Ms. Paglia expresses skepticism about global climate change, the enormous dangers it poses to life on earth and the fact that the climate change we're seeing today is caused by humans. Very few of the world's climate scientists share Paglia's skepticism.

Global climate change is not liberal dogma, it's science. When it comes to culture and politics, I'll listen to Paglia. When it comes to science, I'll listen to scientists.

... is the author of this piece. Her stubborn refusal to accept the scientific consensus about the grave perils of global climate change is infuriating. It seems every article she writes for salon she makes a point of infuriating those of us who accept the scientific consensus. She wouldn't endlessly repeat this poppycock if she didn't enjoy pissing off rational people. I sometimes think Paglia's greatest joy in life is pissing people off for the sake of pissing people off.

I implore the editors to forbid Paglia from speaking on this subject any further. She's said her piece over and over and over--enough is enough. Stop the madness.

I can't help hoping that Clinton supporters who denied Obama faced racism, but who are now outraged by the treatment of Michelle Obama, will have new insight into the dynamics of American media and politics, and new compassion for Mr. and Mrs. Obama.

... God kills a kitten.

Please, think of the kittens.

The "mastermind" behind the Palin pick simply MUST go on the loser list.

Rich "Starbursts" Lowry also deserves at least (dis)honorable mention.

ESPN is not on broadcast TV. The only kind of free TV is broadcast TV; any other kind of TV is pay TV.

I'm feeling hungry. Guess I'll go grab a "five dollar" sandwich.

You've done some awfully fine, funny sports typing over the years. Glad you won't be disappearing from this site altogether, at least for now.

Good luck to ya.

A single article in Time Magazine from 1929 isn't persuasive enough to draw the conclusion that the problem of nepotism is worse today than it was in the past. A telling quote from that very article suggests quite the opposite: "[m]any another son has followed his father into high office."

Somebody's going to have to do or find the research comparing the degree of nepotism in today's political class compared to that of yesteryear's. Only then will we know in which direction we've moved or if we've moved at all.

As for "what accounts for this anti-democratic dynamic," I'd posit human nature. In the Roman Republic, it was quite rare for a novus homo ("new man", i.e. one w/out a family history in politics) to get very far. Things have certainly improved since then, but I'm not convinced that they've worsened since the birth of our own republic.