We make a very similar version, which has also has some dry sherry, orange juice, and red bell pepper in it. Also, we use part butternut and part acorn squash, which makes for a beautiful yellow-orange color in the finished product. God, my mouth is watering now.

Please. Just. Shut. Up. You're an embarrassment, and your latest book only makes things worse. Of course, anyone who would make a post like the infamous "Lee Siegel, Lee Siegel,...", etc, is surely too narcissistic to take this advice, but seriously. Go away for awhile until people forget about you.

... a grown man who refers to himself as "Mudcat".

Dear Mr. Mudcat -

In spite of your continued claims of some sort of relevancy for the angry-southern-white-male demographic, the nation in general and the Democratic party in particular are so over you. And you might want to beware of pissing off the lady who's got a better than even chance of winning the nomination this year.

Someone clear this up for me - this guy actually gets paid to dispense political advice?

But there are compelling financial reasons gay couples should remain single. For instance, in a divorce, alimony is normally tax-deductible for the person paying it and counted as income for the person receiving it. But because the Internal Revenue Service does not recognize gay marriage, alimony payments for same-sex couples could be treated as "gifts" and thus subject to taxes. The estate tax exemption that applies to married couples would also be a moot point. That is, in a heterosexual marriage, the surviving spouse pays no taxes on the estate. In a gay marriage, there would be no such exemption -- and an estate tax bill can be hefty.

So in both of these cases, at the end of the relationship, at least one person ends up paying more in taxes if they remained single than if they got married. How is this an advantage to remaining single? These are financial arguments in FAVOR of marriage.

And if being a feminist doesn't lead to a job, doesn't that suggest that society is still perhaps just a wee bit patriarchal?

Actually, two problems, with this particular sentence. First, the quoted anti-feminist didn't claim that being a feminist doesn't lead to a job. She claimed that having a degree in women's studies didn't lead to a job. Surely you don't mean to claim that one must have a women's studies degree to be a feminist.

Also, I don't think the idea that society is still patriarchal logically follows from the fact that a women's studies degree (or other feminist credentials) doesn't lead to a job. It seems to me that Ms. Summers' thesis follows just as well: that the battle for equality has already been won, and therefore, there's no need to employ someone to work on feminist issues.

This is not to say that I believe patriarchy has actually been overcome - I don't. But I believe your logic is faulty.

I'm totally down with anger at "scientists" who make sweeping generalizations about gender roles. There's tons of that crap going on with so-called "evolutionary" explanations of why men are hunters, while women are gatherers, etc. But I'm really baffled at your anger at this particular study. These seem to be statements of fact: high testosterone is correlated with a) having more boys, and b) having certain personality traits. The conclusion that you can estimate the likelihood of a certain woman having a boy based on her personality traits seems kind of straightforward, at least if the researcher's data is good. What exactly is the problem?

Geez, where to begin with this article? Here are a couple examples of foolishness:

1) Yes, I understand that we like to write headlines to be provocative, so people are more likely to read the article. But, please. The fact that Hillary would be winning if the rules were different does not, obviously, mean that she SHOULD be winning. Who SHOULD be winning is a question that's in the domain of pure opinion.

2) The fact that Hillary beat Obama in several big states, does not, obviously, mean that Obama can't beat McCain in those states. It's all but inconceivable that places like California and New York will end up in McCain's column, no matter who the Democrats nominate.

3) It's ludicrous to suggest that the results for Michigan and Florida be counted as is. Obama did not appear on the ballot in Michigan, and your suggestion that a nation-wide ad buy that happened to also play in Florida is the same thing as campaigning in Florida is ridiculous.

I'm not opposed to printing articles that are strongly slanted toward one candidate... but Salon and the author should expect to hear about it.