand up for yourself.

BTW, it also sounds like you depend on the approval of women to a neurotic degree. You might want to think about that.

Anonymous wrote:I cannot afford to lose my friends knowing that my wife will destroy them again.

I have no idea what you meant by this.

Anonymous wrote:Work hard and be smart and be punished. Kick back and don't be so smart and be rewarded.

Ridiculous summary of AA. There's plenty of legitimate criticism you could level; this isn't it.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't help anyone.

It obviously helps the individual beneficiaries. That may or may not be worth it, but you can't say it doesn't help anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

The insurance companies are fine with providing free birth control because it is cheaper (and safer) than pregnancy.

It isn't "free." Are you all so dumb as to believe that the insurance companies won't factor these costs in when they are setting premiums. Seriously, get a clue.

Are you so dense as not to understand that anyone saying "free" is referring to the out-of-pocket cost to the consumer? I think they all understand that the government does not possess magical powers that make drugs cost nothing.

BTW, this should increase premiums by about $2/month. Oh, no!

Anonymous wrote:Funny, the whole reason we have nebulous diversity goals is because quotas or targets of any kind are a big no-no.

Which is it, you want transparent targets or not?

You quoted me; did you mean to quote the other person?

Or are you the other person? I'm confused.

Damn anonymity.

How to really make the martyrs lose their little minds:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2012/02/postnatal_care_in_france_vagina_exercises_and_video_games.html

Anonymous wrote:Admissions offices use "diversity" as a code word for racial preferences to avoid potential legal ramifications of openly admitting to the use of those preferences.

I don't think that's right. I think diversity is often the explicit justification for open race-based policies, not a pretext hiding secret race-based policies.

Anonymous wrote:if we are going to have racial preferences in education, I think the nature and purpose of those preferences should be transparent, so that people can debate whether we should have them or not by rationally assessing the costs and benefits. Allowing colleges to say "diversity," wave their hands, and come up with whatever result they want is, to me, not particularly defensible.

You don't think that they're after diversity, by their definition? Are you suggesting that it's an actual dislike of whites?

As I did above, I would criticize race-based diversity in many cases, but I believe that they do want diversity - AND they don't want to be known as a lily-white school for multiple reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I think Santorum is their strongest candidate; it worries me a little that people think he's ridiculous. Fortunately, he won't get the nomination.

I would love to hear your reasons for this. I have always believed the bible-beating wing of the Republican party to be unelectable on a nationwide basis. And virulent homophobia really doesn't make a good campaign platform for a general election, as well as it might play to the religious right.

I don't usually spend much time on this kind of speculation and I read little about it, but I'll give you my 2-bit analysis.

I meant "strongest of the four" - not sure if that was clear.

Paul is far too socially liberal and isolationist for the right and far too economically conservative for the center. Newt is an obvious dick. Few obvious dicks have been elected president, and I don't see it against someone as smooth as Obama.

Romney is far stronger than either of them, but it's become pretty clear that his base doesn't like him. On top of that, he's shockingly awkward, clumsy, and gaff-prone, given all of his campaign experience. He comes off as a child or a boob compared to Obama. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have a chance, but he has big problems.

Santorum is passionate and generally eloquent without seeming arrogant. On personal charisma - which probably decides 10-20% of the vote - he's by far the strongest of the four, IMO.

On policy and history, his religious stuff may be offensive to some of us, but I think it's overall a plus. That's what Romney and Newt are trying to imitate. The economic conservatives have always been willing to overlook the social extremism as long as their interests were promoted, and vice versa. He's got that W combo - credible enough as socially and economically conservative that each faction of the Reps will vote for him.

I think his main negative is that he's a better bogeyman for the Dems, and that could decide it, given that Obama offers so little to vote for.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the articles you reference fairly engaged with that issue, even so.

That may be so - frankly, I didn't read all of them. That issue is in the news b/c of the recent suit. Before that, though, I've heard about it, specifically as relates to California schools, so I do think it gets discussed.

I think the situation is arguably even worse than you've described. Asian Americans certainly can show historical discrimination, and presumably some present as well. They should actually be getting preferential treatment, by traditional arguments for AA. Instead they're getting screwed.

The usual argument, as I understand it, is for diversity of background/perspective, but that's getting pretty racist. People from different SECs obviously have different perspectives. Blacks and whites within SECs often have different perspectives. But, say, middle-class 3rd-generation Asian Americans vs. middle-class 4th-generation "Irish Americans?" - getting pretty sketchy there. It starts to sound a lot more like, "All my students look Oriental - there's no diversity here!"

I think Santorum is their strongest candidate; it worries me a little that people think he's ridiculous. Fortunately, he won't get the nomination.

Anonymous wrote:Catholics believe averybody should pay for thier own sex....and their own abortions.

Pretty sure the Church actually believes that no one should have an abortion - or sex that requires any payment. You appear to have confused Catholics with libertarians. Common mistake.

Anonymous wrote:it would be more appropriate to subsidize food. Only a pervert would force people to subsidize sex and abortion but not food.

Ever hear of food stamps?

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action in things like college admissions, in practice, requires intentional racial discrimination against Asian-Americans in favor of African Americans and Hispanics. The numbers don't work out any other way. This has always struck me as the hardest argument for supporters of affirmative action to deal with, and, quelle surprise, they almost universally ignore it.

Pretty bad timing on that criticism. The issue has been all over the media.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/02/us_dept_of_ed_inquiry_do_harvard_and_princeton_discriminate_against_asian-american_students.html
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/02/08/do_colleges_redline_asian_americans/
http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/do-asian-americans-face-bias-in-admissions-at-elite-colleges/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-12-03/asian-students-college-applications/51620236/1

I'm not sure I understand your response. That was precisely my point---affirmative action programs have substantially burdened Asians relative to other ethnic groups. The fact that this issue has recently gotten media attention doesn't come anywhere close to suggesting that this issue will, or even can, be fixed while keeping affirmative action programs in place for other minorities.

You said it was almost universally ignored.