Editor's note: I thought it would be fair to post these replies to my previous comments. However, I just don't have the time to respond to them, so they will be featured here without commentary. (JR)

Subject: Feminism

Comments: I see you've effectively refuted exactly 0 of my arguments - unless changing your original argument counts as refutation. Also, I don't see what the example of Judge Judy (one person on a mildly popular cable show) has to do with the fact that, on the whole, the entertainment industry holds women to a higher standard of (their version of) attractiveness than men, while valuing physical appearance over ability, intelligence, and personality. A typical male action movie hero may be tanned and muscled, but the fact that he is single-handedly taking on the entire army of some drug cartel or Third World country is the focus of his character. Female characters, on the other hand, have little going for them other than their appearance and perhaps a few superficial qualities. I'm not saying this is 100% true in every case; I could easily think of several examples to the contrary off the top of my head. But you can't say that the bias I described doesn't exist, unless you are watching some drastically different movies from me.

I don't know what you were trying to prove with the Barbie thing, other than the fact that some feminists are somewhat overzealous. That's kind of like saying Islam is a bad religion because some of its members feel the need to pick up an AK-47 and start capping government troops (or making the same judgement about Christianity because some wackos like to chuck pipebombs at abortion clinics). If you're not going to say anything that makes any sense, don't bother replying.

Subject: AP Letter

Comments: OK, next on the list.

I still don't understand why the burden of proof rests entirely on the Associated Press. That's like saying that they must verify that an airplane did, indeed crash - as opposed to simply blowing up on the ground - before reporting on it. Or more relevantly, that they should have to send in their own doctor to verify that some public official has been having heart problems. In many cases it simply isn't feasible or even remotely necessary to independently investigate something like this. Several groups reported that the man was retarded, I think it's reasonable to believe that they are doing their best to report the guy's intelligence (or lack thereof) accurately. The AP doesn't employ a fleet of psychologists, doctors, lawyers, researchers, inside informants, and combat reporters to verify every possible aspect of every story that they print. That's why journalists use things called "sources" and quote them in the article. If you think the organizations (plural) that tested the man are lying for some reason, that's your opinion - the AP didn't just come right out and say "this man is retarded" with no qualification. I suspect that your OWN bias is coming into play here.

Now that I think about it, though, you may be onto something: next election we should have the major news networks count the votes themselves before reporting anything.

Subject: Chinese Culture Site

Comments: Why do you feel that a site devoted to Chinese CULTURE - which is thousands of years older than the current Communist regime, by the way - should dabble in modern politics? Should US culture sites frequently mention our absurdly high crime rate, overcrowded prisons, class divisions, racism, and other unsavory parts of US *politics* be featured prominently? Consider this:

"Hi, welcome to the UK culture web site. The United Kingdom is home to hundreds of years of rich, varied culture. Britain has been home to some of the world's greatest writers and poets. Also, for hundreds of years the British brutally occupied huge portions of the planet under their colonial empire. Today, London is a hub of nightlife and cultural activity. However, income inequality is now worse than in 1884 when the country first started keeping records."

That sounds kind of fucking stupid doesn't it?

Also: I like your clever innuendo that "relative totalitarianism" is some kind of impossible contradiction. During this century, the US government has interned citizens in concentration camps, spied on its citizens, used illegal surveillance and wiretaps, staged elaborate setups and show trials for political targets, even shot and killed peaceful protestors (Kent state) - all elements of a totalitarian government. Yet the United States is considered one of the freest countries in the world. Likewise, one would think countries like Taiwan and South Korea, with their bustling economies and strong ties to the West, would be havens of democracy and freedom. Not so: both countries had military dictatorships just as bad as those in neighboring countries for most of their post-WWII existance. They just made better investments.

In the same vein, China is "relatively" totalitarian - China's disintegrating central authority and largely ignored party line are nothing compared to an Orwellian state like North Korea. Just off the top of my head: how about a country that is actively waging a war against a huge segment of the population, and (sometimes brutally) suppresses the media, preventing them to even mention it? Look no further than Turkey. Or what about our favorite oil friends, the Saudis - Saudi Arabia is just as bad as Iran and Iraq. But they give us oil and let us land our bombers there, so nobody really gives a fuck. Maybe we could use the trillions being wasted on missile defenses - and the millions of CIA dollars flooding into UNITA's pockets - to feed some of the starving, displaced refugees in Afhganistan, Chechnya, Uganda, Rwanda, Angola, Iraq, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, etc. etc. (that kind of went off on a tangent, but I'd be interested to see your responses)

Subject: The Aztecs