Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - scarbo

I suspect they are very sincere, actually. But again, I think you'd better have $$$.
Not really, other than they're in my town and I hear their ads on the radio a lot.

I have a hunch that they're really targeting the man of means who has a lot to want to protect during a divorce: a business, assets, etc.

If you're just an average guy, these guys may be out of your price range.

Again, just guessing, I don't really know.
Main / Re: Rock the vote for healthcare!
Dec 22, 2009, 02:07 PM

And like someone said, all the guys are dorks. No surprise there. I thought treating women as sex objects was a no no. Apparently not.

Also they point out young people who don't have health insurance but not WHY like the fact a lot of young people buy other stuff than health insurance like clothes, drinks, jewelry, expensive cars etc. Yeah why make someone pay for their health care when you can make someone else pay for your health care instead.

...which I don't understand. If these "young people" went to college, got degrees, and are out in the working world, chances are the company they work for provides health benefits.

I heard on Rush at lunchtime that this commercial involves Susan Sarandon's daughter. Not sure if she's the female "lead" or what.
Are the strong male characters showing how superior they are to the female characters by beating them up or kicking them in the groin, by insulting their womanhood, or by otherwise scoffing at their obviously innate intellectual deficiencies?


Well, then, STFU Shauna.
Here's the link to the US Commission on Civil Rights:

Whereas I'm sure a lot of the work they do is very valuable, looking down the various lists on the front page of the website, especially under "Commission News" I got a very definite feeling I was looking at the work of a commission that needs to try anything to keep itself in business.

Anyway, I couldn't find any info backing up the claims in the original AP article, but this link on the front page ( pops up a meeting agenda in which you can see, under "III. Program Planning" that the first item of discussion is "Update on Status of Title IX Project / Motion to Approve Institutions to be Included in Project."

If anyone can find more info on the website, please post it to this board. Thanks!
US agency probes possible gender bias at colleges, will subpoena data from 19 universities,0,1974731.story


Associated Press Writer

3:40 PM CST, December 17, 2009

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A federal civil rights agency investigating possible gender discrimination in college admissions will subpoena data from more than a dozen mid-Atlantic universities, officials said Thursday.

The probe by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is focusing on whether some colleges favor men by admitting them at higher rates than women, or by offering them more generous aid packages.

Commission members voted Wednesday to authorize subpoenas for 19 universities within a 100-mile radius of their meeting place -- in this case, Washington -- which is the geographical extent of their subpoena authority.

The schools represent a mixture of sizes and include public, private, religious, secular, historically black and moderately selective to highly selective institutions. There are six in Maryland, five in Pennsylvania, three in Washington, two each in Virginia and Delaware, and one in West Virginia.

Women outnumber men nearly 60 percent to 40 percent in higher education nationally. The probe grew out of anecdotal evidence and news accounts that admissions officials are discriminating against women to promote a more even gender mix, said commission spokeswoman Lenore Ostrowsky. [(scarbo here) Yeah, and when it's done in the reverse it's called AFFIRMATIVE ACTION]

Spokespeople for several schools on the list declined comment Thursday since they had not received the subpoenas.

Statistics from a few colleges on the list reveal varying percentages of men and women on campus.

Gettysburg College in central Pennsylvania, a highly selective liberal arts school, reports virtually an even gender split this year in its student body: 1,345 men and 1,338 women, according to its Web site.

The college's ratio slightly favored women in each of the previous four years, with about 1,400 women and 1,200 men, the statistics show.

Barbara Fritze, vice president for enrollment and educational services at Gettysburg, said the college will cooperate with the inquiry but stressed that it has not been the subject of a complaint.

Data from last year at Georgetown University, a private, highly selective Catholic school in Washington, show a split of 54 percent women and 46 men in its population of about 7,100 undergraduate students. However, its graduate programs in business, law and medicine have more men.

The public University of Delaware reports undergraduate enrollment of 58 percent women and 42 percent men in each year from 2004-2008, according to its Web site.

Ostrowsky said if all schools cooperate and comply swiftly with the subpoenas, the agency could have a report out in six months. But some schools may not be able to produce the data quickly, even though it has likely been gathered already in one form or another for their own use, she said.

She would not specify what the subpoenas will request.

If the commission's findings are "startling," the agency could seek a wider sampling of data by meeting in a new location, thus changing the 100-mile radius of its subpoena authority, she said. Or the agency could simply ask schools to volunteer the information, Ostrowsky said.

Federal Title IX legislation, meant to promote gender equity, does not apply to admissions because lawmakers wanted to ensure the existence of women's colleges, she noted.

