And can you imagine if a major Democratic Party figure, who was once third in line for the White House and who might run for president again, was saying such idiotic and hateful things about Republicans? Can you imagine if, say, Al Gore blamed the Bush administration, or the conservative movement generally, for the Virginia Tech massacre? He would be howled into political exile by braying right-wingers, but it's an acceptable part of mainstream discourse to blame liberalism for the nation's most jarring tragedies.

Please note that in jumping from an actual occurance to a hypothetical one, you also jumped from an argument about a philosophy (liberalism) to a personal attack. In fact, Gingrich himself speaks respectfully of Clinton and has always stressed the need to cross party lines to get things done. If he said Al Gore was responsible for this massacre, he would be in hot water. But his saying "liberalism" is responsible places him in the exact same position as all those liberals who are claiming conservativism is responsible—which is, of course, exactly what they are doing when they harp on the issue of gun control; the freedom to bear arms being, of course, a classic conservative position.

gains the attention of the editors around here.

While I disagree with your evaluation of the gun-control issue (which I think is waged in language that blames conservatives and/or Republicans for events like this), it doesn't have much impact on the fact that you are still employing false logic when you compare an attack on an ideology on Gingrich's part with a hypothetical personal attack on Gore's.

I think the American public accepts that people will disagree ideologically, and will express the belief that their own system is the best for the country. Gingrich wouldn't be much of a Republican if he thought a conservative outlook incapable of addressing national issues. Of course he's going to say a conservative approach can prevent these events. If they had a priest on, he'd say a spiritual approach can prevent these events. Had Gore been on, I'm sure he would have advocated a more liberal approach to preventing such occurences. What else does a spokesman for a cause say?

I don't think he meant to demoralize anyone. He probably meant to inspire conservatives. I don't think he much cares or worries about demoralizing liberals, or people who might be considering a liberal position.

I am merging feminism as a concept with specific feminist groups. And that's sloppy thinking. I am not a NOW feminist. I am not what Christina Hoff Sommers would call a "gender feminist."

Personally, I think seeing women as equals and believing they deserve equal treatment makes me a plain old humanist, but I'll go along with your definition. And you are also right about Paglia labelling herself a feminist.

I failed to answer this earlier, but I'm a major fan of Paglia, or at least was a major fan. Her recent letters here have alienated me; they strike me as lazy and obvious...is this really the most we can expect from the author of "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders"? At any rate, Sexual Personae was a life-altering book. Completely changed my outlook on both men and feminism.

"Adultery" and "cheating" are not the same thing. The wife or husband in a polyamorous relationship might still be angered or hurt, develelop a lack of trust and a sense of betrayal, of his or her spouse breaks the rules they set up. For instance, develops a relationship when they've only okayed one-night stands, or has a one-night stand when only fully developed relationships are considered acceptable. Or do more sexually than they've agreed is all right. I can think of a couple where a problem developed not on the basis of cheating but because the cheating occured in their own bed, which had been made off limits.

One should also consider that, just as spontaneous sexual impulses come along, so do spontaneous feelings of hurt or jealously. A simple-minded "I'm just following my nature" doesn't address the complex, ambivalent aspects of the human mind.

One further thought. Acting on natural impulses isn't necessarily good. We don't soil ourselves the minute we feel the need to go to the bathroom. We don't strike out violently everytime a person upsets us. Learning to socialize ourselves, to sublimate immediate, natural inclinations, for other benefits, is one of the basic elements of human existence.

You can't predict what the gap will widen to after 12 years or whatever because Americans no longer stay in the same job, so demonstrating an "If these trends continue" scenario doesn't work. Because the trends don't continue.

The difficulty with a study saying "right out of college" women make less, is that a comparison of salaries is meaningless without a comparison of jobs. The basic argument, "A woman is paid less than a man" isn't demonstrable. I doubt, for instance, that women writers at Salon are paid less. While I'm sure that a female college graduate who goes to work for a non-profit organization will make less than a male graduate who enters a prestigious business firm.

There's a much larger story than the number crunching suggests.

What was the conversation like with your publishers about the title of the book? Was the title your idea?

What sort of conversation do you expect took place? The implication seems to be that this is some daring in-your-face title. But "the N-word" is a widely accepted euphamism, one that clearly identifies the insulting term, without offending anyone by acutally using it. Are you not aware that Randall Kennedy (an African American author, in case you didn't know) already wrote a successful book called Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word that deals with the same history, and social contextualizing, as this new book? Your question honestly baffles me.