It's funny how much the press loves a "dying, dying...dramtic recovery!!!" story. They pronounced the Democratic party dead a couple of times. That's why Clinton and everyone else claimed they were a "new Democratic party" with no real connection to the previous incarnation. Does anyone really believe that? Bow it's the Republicans who are pronounced on life support. But that really is a press story, unrelated to how government by representation works in the US.

It should be obvious to anyone over the age of twenty that we live in a country of both liberals and conservatives, and a two-party system repreenting both is not likely ever to go away. Times change, people sway from left to right or vice versa, and one party sinks for a moment while the other rises. I think its pretty foolish to ever pronounce either party a corpse. Even if either were officially disbanded, the party to replace it would just be the Republican or Democratic party by another name.

Sorry, folks, but the Republican party isn't dying or dead, nor will it. Happily, the Democratic party won't die, either.

Americans are woefully undereducated, often reactionary, and are swayed by shiny ads, and of course has no interest in participating in the democratic process (the average American pays little attention to the news and doesn't vote). The last thing I want is a court that looks more like America. At any rate, the court isn't meant to do that in the first place. Unlike elected officials who are intended to represent their constituents (and by extention, refelct the American people at any given point in history), the goal of the court is for those most knowlegable in the law to make sure our country's laws are adhered to whenever there is a disbute. Mastery of law, adherence to the dictates of the Constitution, these are the requirements of the court, and skin and sex are utterly irrelevent.

But since, as you point out, the top graduates of law schools have been routinely women for some some time now, it does make sense for more women—maybe even a majority of women—to sit on the court. There might be an issue time lag at present. It's one thing to point to current graduates, even those of the past decade. But there's a distinct passage of time in which any graduate works as a lawyer, is appointed to the bench, is later appointed to a prominent bench, and then has the opportunity of being nominated for the Supreme Court. On top of intelligence, maturity and experience are also prime requirements.

It would be a crime if sexism is preventing the people most fit to serve and protect the law frome being appointed to the careers they deserve, and that America needs them to fill. If sexism is halting this process, it needs to stop now. We have had enough of incompetence and bigoted preference. We need quality, excellence, and respect for the laws of the land. We need the best our country has to offer.

I was ready for another X-Men,, as I think Hugh Jackman is one of the sexiest men in movies (I sat through Van Helsing because he starred in it, and yeah I got my money's worth: near the climax he was stripped to almost nothing). Or I guess I should say "was one of the sexiest." Sigh. He's developed that "older man trying to keep it together" look now, i.e., in shape, but bloated. Not really hot. Maybe I'll check it out anyway...

This strikes me as a radically limited look at the issue.

Maybe it comes with with age (I'd call it maturity if I didn't know myself so well), but I know I have a much longer attention span than I did in my teens and twenties. It was in my early thirties, and after I had been online for at least five years, that I read The Tale of Genji twice. I tend to favor authors like Henry James who write long novels which make demands on the reader, and though I've always liked him, I think I appreciate him and his longer works much more than I did ten years ago. I'm a slow reader, but I've always read slowly.

Nevertheless, I think this is a very interesting article, and I loved Nicholas Carr's article. Thanks for linking that.

The term for her kind of beauty is "Junoesque." I agree with everything you wrote.

I loved the even-handedness of All in the Family and Maude. The satire of extremes both right an left, and the plea for common sense. There was an epidsode where Maude wouldn't get dressed to attend an award Walter was up for, because her name tag read "Maude Finley" and somehow this to her meant second class citizenship. At one point, she cried out that she just wanted to be an equal, someone who was paid for her work just like a man. Walter replied "I'll pay you $5 to put on that dress!" It was a great popping of the rhetorical balloon.

And yet she was a hero. Over-reaching, over-reacting, over-everything, but battling for good things. How could you not love her?

It's nice to see Dawkins and Hithchens revealed for the fools they are—on this subject. Their rabid attacks, and the carte blanche they've been given with no serious intellectual challenge to their assertions, has irriated me for a long time.

I seem to fall into the same category as Egaleton. I'm not religious, but I see the contribution religion has made to our world, and I can the beauty as well as the need for it. And I knew too much about my own faith's theology (Catholicism) to consider it an anti-intellectual assemblage of supersitition, childishly contructed myth and fear.

This sounds like a good, sound response. The Buddha preached following the devine middle path. I think he showed wisdom in this, and wish it were practiced more today, especially in America's intellectual life.