The subpoenaed colleges are: Howard University, Lincoln University, Virginia Union University and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, all historically black; Catholic University in Washington D.C., Loyola University in Maryland and Messiah College in Pennsylvania, all religious; Georgetown, Johns Hopkins and Gettysburg, all "highly selective"; the University of Richmond, considered "very selective"; York College in Pennsylvania, Goucher College in Baltimore, Goldey-Beacom College in Delaware and Washington College in Chestertown, Md., all private and "moderately selective"; and Shepherd University in West Virginia, Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania, the University of Delaware and the University of Maryland Baltimore County, all public and "moderately selective."

Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Oh and like men are going to chivalrously rush up to save women... right.

That's exactly what she's counting on.
Then tell Pelosi that since men have less of a stake in the outcome than women do, women should get going and fix the problem instead of whining about men not fixing it.

"Have at it, Nanc! I'll be over here with my buddies tossing back a few cold ones and enjoying the game!"
Yes, you could. Got no respect for anyone who does that.

Anyway, the other aspect of course is the idea that someone would suggest this for a commercial in the first place, and that people would agree to it and pay for it.

Today is a very cold and very windy day in St. Louis. It's brutal out there. I've passed by men outside working on broken gas mains, and passed by a crew on the highway picking up a dead dog and putting it into a trash bag.

Men don't deserve to be portrayed with such contempt. It's things like this that strengthen my belief in a Man Strike. If the rest of the world thinks we're that bad, hates us so much, fuck 'em. Let's see how well they do without us.
I've always wondered why a male actor will willingly agree to make those kinds of commercials.

Dude, get some self respect, don't tell them "no", tell them "FUCK NO!", and go get a real job.

Golfer who introduced Elin to Tiger tees off on Woods


"...I would probably need to apologize to her and hope she uses a driver next time instead of the 3-iron."

Nice. I understand his need to protect his friend, but again, the predictable chivalrous attitudes emerge.
(Emphasis mine) Lots of good spew-inducing tidbits in here. Protect your computer monitors now: put down your drink before you read!

Tiger's Best Reason To Lie
If he admits she hit him, she could end up in jail, whether he likes it or not.

By Hanna Rosin

In his defensive half-apology yesterday, Tiger Woods went out of his way to turn his wife, Elin Nordegren, into the heroine of his latest adventure. The "rumors" that she scratched up his face and smashed the rear window of his Escalade were "malicious" and "false," he said. In fact, she "acted courageously when she saw I was hurt." Should we believe him?

News reports have mentioned the big, obvious reason why Woods would want to erase the image of his wife in a jealous rage wielding a golf club. His endorsement deals, reportedly worth billions, depend on his reputation as a "boring" guy, as he likes to call himself, a family man with a wife and two kids and no bouncy, boozy mistress or other tabloid bait in his life. But there is another less obvious reason for Woods to lie (if that's what he's doing): Because of Florida's domestic-violence laws, admitting to the police that Nordegren in any way harmed him would virtually guarantee that the glamorous Elin would be led out of their mansion in handcuffs, even if he protested it.

In 1991, Florida became one of many states to set up a pro-arrest policy in domestic-violence cases. For years, feminist advocates had complained that police treated domestic-violence cases as private family matters and assumed the abused spouse would never follow through and press charges. Beginning in the 1990s, laws began virtually to force the police to take action. The new statutes direct police to figure out who was the "primary aggressor" in a domestic dispute. They make a call based on a checklist (bruises, disparity of physical size), and then they make an arrest. Howls of protest from the abused spouse are to be ignored: "The decision to arrest and charge shall not require the consent of the victim or consideration of the relationship of the parties," the Florida law reads.

This all seemed very clear and firm, except that an unexpected problem arose. Police could not always tell who the primary aggressor was. Sometimes they just arrested both parties; sometimes they arrested one party based on minor evidence of violence. Liza Mundy's great Washington Post magazine story from 1997, on a comparable domestic-violence law in Virginia, opens with a scene of a cop called to the scene of a dispute between a husband and wife. The officer contemplates a tear in a man's breast pocket and decides it counts as "probable cause"--the new standard--for mandatory arrest of the wife. "Oh God. Oh God," the man says. "Can I go on record that I don't want to press charges right now?" But it's too late. His wife is in handcuffs, on her way to the back of the squad car. Now, women are arrested in about 20 percent of domestic-violence cases. As such scenarios played out across the country, the updated domestic-violence laws accidentally created a new mythical woman: the Female Abuser. Never mind that the sociological research does not really support her existence in any great numbers.

