A few decades ago I routinely carried a pocket knife to school. (One of my 7th grade teachers was teaching me to whittle, on the theory that it would improve my hand-eye coordination and thus my atrocious handwriting.) I'd also carry aspirin tablets for an occasional headache. Today, either of these acts would subject me to mandatory expulsion. (And as for the 7th grade teacher, I can only imagine.)

I actually don't think the school environment has got that much more dangerous, if at all. But school districts live in terror of lawsuits...

As Will Rogers said: "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock."

I don't see any reason to crucify him, but there's no reason to give him a pass on serving as a mouthpiece for the administration's lies. I think he probably knew more at the time than he lets on. So, yes, he's doing the right thing now by speaking up, but some of these realizations must have occurred long before the last time he mounted the podium.

The article puts some interesting observations together and suggests a hypothesis. This is how scientific inquiry begins, not ends. A strong scientific theory (or "fact" in layman's terms) is a hypothesis buttressed by overwhelming evidence. Yet it can start with no evidence but a collection of suggestive observations such as Judson provides.

Her case in formulating her hypothesis is based on a well-established finding that prenatal hormones influence adult behavior in mammals along with some new (and thus more tentative) findings that human political views and reactions to sudden stress correlate and that maternal stress also seems to correlate with an offspring's reaction to stress. There are some intriguing dots which might be connected, here, but not enough findings to make those connections. And I don't think she claims otherwise. But it might only take a couple of studies based on her hypothesis to either pencil in those connections -- or erase them.

I find such science writing interesting, but I see it for what it is: informed speculation which along the way happens to describe some intriguing observations. I can toss away the overall premise and still learn a lot; good science writing is like that, especially, as Judson does, when it provides references for further reading.

Thank you for this piece.

About ten years ago we heard John Adams give two pre-concert talks for the L.A. Philharmonic. His clarity of language and lack of pretension were striking; he'd be a dynamite teacher, though taking so much time away from composition would be a tragedy. I'm happy that he's seen fit to write this book and very much hope it bears the promise shown in this interview.

So, viewing half-naked pinups leads mean to objectify half-naked pinups.

I wouldn't have guessed that.

It doesn't have to be true or even make sense. It just has to sound true to the Republican base of well-fertilized preconceptions.

In my son's preschool class of 20 there was "David A," "David I," and "David S." We must live in some cultural backwater here in Silicon Valley by not naming our kids things like "Drake," "Mardis," and "Brack."

Good grief, do you have some issues!

What is it with all the bleedin' concern trolls on Salon?

I seem to recall that the culmination of the mission where the space shuttle Challenger exploded was to be a gala affair where both "the teacher in space" Christa McAuliffe and Reagan himself addressed the schoolchildren of America.