I agree with Stoppard's sentiments: when you are impassioned about a political policy, action, or figure, writing a play is hardly an efficient way of storming the barricades.

And yet, when most Americans (who ever do so) think of Arthur Miller, they remember "The Crucible," his pointed criticism of McCarthyism. That play is still relevant today (instead of "witches" we have "defeatocrats" or "cutandrunners;" the Salem jail might as well be Gitmo; and honest citizens are drawn into hysteria or silence).

While good theatre isn't good at intant gratification (from headlines to stage in moments), we often see the moment reflecteed in a work years later. Works of theatre (good ones, anyway) capture the spirit of the era in which they are written, but speak to us long after their era has passed. Our children and grandchildren will see our political-social tensions and angsts when they see revivals of our plays.

The brilliant Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are fantastic at instantaneous satire. But, (and please note I am ot knocking ehat they do: I love them both, and they are plying a vital role in our political discourse) precisely because their work is of the moment, it loses relevance over time: it's too specific, too "now" to stay fresh (with some exceptions). Who can remember the also-rans from a presidential primary 20 years ago? Precious few.

I also think, that to find "good" contemporary thaeatre, one must look to the LORTs around the country. Broadway is too focused on mass appeal to take many risks. Regional theatres (nonprofits, with a loyal customer base and a large pool of talentedartists) are better able to experiment, to speak out nd to create art that matters.

"Women in the USA get away with a lot of shit nobody else tolerates."

Please send me your picture so I can warn my daughters away from you when they are ready to date. Seriously, you're my new Boogieman.

I really think Prolacta sucks.

I am so disappointed that moms are donating milk to a company that will rip off the public, when they think they are helping babies who need it. (25% going to the charitable cause? That's not charity. That's profiteering, even if they hire a jet to write the figures across the sky).

I am also highly skeptical of companies who use human breast milk. I've read about companies trying to patent ingreedients of breast milk, which I find disgusting, and worrisome: will I have to pay Prolacta every time I breast feed my next child because they patented proteins and antibodies in my milk? (Sounds far-fetched, but Monsanto successfully sued a farmer after Monsanto-patented wheat landed in his fields from natural pollinators). And I'm sorry, but $35 an ounce? I have high self-esteem, but my milk isn't worth that much!

While I applaud the women who wanted to o something wonderful, and selfless, the so-called "charity" is a great disservice to their generosity, and to the babies in need who can't benefit from this altruism, not to mention a threat to the breast-feeding community.

But giving breast milk FROM OTHER WOMEN is not natural.

I respectfully disagree with you on this. Human beings have used wet nurses for centuries. (And I know that can speak to issues of class and/or race, but it was the norm until very recently). Women took care of each other's babies.

I also diagree (I forget who posted this opinion) that donating breast milk to African babies is cultural piracy. Most women in Africa do breast feed their babies. It's free, convenient, and beneficial to moms and babies (funny enough, those pros apply in america as well!) Most women breast feed for far longer than American moms do. The milk being donated is going to orphaned babies. So, obviously, their mom's can't breastfeed.

I do agree that air mailing milk to Africa is perhaps not a very efficient way to help. But we send foodstuffs of all kinds around the world. I'd far rather see us donate breast milk than formula (though if babies are hungry and all we have is formula, send that too!) My one concern (after my earlier stated issues with Prolacta's less than philanthropic agenda) is that donated milk be properly screened, to the same standards as donated milk for American babies.

Could we find another entity to help with this project? The UN, the WHO, UNICEF, Save the Children, etc? Someone familiar with the people andcountries already, who doesn't have a profiteering bent?

I'm not saying I don't like orfasms, and I'm not saying they should be difficult!

But I am saying that if we reduce sexual pleasure to literally pressiung a button on our surgically modified G-spots, then we've lost something wonderful in the complex joys of sex.

I see it as a path to having less respect for one's partner. ("There, I've pressed your easy-button. Now I'm turning on ESPN.") No thanks. I like my partner and I to work up a little sweat in pleasing each2

other.

This "improvement" could make sex ... mechanized. Objectified. Less than human. Less of a communion of bodies and souls. Less unpredictible. And way more less fun.