Excellent interview with a lot to think about. Pity the usual unenlightened troglodytes are out in force in the comments section to make me slightly ashamed that I read Salon, as per usual. If atheists and fundamentalists were capable of raising their levels of discourse just a bit, we might be able to get a lot more accomplished, and perhaps find Haught's purpose.

Well, yeah that's an elite schedule. I mean, they had to play the Dolphins and the Jets twice. Helps to be in the AFC East, I suppose.

But the real problem with America is the belief that those who do not share our opinions are illogical. One can put forward many solid, logical reasons why evolution should not be taught in schools, for example (why grapple with a controversial topic that graduate students can struggle with in high school?).

Instead, we illogically assume that because certain people find evolution important, it must be taught in schools. One wonders why we're not railing against the deplorable state of our schools when Superstring Theory isn't taught!

I think we all have short memories.

After Super Tuesday, everyone was saying that Obama was going to have a very long stretch of states that Clinton was running behind in, and that she would be lucky to win one of those. Surprise, Obama won them all.

But then, everyone said, Texas and Ohio would come up, and Clinton could get right back into things. Well, here are Texas and Ohio, and we're all saying that she could get right back into the race.

There have been quite a few iffy calls this election season, but I think sometimes some kudos are in order, too. I don't think anybody knows what'll happen if Obama takes one or both states, however.

Is it really hypocritical to prosecute someone for something you do yourself? No, not really. It's called doing your job. You can't pick and choose to enforce only the rules you agree with when you are enforcing the rules.

He may be a hypocrite, but not for going after prostitution.

I don't think this is a black minister vs. a white minister test, but a question of who you vote for and how much power you have. If Obama weren't in this campaign, most of us would have no clue who Wright was.

If a big, important black minister backed McCain and said something similar, I guarantee he'd get the same treatment as Robertson and the like. Which is to say, complete respect.

Sad to say, if you want to spout out blow-hard comments and get away with it, just have the campaign contributions to back it up.

Females in sports are allowed to play on men's teams. The fact that they rarely do, either by choice or by inability to keep up, I think makes us see males who try the same thing the same way. A female who tries to play football is inspirational, of course, but let's not forget that she's a little weird, too. I mean, who would want to play with the guys?

So, then, why on Earth would a male want to play volleyball? Softball? We know if we have mixed teams, in a lot of sports, the males will dominate the teams. But if their isn't enough male interest, what is the harm in using mixed teams? If it becomes male-dominated, you can just break it into two teams!

Unfortunately, virtually any study that uses billable hours as its basis is doomed. As others have said, it's a measure of how much time you spend working, not how well you work, and certainly not how efficiently you work.

Certainly, mothers with children can't put in as many billable hours. One has to wonder, though, is that really a problem? Really? If it is, we need to completely reconsider the entire model of using billable hours.

When you think about it, isn't it kind of bad that a law firm measures your worth based on how much money you milked from your clients. Zealous defenders, indeed!

Only, the last time I heard this story, it was the new guy and the union members. The new guys comes in, and starts working really hard to make a good impression. The union guys pull him aside and say hey, knock it off. If you work that hard, they'll expect all of us to work that hard!

Is it true? Of course it's possible. I have no doubt that a woman or two could come into an office and raise the workload without raising the pay. But is this a widespread problem, plaguing America as we know it? I would have to see some evidence to believe that it's more than just an anecdote.

You absolutely, positively cannot make the mistake of believing the a law firm is comparable to just any ol' for-profit business. In the professional ethics they must maintain, as well as the legal regulations placed upon them and the massive amounts of power they wield, the closest other profession I can think of is a doctor.

A bad doctor can cost you your life, and a bad lawyer can cost you your freedom, or any number of other things.

Would you really base the worth of a doctor on how many patients he sees in a day, rather than the quality of those visits? Or is a doctor just another "for profit" business?

The point is that men have lost their identity. Of course, since society was so male-dominated in the past, it had to be torn down to some extent. But perhaps we've gone too far in tearing down the ideal man. What do you say to a group of young men whose only cultural identity is continually demonized? I firmly believe that a very large percentage of unexpected, male violent crimes occur because of this loss of identity (I'm tempted to say white male, as that's almost always the case, but I don't want to exclude).