Richards posits each of the following re: the study being cited:

*that those who attend class are more likely to earn a degree

*that the smartest kids are the ones skipping class the most often

Huh? I'm presuming the measure of 'smartness' here is grades (as implied by the anecdotal "I didn't go to class all semester and got an A" inserted by Richards)....so is she saying that the kids who skip the most are earning the highest grades but sill not graduating?

The conclusion of the article is that we should find ways to keep kids attending class. If the smartest kids are the ones most likely to skip, this would seem to belie the importance of attendance.

Certainly giving birth without the aid of drugs and vocalizing is an unusual choice - but I don't really see it as worthy of all the attention it is getting, and certainly none of the snideness. Let her do what she wants - it's her body.

As for not speaking to the baby for 7 days - so what? The article doesn't say they are planning to leave the baby alone in a crib in a darkened room for 7 days - it says they won't be talking to the baby. Since a newborn does not have the capacity to understand speech, what is the big deal? As long as it is held, nursed, etc. there really is no grounds for ridicule and outrage. The story is odd, but it's not *that* odd.

Right now the story is an allegation. The lacrosse team members accused are innocent until proven guilty. So having the story covered on the first page as a crime story, and continued in the section that makes the story a story (vs. just a small news item) - that the accused are collegiate athletes - is a reasonable editorial decision.

Regarding the Julia Childs quip - specious reasoning. Murder and rape are wholly different crimes. A woman committing a violelnt crime is more newsworthy than a man - any editor would agree. Papers are in the business of not just reporting the news, but *selling* the papers.

The speakers in the article seem to be uniformly channeling an Old Testament God. Where are the lessons of tolerance, love and compasion that were considered the messianic qualities of Jesus Christ? I consider myself spiritual rather than religious, but having been raised a Catholic I remember the teachings of Jesus very well - and they were never, ever about hatred, excluding, renouncing, or repudiating (much less executing). The message was always turn the other cheek; the message was always 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Jesus eschewed the powerful and wealthy and opinion leaders, embracing and defending the very dregs of society - prostitutes, beggars, the lame and halt, the leprous, the retarded and insane -- even the tax collectors. His message was that God loves all this children, and they are His children (not ours) to judge.

So what's up with the religious right? Was Jesus wrong? Just a big pussy who didn't want to win badly enough? The Republicans in this article wouldn't vote for Jesus - they'd call him a faggot-loving whoremong liberal who threatens family values and run him right out of town with a beating for good measure.

I have never understood the promotion of intolerance, hatred and violence in the name of religion. You would think that these people would, mid-rant, just lose steam as the incongruity of the "An all-merciful and loving God hates homosexuals! He hates people who want equal rights for women! And He wants you to hate them too!" hits them. But no.

Katie Couric is clearly a big audience draw for daytime. But I consider the quetion of whether or not she can be taken seriously in the nighttime anchor slot a very valid one. I don't watch the show regularly but what I do recall seeing is a lot of fluff. After her husband died she seemed to take on a more serious mien that translated to her journalistic coverage, e.g. raising public awareness of colon cancer and taking the fear factor (if not the ick factor) out of colonoscopy screening.

If Dan Rather had spent much of his career doing cooking segments, soft-pedaled celebrity interviews and anagram contests (that's on the agenda for Katie and Matt on the Today website as I write this), well, I'd be questioning his gravitas as well. Gravitas means 'high seriousness' - it is not a gendered word. It's valid to look for seriousness from a candidate for the anchor slot if seriousness is what sells. Her current and past success notwithstanding, the totality of Couric's career doesn't point to one of high seriousness. I'd say the same of Matt Lauer.

I'm all for giving her the job and letting her succeed or fail. But I also think it's smart of the network to work these questions about beforehand. They aren't antifeminist or antiwoman just because the candidate in question is female - it's just good business.