My best friend (male) is on his second marriage. His first ended after 10 months. He dated his first wife for over 6 years before they were married. She was told by Proctor & Gamble that she'd have to move to get promoted. She left him for the job because his job is tied to the area where we live.

He thought he was damaged goods. He was moping for 6 months after the divorce. I eventually hooked him up with one of my coworkers, and he remarried.

With my friend, "damaged goods" was all in his head. None of the women in his life thought this about him. Is it so far to stretch that conclusion to a woman who had an abortion? That the idea of being "damaged goods" is their head?

One point in the article that I strenuously disagree with is this stereotype that "mixed crowds" are somehow more accepting of guys' "fluids and activities" then of ladies' "fluids and activities". Where the heck did this come from? From the guy talking about testicular surgery? If so, one guys reaction to hearing such a frank admission should not perpetuate a stereotype... but there it is. What is a guy supposed to say after that, "cool, did you abort it in town?" "what kind of gown did you wear?"

And where would that imply that "mixed crowds" are more accepting of one over the other, or is this a large generalization?

I'm usually pretty happy with the Broadsheet stories. That stereotype though, that sticks out like Karl Rove at a NOW rally.

that it is patently impossible to discuss middle-east policies on the internet without it devolving into name calling.

Over and over again, zealots from BOTH sides destroy any interest this moderate could have in discussing the issue. In the zealot's mind their is no excuse for what the other side has done THERE MUST BE BLOOD!!@!!111.

And I cry shame on the posters here that attempt to conflate Murakami's wall (the system) with either the Palestinians or the Israelis. BOTH sides have done egregious things to the other. On BOTH sides there are racists, statists, classists, and a$$holes. Funny, because on BOTH sides there are human beings. And no matter what the intentions or good works done on either side, there WILL be individuals from that side that will turn those good works to ill. Both governments are "the Wall". Both peoples are "the Egg". I wager Murakami would stand with any individual Israeli or Palestinian against the opposite government, or their own government before he'd ever stand with a nation.

You who come and take his speech and twist it to foster your personal justification for endless war pollute what Murakami was saying. Don't try and shoehorn his metaphor to fit your argument. Go find your own imagery.

seeing your premise played out in comments. I suppose I should thank Publicola and Marcparis for reading from the script for me.

There will be no peace until the other side fully repents (in my own estimation of what fully repentant means) for the grevious injury that their ancestor or neighbor or homeless man's dog did to "my" sides honor, home, dignity or flower garden!!!!!!!!

Discount that simplification as you will. However, when examined, the comments say exactly what I am talking about:

There will be peace when side X does this.

Side X will do this when side Y atones for this slight.

Side y will attone for that slight, when side X asks forgiveness for this slight.

Side x will ask forgiveness when side y stops calling my sister for dates... etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

If anything this looks like a pi$$ing contest: Who knows more the tragedies that the other side committed?!?

I think I paid the most attention to this top Chef, but I have loved episodes in the past. This year seemed more inviting, but I admit I was not impressed with many of the contestants. We were rooting for Fabio, but my wife and I could see the writing on the wall. Fabio couldn't season anything to the judge's liking, but he had all the talent and vision you would want in a restaurateur. I was concerned Stefan wouldn't live up to his potential, I was scared that Carla would lose her nerve, and most of all I was scared that the mediocre chef would win. I think the mediocre chef did win.

I think the camera editing painted Hosea as a conniving, shifty, winner. Not someone I would turn to a child and say, "be like that person, they are an example". No, I think I'd turn to a child and say, "that is how you don't lose, not how you win." Then again, I wished that the contestants had more time to prepare for the finale. Why not give them a day or more to come up with the recipe, why limit it all to a few hours? Why not allow for the planning and execution?

I wonder if a different format for the contest would have worked better. It seems as though the elimination challenge doesn't allow Chef's to experiment. In fact, it seems to discourage it. It seems as though the winning idea is to not travel so far outside your comfort zone, because you will screw up too much and get eliminated, while the chef that screwed up less than you, goes on to win. Screw up less, get eliminated less... Sigh. Did any of the quick fires, any of the contest rewards, any of the shows or special guests challenge a chef to do something awesome, instead of something quick? Perhaps only the "Chef's Last Meal" competition did we see the various contestants going to town.