Comments on: Your tax dollars at work–at sexy fun (for some)!

By: Historiann

Historiann — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:45:09 +0000

Oh–was that your plan? I guess it’s a fair trade, so long as you take steps to prevent the victimization of girls and women. Sexy fun for ALL!

By: steveeboy

steveeboy — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:21:34 +0000

so, maybe my plan to end all war madness via the wholesale distribution of MDMA to belligerents is not so far-fetched after all????

By: cgeye

cgeye — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:28:17 +0000

Am I wrong in hoping that the Taliban’s use of Viagra (which they could buy wholesale at good price in trade for heroin, so what’s the big deal?) means that their warlords will spend less time raping their child brides, now that they have an easier way of ensuring their sexual prowess? Guess not, huh?

By: prof bw

prof bw — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 07:04:52 +0000

I’m so disgusted I’m actually speechless for once . . . grrr

By: hysperia

hysperia — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 06:54:59 +0000

Re: the viagara, oh PUKE!

By: Lacan Was Right: There Are No Such Human Beings As Women | The Global Sociology Blog

Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:30:25 +0000

[...] Your tax dollars at work–at sexy fun (for some)! : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 … via kwout [...]

By: Indyanna

Indyanna — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:19:53 +0000

I agree entirely with Geoff on the points above. The whole thing provided a kind of a shudder on some pretty familiar heads about the perversion of the scholastic mission. But yeah, back onto the main track of the thread.

By: Notorious Ph.D.

Notorious Ph.D. — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:12:24 +0000

so you look for those common things in the form of material aid that motivate people everywhere.” Well, only half of the people, at most. (Funny how that works!)

I suspect (cynic that I often am) that, for some, women aren’t automatically included in the category of “people.”

Thanks for sharing this. I always rolled my eyes when Bushies back in the day kept selling us this war as a way to liberate Afghan women. It was just too disingenuous. But boy, would I have loved to be wrong.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:09:23 +0000

OT, but to address the second paragraph of Indyanna’s post, I appreciate the reference to the NYT article on college recruiting which I read with great interest. As a former student at one of the schools mentioned, I wanted to clarify the message of the article. Oklahoma ultimately won the recruit at the focus of the article because the coaches invested more time and energy wooing the mother of the recruit, with the head coach even flying in to make a long personal visit to their home, something neither the LSU or Texas head coach was willing to do. In the end neither academics nor young women had anything to do with the choice. While OU might be commended for offering a quasi-academic scholarship to an athlete, one might also criticize the propriety of such an offer when made in connection with an athletic recruit. One might also wonder what the President of a research-one university was doing being directly involved in the recruiting process.

While the article rightly condemned many of the practices surrounding college football recruiting and portrays the young man and his mother as a victim of that process, it does not mention that at any time the family could have called off the process by making a non-binding verbal declaration of intent. Also left out of the article was why the recruit felt that Oklahoma was a better choice for going to the NFL. In all likelihood, he is going to get playing time sooner at OU (pardon the pun) and have a quicker trip to the NFL draft and a big payday.

Now, back to comments on the issue at hand…

By: Ann Bartow

Ann Bartow — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 00:36:51 +0000

I just read yet another MSM article that blames surging domestic violence rates on “the economy” and “better reporting.” Instead of, you know, the people committing the violence. Patriarchy never takes a holiday…