Trying to stay gender neutral about this, and not get into a big debate over a woman's right to work, I'll put it simply that some people are givers and some are takers.

It's probably easier to be a accomplished intellectual if your wife cooks for you, does the dishes, cleans the house, etc. See, e.g., Nabokov, Vonnegut.

Richard Scarry's wife brought him breakfast, lunch and dinner while he worked in his office all day. His children's book outsold Dr. Seuss. (I think Scarry qualifies as a man of genius).

So... not to generalize, but I don't happen to know many girls my age who would be willing to do all that. And, I guess that applies to men too.

So, unless you can find a dedicated and understanding spouse, stay single if you want to engage in more intellectual pursuits.

Double post, and a grammatical error.

"would've ruined the..."

... no true philosopher ever marries. Except for Socrates, and he did it just to be ironic.

Although, even Socrates sent his wife away before he committed suicide. Her feminine sobbing would've ruin the aesthetic perfection of the moment.

... no true philosopher ever marries. Except for Socrates, and he did it just to be ironic.

Although, even Socrates sent his wife away before he committed suicide. Her feminine sobbing would ruin the aesthetic perfection of the moment.

the understanding of a work, as cross-examination is to the truth in a court of law. Both are necessary to draw out ideas, and impeach fraud (be it literary or legal) that may be not be evident to some readers.

And as far as the perfect "novel about nothing" goes... I think Nabokov did that already with Pale Fire. So novelists can move on to the next challenge... assuming that literary form is still artistically valid. I don't really think so, but what do I know?

Just to echo a few of the sentiments here, I take particular issue with a certain point noted by the panel: the Republican Party is the one with the money problems in 2008. Obama, the DNC, et. al. are awash in green.

I assume the majority of this money is not being given by The People. Therefore, the newly elected democrats in 2008 will NOT be accountable to The People. As usual, the brains and the well-organized machine senses the political sea-change before it hits, and re-routes the gravy train to the New Boss.

We've seen the meaninglessness of the "D" or "R" after a name, as Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, et. al. handed the Bush Administration everything he wanted on FISA.

You'll see more impotence in 2009 from the Democratic majority, as they wallow in their new-found crapulence enabled by big corporate money... an increasingly despairing population, and a shift back to the Republicans in 2010 will follow, as they are the only "opposition" in our two-party system. Then we can take another big leap toward a more regressive, reactionary, military state.

Pete Townshend was all wrong... We've been Fooled Again many times since 1970, and we're about to be Fooled YET AGAIN.

The left-wing understanding of Government....

Is that compared to Bush, Robert Mugabe, (you know the guy that grabbed the wife of an opposition party member, had her feet hacked off, and then set her on fire) is not so bad.

http://tinyurl.com/46fou5

Aw, shucks, going after the wife of the opposition sure sounds more like a right-wing political technique.

You know, like revealing she's a undercover CIA operative (treason?), just because her husband had the nerve to question your highly questionable "evidence" for war. Just so you could invade another country and give your buddies lots of money to "rebuild" it...

So, seems that barring some spectacular situations (my dad was my civics teacher...), proper instruction in the U.S. Constitution, and the system of government it establishes, so necessary to the proper functioning of a democracy, is largely defunct nowadays. I think we can safely presume that educational standards have only fallen since 2000...

I guess in a lot of ways, this is the root of the problem. It also explains the reluctance of politicians to support better education not only in general, but also in respect to government/civics. No surprises here, but a lot people seem to forget how critical education is to the overall governance and functioning of a civil society.

It's all based on trust and respect for property and civil rights, two very unnatural concepts that must be taught: they will not be gleaned by following the laws of the jungle.

I'm not really sure what are the current requirements regarding teaching government at the High School level in the US.

Like I said, my personal experience (from 12 years of catholic school) was that it was seen as more of an annoyance, similar to having to take gym class. It was an elective class, I believe. At public schools, it's probably required; I can't imagine the instruction being any better at public school, than private school. Although I suppose the catholic basis of my school meant more that "public" concepts such as government and civics were not emphasized as much. We were a college prep school and the emphasis was on language, science, literature, etc.

Any constitutional knowledge I picked up prior to law school generally came from history classes, and like I said, was taught from the same perspective: a static bunch of vocabulary words that people fought over in the past, but no longer affected us. The general vibe I got was that "We were America, the greatest country in the world," and had nothing to worry about anymore. Our gov't was firmly established as "Good" and therefore, there was no reason to scrutinize it.