So when my husband and I bought a house, we agreed to make sure that we weren't paying more than one-third of one of our incomes in mortgage, in case one of us lost a job.

Well, that day has come. My research program lost its funding, and I am now among the underemployed. Because of the nature of his employment I don't expect my husband to lose his job, but what about people who have been doing the right thing and had *both* incomes go up in smoke? Yes, maybe you have savings. But when they run out--and they will--then what?

And even if one parent is still working, does the monthly paycheck stretch far enough, even if the mortgage is only one-third of it? It used to be more possible to live tolerably well with one breadwinner in the family. These days, having a stay-at-home parent is less a matter of equal rights and more a matter of economic need. My husband and I don't have children, but for those who do, things you might once have yourself foregone (like regular doctor visits and balanced meals) become necessities--and there are all kinds of other unforeseen expenses (*not* involving the latest PlayStation or expensive toy or whatever).

So I'll be paying for some people who made a mistake about how much house they could buy, or whether they could even afford a house. So what. We're all better off when those people--and their kids--are not out on the street or in homeless shelters, and when they get to keep whatever they did put in. Why is it that we seem to scream the loudest at the littlest transgressors, instead of the big fish?

I saw that cartoon, and I didn't make the connection either. Like an earlier commenter, I thought of the chimp shooting and the monkeys and typewriters analogy, and I'm sure that this probably was what the Post cartoonist and editors were thinking.

But that doesn't matter, and it doesn't make anyone who was offended "politically correct," crazy, or opportunistic (with the possible exception of Al Sharpton). Any editor or cartoonist worth his or her salt should realize that there is a long and appalling history in American journalism of caricaturing black Americans with simian features, and they should have realized that and exercised better judgment. As soon as I saw the association pointed out, it clicked into place for me, and I understood at once how hurtful it would be to so many people, intentionally or not. No one with even a smattering of American cultural literacy should be able to plead ignorance.

I really deplore the practice, begun in the early 90s, of wearing so-called "political incorrectness" as a badge of honor and deriding people who advocate respect for others as an exercise in self-righteous sanctimony. It's not being politically correct to refrain from using images that have been historically deeply insulting and open old wounds and humiliations. It's an expression of good manners, true class, and civic responsibility. I suspect even Rupert Murdoch vaguely understands that, even if he can't bring himself to do the right thing.

People like jkd are the reason I'd advise anyone to run screaming from grad school into the military. Teaching, even at major research universities--ESPECIALLY at major research universities--usually gets short shrift because this attitude of academic puritanism and snobbery is prevalent there. (And depending on what he wants to focus on, some state schools are better than Harvard or Yale.)

There are lots of smart, thoughtful, well-educated veterans posting here on both sides of the question. That's fantastic. There can never be too many. If the culture of the military isn't quite what the LW is used to, his presence there could only help improve it. And I have to say, he'd have a much broader experience of the world and its people than he would in academic culture. But only, however, if his primary motive is to serve his country, rather than to advance his own interests, as a previous commenter pointed out. I was a little disappointed not to see him express such a sentiment in his letter.

That said, my other first thought on reading is also similar to that expressed by other writers. There are many great and honorable people serving in the armed forces. The armed forces, however, does not always treat them as they deserve to be treated for what they've given. I hope that improves over the next several years, but it's still a cause for concern. It's one thing to be willing to face hazardous and extreme working conditions and to put your life potentially in danger. It's another to survive those things only to come home, injured in body and/or spirit, and slip through the cracks because the organization you put your life on the line for used you up and threw you away.

I was just stunned. It was self-serving, disingenuous, and utterly devoid of ideas.

No, I probably shouldn't be stunned. But now I have a new stealth-right-wing wacko Republican darling to detest and hope he crashes and burns. Which he will.

and is it just me, or is the Republican practice of praising Obama for being black starting to get really, really old?

Would have to know more about his character and his economic views, but, granted he checks out, at first glance he'd probably be an Ike figure and very likely a moderate. That would probably be the most sensible thing Republicans could do, at this point. But Petraeus would only have a chance if Republicans were capable of doing the sensible thing, and if Obama's wild popularity utterly disappeared in the next four years (if, say, he did something really stupid--nominating Cabinet members who turn out to have tax problems is a minor misstep, but hardly the kind of stupidity I'm talking about--we're talking Spitzer-level or Bush-league stupidity here).

Frankly, I don't see either of those things happening, let alone both. Seriously.