I agree that Salon smelled a lawsuit but the idea that Nathan misrepresented Eichenwald is suspect. The disagreement seems to revolve around whether or what kind of legal protection is afforded to non-offical people who cover such stories. Nathan claimed she could have been prosecuted because she inadvertently stumbled upon illegal images while researching the issue and she suggested that Eichenwald faced the same potential problem because he looked at such images as well as part of his research. He disagreed but that was her point.

Eichenwald complained and the NY Times pulled out the big stick and Salon caved and here we are...

"I think lots of people who didn't get into these schools while athletes did, with SAT scores high school grades well, well below theirs, would argue that students athletes took away from their education."

I suppose they could argue that but it wouldn't make any sense. So, I didn't get in because some athlete with lower SAT and HS scores got in and took my rightful spot? With such tenous reasoning skills perhaps it's better that they didn't get in. Anyway, the top stars and big programs in the big dogs of Division I athletics (mens football and basketball) more than pay for the cost of the scholarships they get or give out.

So, the "problem" with giving men paternal leave is that because, according to you, "society" doesn't have defined expectations for men when it comes to fatherhood, therefore the guy could turn out to be a lout, and as such, giving men paternal leave is a problem? I'm not sure what to say to such a blatantly sexist suggestion. I guess simple fairness has nothing to do with it.

I should have written ...society" doesn't have defined expectations for the responsibilities of men when it comes to fatherhood leave,...

LeCastor, you're falling back into your old pattern of obnoxiously bragging about yourself while attempting to belittle others. Sigh, you were doing so well...... :-)

See the From Joan Walsh letter a few letters below yours. It's unsatisfyingly skimpy but it's a start.

Actually, it was a compliment. You're doing much better though I do understand that we all slip now and then..... ;-)

I swear there should be a National Fund that gets a dollar deposit everytime someone pulls out that old tired slogan "PC" to explain something or the other. That would definitely take care of the debt that Keillor refers to in his good column. In this case, it appears that "PC" is hiding a "truth" and is one of the reasons that liberals haven't thrown the bums in Washington out. PC rides again!!!!

"Also, there have been studies done showing that SOME African-American students and Latino students feel a lot of peer pressure not to do well in school. SOME Students of these races who do well academically have fewer same-race friends than do their peers with lower GPA's."

"A 2005 survey by Public Agenda found only 7% of blacks and 3% of Hispanic teens say their friends “look down on” getting a college degree while 46% and 53% say their friends are “really impressed” by someone getting a degree, and 46% and 41% say it’s “routine and expected.”

I'd like to know a little bit more about how that survey was conducted, but in any case, it's perfectly possible to feel favorably towards the status represented by having a college degree, and still be scornful of the day-to-day work and discipline that actually has to be expended to achieve that status."

You're not really interested in the survey. If you were, you could easily look it up rather than implying the superiority of you and your daughter's personal experiences. My personal experiences are quite different. So? Btw, I noticed the sidestep. You focused on the "really impressed part" part, twisted it to "status", and then went into the standard litany of inner-city ills. You ignored the "routine and expected" part and the much more important "look down on" part which is the crux of the "acting white" meme.

Overall, I think that acting white is like ebonics and, my favorite, wilding. Meaning it's something that has a some truth to it, but, seems to be way overblown.

Did we read the same letter? He was broken up with the Ex for 2 YEARS before he started dating the LW and, according to the LW, he's not close with her at all. Apparently, he's more than willing not to go to any functions she throws and not let her carpool but the LW is insisting otherwise for her own competitive/personal reasons. I think you've read way too much into it and veered off the road. While I think the LW is being preciously "I'm innocent - woe is me" and the BF could pull the Ex aside and speak to her about her behavior, the notion that he's some kind of narcissist is dubious.

Red Sox fans come out of the woodwork and illustrate exactly why it's so much fun to watch their team collapse.

You "Red Sox Nation" jokers keep referring to yourselves as the "most knowledgeable fans in baseball" and you wonder why people are laughing at the Red Sox's implosion. Now come all the excuses, our injuries are worse...wahhh...the Yanks have more money...wahhh....

As I suspected, "The Curse" was the best thing "RSN" had going for itself. Now, it's just like the aftermath of another "cursed" team that had an equally annoying and self-reverential fan base - the 1994 NY Rangers.