Well, I loved the books. But there is a lot of tension between "atheism" and a God actually existing to be killed off at the end of it all. (I think of this series as "Nietzsche for children.")

I enjoy the tension in this and how much is unknown and unknowable. I will be taking my kids to see this, and we have Pullman's fantastic audiobook rendering of the whole series for long car trips. We read the bible at bedtime too. The Garden of Eden is endlessly fascinating. We can't help noticing that the snake tells the truth about the fruit; it's God who lies to Adam. Why does God fear us knowing too much and being too much like Him? Hmm, I guess He saw Nietzsche (and Pullman) coming...

...the readers suggesting to give the guy a break are white? This is getting talked about in a very theoretical way -- I mean, would the couple even ask the question if they weren't white themselves? If there was even a Black in-law, nephew, or cousin in the story they wouldn't even have to ask the question.

How would the wife in this couple feel if they'd just discovered the guy was quite sexist? Would she tell her husband not to worry about it, to go ahead and stay best buds with this guy? Could the husband then remain close to the guy without feeling compromised?

I'd say it is fine to remain "friendly," but it would be hard to accept him as a true friend of the heart. You know him a little better is all. Cary is right that lots of people are flawed, and deeply, but that doesn't mean you have to embrace each and every flawed person to your heart.

If you have any non-white friends or family, you know you can't ignore this. Don't!

I live in Texas, whence much of this came, and I'm embarrassed that our educational race to the bottom got started here. "Accountable" sure sounds like a good idea, but what has come out of it is anything but.

NCLB is, at heart, an unfunded federal mandate. States are required to demonstrate students meet state-set standards in order to receive federal funds for instructional materials. So 50 states have spent a lot of time, money, and resources coming up with 50 different standards and 50 different tests to meet this funding hurdle.

I don't have a problem with standardized tests when they are nationally normed, like the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Now there's a test that tells you something -- where your kid stands nationwide! And tests and assessments can be incredible diagnostic tools for teachers in the classroom, helping them tailor instruction to their students' needs.

NCLB tests, in contrast, are made-up tests to measure made-up standards that are used solely for political (financial) purposes. They've burned up resources from their creation to their implementation. Schools have rearranged their curricula to completely teach to tests that are designed around lowball standards set solely for the purpose of allowing the greatest number of kids to pass.

The upshot is that schools spend a lot less effort on real education as we know it, and lots more of drill-and-kill activities based on minimal skill levels to preserve the school's chances at getting good scores. This isn't just an opinion based on seeing a few classrooms or talking to a few teachers -- total spending in the US on instructional materials PLUMMETED after the implementation of NCLB. Instructional material spending only returned to 2001 levels in 2006, and this during a robust economy with lots of increases in school enrollments. The reason for the drop in spending in instructional materials is, of course, because all the districts spent so darn much on TESTING and test prep materials.

You don't have to be a farmer to know that weighing your cattle every few minutes won't help them gain weight -- you need to feed them! We need to invest more in what does into our kids' heads than on measuring faked-up standards on faked-up tests.

I write from Texas, where fist-clenching, jaw-tightening rage about a Clinton is not news. It's the default position. I moved here just in time for the 2000 election. Back in the midwest I only ran across a few people who hated, HATED the Clintons. Mostly I knew people who felt a sense of loss and disappointment about Monica-gate. Because, really, would George Bush ever have been elected president if Bill had kept his pants zipped? I know a lot of liberal types who have a strong disappointment about that whole chain of events. Fairly or not, Hillary was part of that story.

I am sure there is plenty of sexism to go around -- from both directions -- but that is not the only part of the story. There is a lot of history to the Clintons and to the partisan defacto divorce between urban and non-urban America.

I admit that as a middle-aged white lady that I feel a physical thrill go up and down my spine when I hear Clinton campaigning. But as the mom of Black kids, I feel exactly that visceral thrill up and down my spine when I hear Obama speak.

All thrills aside, living where I do, I really think Clinton is unelectable. The people who don't like her don't just don't like her, blood vessels burst in their eyes and they start shaking. She would galvanize red America to give McCain a landslide. Obama does represent a real change, not so much from being Black as much as being a relative outsider. The most painful thing about living in America today is the divisiveness. Clinton as the Democratic candidate would just keep that going. I think she is a competent, able leader, but she would never get past the candidacy to get to be that leader. There is just too much ugly history following her around. It isn't all hers, it isn't necessarily fair, but there it is.