I'm curious -- and just curious, I don't really care one way or the other -- why you think it's important that there be more "black faces on the field."

Right now, the percentage of African-Americans (as opposed to Afro-Caribbeans, who bring the number of "black faces" up considerably) in the majors is roughly the same as the percentage of African-Americans in the general population. Should there be more? Using the same logic, should the NBA and NFL be doing more to bring more white (and Latino and Asian) "faces" into their respective sports?

Just what, exactly, would you consider an appropriate "target" number for the "right" number of African-American "faces on the field"? And why.

Sometimes I think people say make statments like that as a form of knee-jerk political correctness without really thinking about whether it actually makes sense. There are fewer African-Americans in pro baseball than there were 30 years ago, but are the factors behind the decline in the number of African-American players the kind of factors that require artificial remediation?

I'd like to thank all the people who objected to this cartoon for perpetuating the stereotype that liberals are humorless and dogmatic.

Lighten up!

Anyone who isn't mired in political correctness would understand that the point isn't that men are bad, but that the assumption that a man (and by extrapolation, any person) is automatically a more fit parent simply because of his gender is ridiculous.

I have an idea. Let's try to keep the ratio of stories about the parenting issues of rich people equal to the ratio of those people to the general population. I realize most working and middle-class parents are too busy being parents to write about it, but there are these people called "reporters" who actually go out and talk to people who aren't in their social circle! You might want to look into that.

Anonymous wrote: "A nanny is actually cheaper than daycare times two.... if you work part-time, it is cheaper to pay a nanny (more per hour, but cheaper overall since you are only paying for exactly the hours you need)."

Someone who works part-time, only the hours you need, is a babysitter, not a nanny (no matter what you actually call her). Let's not confuse the issue by conflating the two.

I just wanted to say in the defense of the staff at EWR that I had some problems this last time through, and everyone I dealt with, both TSA and airline personnel, was polite, friendly and helpful beyond what could reasonably have been expected. Clearing customs there has also always been a breeze -- I've never seen anyone there even look at a bag (maybe I shouldn't have said that!).

Others:

SFO -- love the wheel-spoke layout with the parking/ground transportation in the hub.

OAK -- my home airport, easy access, and here's a tip: security is always easier in Terminal 2 (Southwest), and the terminals are connected on the far side of security, so if the security lines in Terminal 1 look like a popular ride at Disneyland (which they often do), you can make the two-minute walk to the other Terminal, breeze through security and walk back.

Santa Barbara is a gorgeous airport, although it's so small I'm not sure it really qualifies. Spanish mission-style terminal in a beautiful setting between the mountains and the beach.

Portland, OR is a nice mid-sized airport with free Wi-Fi.

Spokane has a pretty new airport out in the middle of the high prairie.

Long Beach -- the Jet Blue facilities are in portables! But it does have free Wi-Fi.

Manchester, UK -- has two terminals ten minutes' walk apart and no transportation between them. What were they thinking!

Milan (Malpensa) -- most confusing check-in system I've ever seen -- once I found the right cluster of counters, I had to wait in line before being allowed to approach my counter, even though the people in line were going to different airlines and some of the counters were not busy. Actually, I think Malpensa exists so that you don't feel bad about leaving Italy -- just get me out of here!

Lehigh Valley "International" Airport -- the most officious security with the least justification I've ever experienced.

BDL has some decent food choices for a small airport.

I like the terminal at McCarran/Las Vegas that has the stone critters emerging out of the floor -- C, I think.

O'Hare -- have you ever had to get from the C terminal to the E terminal? I could just have easily walked to my final destination.

And speaking of that ... I just want to know what amazing, demonic piece of software arranges things so that your gate is *always* as far as possible from your destination, in violation of laws of probability! Maybe those close-in gates are all dummies, and the ones at the ends of the terminals are the only "real" gates.

Mol -- aren't all airports under construction? I'm pretty sure airports are like painting the Golden Gate Bridge: once you finish, it's time to start over.

You were being ironic, right Mol?

"Sept. 25, 1978, San Diego, Calif.: Pacific Southwest plane collided in midair with Cessna. All 135 on airliner, 2 in Cessna, and 7 on ground killed for total of 144."

According to what I read when I was poking around looking for info about the crash, it did get them talking about relocating the airport, but meanwhile air traffic took off, and they had to expand the existing facilities, and the new airport never got off the ground. Apparently pilots hate it and consider it one of the worst, if not the worst, airport approaches in the US.