It is ludicrous for this president to try to associate himself with the concepts "honor" and "integrity". To him, these are nothing more than words on a page. It is evident from his character assasination of Ann Richards in his Texas gubinatorial campaigns (by "architect" Karl Rove) to his character assasination of John Kerry in the last presidential election, which by association, cast a long shadow on all who were awarded military honors in the Vietnam War, to his reel of shabby, self-serving lies about going to war in Iraq. Harry Truman's famous sign on his desk in the Oval Office, "The Buck Stops Here", needs to be pulled out of the archives, dusted off and placed on the door to the office now occupied by George W. Bush. Now, we know that it was he, himself, who authorized the leaks of classified information to the press. This must be how he's always conducted his "business" - which is why he just failed time after time until people smarter than him got hold of him (Rove and Cheney).

I've only read the first several letters here on this editorial, but I have to say that apart from those begging the question, criticizing the choice given by Ms. Walsh at the end of the piece, and the outrageous claim by one BlueAmbersol that "sexism has been around for a million years" and he infers it is somehow naturally more understandable, I would say that all the people I read are missing the point. First, sexism has not been around for a million years - only 5000 or 6000 years. And don't think that racism just raised its ugly head a couple of hundred years ago, either. There had to exist racism to begin with or there wouldn't have been a slave trade. The point as I see it, is that whereas we have as a culture wholly condemned racism, sexism as a heinous prejudice is still tacitly and sometimes openly condoned. And it is a heinous prejudice.

Oh, c'mon - try a moon ritual. They're liberating and they put you in touch with your true sacred nature as the seat of creation in the human race. Also, did you know that women's menstrual blood used to be collected to spread over the fields to grow a more abundant harvest? Oh yeah. Now it can grow heart issue - hmmmm.

Leave it alone. What good can it possibly do to delve into this? What does it have to do with anything important to anyone but his wife and family? I really believe that this is not anyone else's business.

While reading the information and testimony in this article does nothing to endear me to Sarah Palin (nothing could), I do take objection to the sexism evident in accusations of her as being "opportunistic" and "ambitious". I don't doubt that she is. Many in politics are. But I do not think the criticism would be leveled with such, "She betrayed me and my friendship" terms if the candidate we were referring to was a man. Such a man would be referred to as a "hard charger", "focused", "single-minded". All of which are perfectly acceptable for men to be.

Joan, I willingly admit that I do not like Sarah Palin. I cringe at the thought that she might be President or acting President in the next 4 years. But I have to tell you that I do not see your criticism on this point as valid. Vladimir Putin is a thug, an ex-KGB head, a gangster - Bush may have looked into his eyes and "seen his soul", but he was played. I can look at his face and know this man is playing us all. He's got W's number and he has ice-water flowing in his veins. And he has an idea of a much more powerful Russia these days. You know this.

I have to agree with Thirith. If there's no character to identify with, no one sympathetic, then there's only the fleeting fascination of gawking at an auto accident. If the writers are trying to get viewers to examine themselves for their own motives, or point out that there is both good and bad, reasonable and irrational in all of us - okay, I get that. But to make it THE theme of the entire series - it doesn't hold me. Additionally, the flashes forward in time and backward in time are not just unnerving, they make me work too hard. I don't want to work that hard to watch a tv show.

On the other hand, the actors are fabulous and I am glad they have work that obviously is satisfying to them. Just wish it was n=more satisfying to me, the audience member.

I would say the answer to Tracy's last line question is: most certainly the latter.

I agree with Aubrey that the institution of marriage is not born of our natural tendencies. All religious belief aside, marriage was created for socio-political reasons so that property rights could be secured and women wouldn't be allowed the same ability to "run wild" that men have always had. After all, a man has to know whether the children he's supporting are really his or not! I believe humans are serially monogomous, but a life-long legal union in which both parties are supposed to be happy and sexually exclusive are pretty few and far between. Those people just got lucky. I am sure that Aubrey's wife knew all about his philandering. She knew him inside out, no doubt. But for these two, sexual exclusivity did not define their relationship, and that was okay for them. What I find sad is that this accomplished man doesn't appreciate women for who they are. He says they have to be smart, but he doesn't tolerate a lack of slenderness. Most women naturally gain weight as they go through menopause. I wonder how comparatively great he looks at 76? Somehow his declaration of "loving women" doesn't ring true if he mainly dates women 30-40 years younger than him.