A close legal reading of Woods' statement suggests that he desperately does not want his wife to fall into this category. "He is going out of his way to protect her from any concern that she's committed a crime," says Kimberly Tatum, a professor and domestic-violence expert at the University of West Florida. In Woods' narrative, the car accident, not Nordegren, caused his injuries. She used the golf club to get him out of the car after he'd crashed. "She was the first person to help me," he said. "Any other assertion is absolutely false." (He also then says that "this situation is my fault" and that he won't do it again, although it's unclear what, exactly, he's taking the blame for in this version. It's his fault he crashed his car? His fault he didn't rescue himself?) So far, Woods has refused to talk to the police. (In some cases, police charge alleged victims with failure to cooperate, particularly in cases where the victim recants a statement. But this is very rare.)

Florida state troopers are trying to get Woods' medical records to investigate whether his injuries are consistent with a car accident or with getting bashed with a golf club. If they find the latter, then Nordegren could well be in trouble. The golf club would be considered a weapon, and Nordegren would be charged with felony-aggravated battery, says Tatum. Because of Florida's domestic-violence statutes, the police would have no choice but to arrest Nordegren, if they have "probable cause" to suspect her, whether Woods pressed charges or not. She would also not be eligible for bond but, rather, would have to stay in jail until her first appearance. She would then join the pantheon of celebrity mug shots, alongside Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. And the much smaller pantheon of celebrity female abusers: Tawny Kitaen, the chick from the Whitesnake videos charged in 2002 with committing domestic violence against her then-husband major league baseball player Chuck Finley; Tonya Harding, the ice skater who allegedly threw a hubcap at her former boyfriend; Kim, the demented true love of Eminem; and the wife of Phil Hartman, who shot him in bed. Plus, of course, Lorena Bobbitt.

The Woods case brings up the uncomfortable problem with the new domestic-violence laws, which is that strict gender equality often confounds common sense. It is impossible to imagine Tiger occupying the same cultural brain space as Rihanna, with Nordegren playing Chris Brown. If Tiger had been chasing down his wife with a golf club and she had shown up with bruises, even if she had cheated with, say, K-fed, we would be a lot less ambivalent and complacent. If Nordegren had then issued a statement calling her husband her courageous savior, we would be outraged and filled with disdain and pity. All of these gender-dependent reactions make some instinctive sense. But legally speaking, they are beside the point. The law no longer makes the distinction.

Men's rights groups, for their part, have already made the Woods case their cause célèbre, proof of their long-held, if unsubstantiated, view that women are just as likely to abuse as men. "Of course, we could hope this will call attention to DV by women, except I think it's illegal to say women commit DV," wrote one sardonic commenter on These groups have always admired Tiger because of his close relationship to his father and because of the time his daughter, Sam Alexis, jumped out of her mom's arms and back into his. And they have used gender equality to their advantage, arguing that women can be just as powerful and manipulative as men. But in any reasonable sense, this isn't true, argues Jack Straton, a Portland State University expert in "the myth of the 'battered husband syndrome.' " Although some women surely are perpetrators, as a rule, women tend to use violence as self defense, or impulsively, not as a systematic method of control the way male abusers do. They may slap a man or throw a cup of water at him, but they're less likely to run through the usual cycle of domestic abuse: seduce, punch, beg for forgiveness month after month. Studies that say otherwise tend to equate all acts of violence--a tear in the breast pocket, say, with a shove down the stairs.

At this point, Tiger's only choice is to skirt gender equity and opt for chivalry. He's already said his car accident or whatever happened was his fault, and he could elaborate just enough to make it seem as if his wife were defending herself, in which case she would be off the hook. (Of course, he'd have to do it subtly enough that he would not seem threatening--also an endorsement downer.) Under Florida law, Woods could also use the most common out for people who regret having involved the police: admit that, yes, she did hit him, but say it was an accident--which means, in this case, coming up with whatever is the golf-club equivalent of walked-into-the-door.

Hanna Rosin is the author of God's Harvard: A Christian College on a Mission To Save the Nation and a contributing editor at the Atlantic. She can be reached at [email protected].
Hollander - a self-proclaimed "anti-feminist lawyer" - said he'd never heard of Opie & Anthony before he agreed to go on the outrageous shock jocks' show for what he thought would be an intelligent discussion about the merits of a suit he'd filed seeking to force Columbia University to drop its women's studies program.

Bet he spends a bit more time doing his homework before agreeing to an interview from here on out...