...it comes from people. It comes mostly from dumb shit asshole losers who were probably kicked around by their dads in their childhoods and now need somebody to pick on.

Some politicians may make use of homophobia to get themselves elected, just as many politicians in the past used racism to get themselves elected. Having got elected, corporations may want to support these politicians because they need influence in government.

To turn this process on its head and claim that corporations pay politicians to incite people to be homophobic or racist is just plain stupid. That is just not how life works. Human beings are perfectly capable of coming up with ugly and stupid behavior all on their own, without the help of corporations or any kind of monetary interest. Homophobia has cropped up in countries without corporations. And in this society, one of the leading factors in the accepatance of gay rights has been the willingness of many corporations to hire gay people.

The fact is that power comes from the people in this country. A politician who wants to get elected had better talk to the people in his district; he needs to get to know what his consituents think and what they want. And the sad fact is, if the politician's consituents are homophobic, than he isn't likely to get elected unless he's homophobic as well, or at least says he is.

And we see this: politicians who are elected from red state are NOT AT ALL like politicians who are elected from the blue states. If your stupid notion that corporations run the parties were even sort of correct, then it wouldn't matter where the politicians come from, all of them would be alike. But they are not. They are different. Carl Levin is not Tom Delay. Hence you are wrong, absolutely wrong.

There are indeed innate gender differences between men and women which come out the most strongly the further we get back to a 'state of nature.' That is, if men and women are living in the wild as hunters and gatherers, the men are probably going to be the hunters and women caregivers and gatherers.

However, once we get out of such an environment, culture begins to takes over and is going to predominate. And in human society, culture takes over with a vengeance, because there are literally thousands and thousands of cultures out there, with a vast variety of roles for men and women, while there is only one human biology. This means that with humans, culture is far stronger than biology, as long as nature is put under some kind of control.

Hence the idea that men in this society are somehow biologically forced to lust for blondes with big breasts over other types (brands?) of women is just pure idiocy; blondes with big breasts don't exist in the 'wild,' because in a state of nature, hair gets dirty and usually stays dirty, and big breasts such as Pamela Anderson's are probably a positive hinderance in such a state. Blondes with big breasts is a pure social construct and men who prefer them have no doubt been taught to do so.

Thank you and pls send the Nobel Prize money to Salon where I'm sure they will make sure it gets to me.

..and not all women have them.

This is not at all like the peacocks, where all the female peacocks like big feathers and all the male peacocks try to have as big feathers as they can.

Since women have a variety of breast sizes, I think it can be safely assumed that men like a variety of breast sizes.

But do you find women with no breasts attractive?

Yes, often. Often very feminine women have small or no breasts.

Most of the men who do are child-molesters

Jackass.

...then smart good looking women will do well in politics. Just as smart good looking men can do well in politics right now. And no one will think it's strange for a president or presidential candidate to look sexy, when they are in fact sexy.

Just look at my governor, Jennifer Granholm. Very sexy and it doesn't hurt her a bit.

Hillary is just looking a little bit forward to the day when women are fully accepted as leaders, and that's a sign of her confidence. And nothing can do her more good than having confidence.

No doubt her advice on this matter is coming straight from Bill.

What happened to the color?

Aren't they supposed to say DO NOT ADJUST YOUR SET?!?

What does feeding poor people have to do with racism?

The people who are poor and homeless on the streets are both white and black. Black people who are getting enough to eat--which is the vast majority of them--still have to contend with racism. Feeding poor people will solve nothing as regards racism.

I'm beginning to think that liberals these days simply have no idea what racism is or how it affects people.

The problem was someone with an obsessive compulsion or just a plain earworm. Windy, irrelevant moralizing can't solve the letter writer's problem and it can't solve racism or poverty either.