Neither he, nor his feminist supporters want "equality." At least not "equality" as it is understood in standard English.

What Mr. Keillor wants is inequality. He wants more infrastructure devoted to women. Equal numbers of seats/stalls/positions is unacceptable to him. An UNEQUAL number is what is needed, according to Keillor.

So let's end the phony calls for "equality." Let's rename this camapaign for what it is. It is a campaign for "Inequality." A kind of affirmative-action for women. From each according to her abilities, to each according her needs, right, comrades?

Now, someone might say, "Equality shmequality." Women and men are different and we have to accomodate the differences. Since we have codes that accomodate handicapped access to buildings, those codes ought to accomodate women's needs, too. (I love that comparison, don't you?) But then what of occupations like firefighter? Can't we likewise say, "Yeah, we understand that women and men are different; we have different rules for public restroom construction for that very reason. But those differences between men and women also dictate that we can't have women as firefighters, combat soldiers, etc., etc., etc."

I'm just here to help, you know...

First, I congratulate Dr. Parikh on his exposure of the charlatans who claim an autism/thimerosol link. I do hope that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his staff of eco-extremists are reading Salon. (Why wouldn't they?) And that they see this. Kennedy has become one of the leaders of this silly, anti-scientific craze. That is, ever since he got off probation for his heroin bust. And they complain about the Republican war on science?!?

Second, I don't know too many doctors who wouldn't welcome into their practice a patient demographic of smart, educated web users. Naturally, one might also expect that doctors might not want to argue with their patients about bogus medical studies that turned up in the flotsam and jetsam of a patient's Google search. Especially when those doctors aren't paid for web debating.

In comment after comment on this thread, Salon readers making sense...

Yes, Ms. lateagain, medical malpractice lawsuits have greatly interfered with good and cost-effective OB-GYN practices. In looking for the right parties to blame for that state of affairs, you can begin with John Edwards, the uber-lawyer of 'birth trauma' litigation. And then, you can work on laying the proper blame on all of the other Democratic ennablers of the American tort bar.

And yes, Salon-reading doctors, you are correct; if patients find their doctors to be so utterly insensitive to their needs, then by all means those patients should find a new doctor. (And to the Salon reader who said that their relative was tied into a certain primary care provider because of insurance, you'll have to explain that one. Has anybody ever heard of a health care plan that dictates one and only one doctor, by name, whom a patient must use? I don't believe it, and I don't believe you.)

And finally, a sincere thanks to all of the Salon readers, health care professionals and patients alike, who agree that there isn't one thing wrong with patients educating themselves on the 'net, and that the more they do it the better, as long as they maintain a willingness to work with, and maintain the appropriate respect for, the position of their treating physicians, who will have finished AT LEAST four years of medical school, and an internship, and generally an additional 2 to 4 years (sometimes more) of residency and then fellowship training, followed by years of practice and CME (Continuing Medical Education) requirements. And get this; if that kind of training is not what you like in your doctor, go ahead and see a Salonista-recommended 'Naturapath' and obtain all of the natural, organic, holistic health care tha you might want! It's a free country.

Is this some kind of new record for sensible Salon-reader commentary?

Isn't it amazing how, whenever Salon gets any real experts (doctors writing about healthcare, pilots writing about air travel, scientists writing about science) instead of left-wing pundits, Salon starts loking more and more like the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal?