"The thing that is wrong -- really wrong -- is when we forget that these kinds of stories are not the only ones that women have to tell."

What an amazingly ironic sentence to come from a writer of Broadsheet, which concerns itself almost obsessively with the issues of white, urban women of a certain class (educated, professional, etc.). The difference between Rebecca Traister and Emily Gould -- both young, white, educated urban media professionals -- is of degree, not of kind. When the writers of Broadsheet start talking as much about the lives of the women who clean their offices as they do about women like Emily Gould (about whom this is the second Broadsheet story this week) then they can criticize others for forgetting that these kinds of stories are not the only ones that women have to tell.

I'd really like to see Broadsheet go a week -- just a week -- without writing (or blogging!) anything about women who have blogs and other bloggers who comment about them.

Although I support women having access to all the family planning services they need, I can't see celebrating the notion that the solution to the problem of providing adequate health care to women is to lower the standard of care.

Prescriptions have expiration dates for a reason: people's health status changes. Someone who already has limited access to health care because of financial or logistical contraints is going to be even more at risk than the general population. A woman who can't make it to a doctor once a year to get her BC prescription refilled undoubtedly isn't having her blood pressure checked at twice annual visits to the dentist, either, and it can be dangerous to give the impression that hormonal birth control is completely without risk because by prescribing it without medical evaluation. Yeah I know, and you know, but there are an awful lot of people out there who are uninformed, either because they don't care to be informed or they don't have access to information, and those people are the ones who are least likely to be taking care of their health in the first place.

jebldmm said: "I remember a lot of people arguing that Kerry was going to win by several points because cell phone users were underrepresented in the polls. It didn't really work out then, and there is no reason to think it will now.

I think there's a big reason to think it *might* be different now: the demographics of cell phones, and cell phone users, have changed significantly in four years as a wider and wider spectrum of people go wireless. In addition, techniques for doing outreach to the types of people who traditionally didn't have high turnouts have improved. Younger people are actually more hooked into communications and media than they used to be, and organizations are getting more savvy at appealing to them through the new media. What do you want to bet there's a plan to get out the vote through text messaging all those wireless people on their cell phones?

I have a land line but I only keep it for emergencies and to call out occasionally (and for a number to put down on a form when I really don't want to be called). I keep the ringer turned off because of all the telemarketing calls -- anyone I want to talk to gets my cell number. And I'm over 40 and vote religiously.

I think Obama has a very good reason to wait: he's waiting to see if -- or to what extent -- the Clinton faction will come around if he doesn't pick her as VP. He's hoping the clamour to put her on the ticket will die down, the women who supported Hillary who claimed they wouldn't vote for Obama will come to their senses and realize they'd be cutting off their noses to spite their face, and he's feeling out donors and other Democratic bigwigs to see if he can get away with not choosing her.

Personally, even though I was a Clinton supporter -- or perhaps because I *was* a Clinton supporter -- I hope he doesn't feel obligated to choose her: I'd rather have her back in the Senate, providing leadership and speaking in her own voice, than playing dutiful, powerless second fiddle to a man ... again.

Enough with men's basketball! Olympic men's basketball hasn't meant a damn thing since the pros started playing, and Kobe, et al. don't need any more TV time than they already get.

I don't know what channels you all are watching, but I saw some women's basketball the other day, and it wasn't 3 a.m., either. I've seen some kind of equestrian event, and rowing, and road cycling, and water polo, and field hockey (which the announcers made sure we knew was officially just "hockey"), and soccer, and probably more that I can't remember. Most of those games didn't even involve U.S. teams! And I'm not even trying very hard to find something other than the omnipresent swimming and gymnastics.

The NBC Olympic website has a schedule that you can sort by sport, so if you really want to find out when, for example, table tennis is on, and on which channel, you can. If you don't like what NBC is spoon feeding you, make a teensy bit of effort and find what you like yourself! Surely all those amazing athletes can motivate even the most dedicated couch potato to exercise a finger on a mouse button or a remote control.