Saakashvili has just offered to be the first to uphold a ceasefire, should the Russians agree; but I don't think they will, because the international community would get involved and the first strategic target is to get South Ossetia under control. But I see some stirrings happening in Abkhazia as well, and wonder if the seeds of war won't strike roots there as well.

Will the Russians stay in South Ossetia? If the Black See Fleet is really being mobilized, it can't be to go there, because South Ossetia is landlocked. And Lavrov's claim that "any potential base for attacking South Ossetia" is a legitimate target for bombing doesn't even leave Tbilisi out, which he deemed only "unlikely" but did not exclude.

My take on the Russians is that they're sometimes overly emotional and can get carried away by circumstances. They're not stupid, but they can miscalculate. And I sense some budding rivalry between Putin and Medvedev, which may slightly raise the emotional level.

I have to agree that the South Ossetians do have a case; it would be perhaps better for everybody if they simply became an independent country.

I think they're fighting there just to humble Georgia, and to show they're ready to fight. To set an example to other CIS countries. And I don't think they worry too much about the problems South Ossetia might bring into the Russian Federation if it ever was annexed. Local autonomous republics do have a certain amount of independence, but not really much -- their presidents are still indicated by the Kremlin, and even linguistic and cultural matters are held under control -- Russian is everywhere the most important language, and the ruling elite uses it for almost everything.

By "I think they're fighting there..." I meant the Russians, not the Ossetians or the Georgians. Sorry for the ambiguity.

that Edwards was naive in not seeing what consequences this might have. But I will hasten to say: understanding that Americans are prudes and will not vote for someone who commits adultery doesn't mean this should be like that. It's pragmatism; I agree. It's like saying, say some 40 years ago, that Americans are racists and stopping there, without thinking about how this could be changed.

Review Edwards' past and criticize him for that. Make the point that, whatever you want to think about him, it's his political past, the consequence of his political actions, that should be the most relevant. Just like a doctor should be judged -- as a doctor -- by his medical practice, not by his sports opinions.

Was the lying the fundamental crime? Look, I think we all 'lie' about our private lives in the sense that anything we feel uncomfortable with is not revealed and probably even covered up should strangers ask. That's why we have "privacy". That's why we find it bad that the government wants to listen to our phone conversations and get copies of our e-mails. If your browser history has a number of 'embarrassing' items like porn sites, romance novel discussion forums or Ann Coulter's blog, you have all right to 'cover it up' under the assumption that this is nobody's business but yours. I think the scrutiny of American politicians, especially Presidential candidates, goes too far. It is a true fact, and Edwards was stupid for not taking it into account: I agree with Juliebird on that. But I think more people should voice the opinion that it should be changed.

Does a paranoid have the right to choose living in an imaginary world where everybody is trying to 'get him/her'? Maybe s/he does. As long as nobody suffers from that. But I think I have the right to say I don't find that healthy, don't I?

Likewise with these women. I agree with the previous poster: if all they want to do in life is take care of home and be pretty for their husbands, by all means let them do that. It's a perfectly OK lifestyle. But pretending the 21st century hasn't started, as some of them apparently want to do -- not even knowing who's PM? -- goes a bit too far by my book. Not that they can't do it if they want; but now I already feel like saying they're doing some unhealthy things. Like smoking cigarettes (also very frequent in the 50's, 40's and 30's).

Where do you see "women hating women who make difficult choices and find happiness in them" here? I don't see any hate implicit or explicit until now in the commenter's posts; except, perhaps -- and it's iffy -- in Parson Jim's, but he's on your side. Even the original post by Ms (Mr?) Scherer says this choice is simply "disturbing" and reminds him of Stepford wives, not that they aren't entitled to making it. Aren't you jumping to conclusions a wee bit too quickly here?

I don't understand the dismissive tone of the other commenters. This kind of marriage contract is a giant leap forward in the history of Muslim marriages. (Does it say anything, by the way, about how many wives a man can have? And is this, again by the way, an issue for feminists -- perhaps not if women could also have four husbands?)

Muslim people come from a very different cultural background and are at a different moment in the history of their religion. It's good to encourage them on the path of equality, towards the realization that all of Allah's children deserve the same rights and opportunities. This didn't come easy in our culture either.

But would the resulting increase actually give them profit? The difference between male birth control sales and the reduction in female birth control sales might make it unworkable for them. Do you happen to know if there are any numbers or market research on this question?