It is about audience. The above referenced title will get young boys interested in the arts of words and metaphore, a place they may well be lacking. And suggesting that Math can serve your primary goal (appearantly buying pretty things)seems as logical an argument as any.

You can argue that young girls don't in fact like to purchase pretty things, but I would say, that like arguing young boys do not want to get laid, the reality of the situation and the afiliated industries built upon said reality, seem to disagree.

If we wish to reach all kids, and not just nerds (who don't need to be reached to learn) you need to explain to them why Math is not the domain of their unkempt, unattractive, and generally unappealing math teacher, but the stuff of intelegent sassy popular fun girls like themselves (or like Danica McKellar).

the problem with any math text is that they tend to be written by mathmaticians who tend to not understand that the rest of the world gets along just fine without trinomial calculus. But at least it's a solid effort on the author's part to reach out to the nonmath inclind among the double x population to let them know you can be everything your math teacher is not, and still kick butt at math.

It is better that she wrote this instead of another tome of math problems for rainy days that is favored by most of her profession.

O.k. let's say for sake of argument that this is a wide spread trend, rich folks procreating full tilt and and having multiple kids.

What does it matter?

Even if you fear "overpopulation" the people in question are a small percentage of the overall population so their over expressed genes are unlikely to cause the tipping point between economic expansion and soylent green.

I feel I know way way too much about the reporductive lives of wealthy women as it is. Is this really something NPR, let alone Salon needs to devote bandwidth to?

If someone can expalain to me why this is a story of interest, please do so.

Thanks,

"all I have to say is that if a few shouts of "Show me your hose!" lead them to litigate, they should never visit the Broadsheet comments section. "

Umm...Ms. Price...read that quote again and imagine a woman asked as part of her job, if she'd like to see someone's hose. See how your statement is a little...shall we say, unfeeling?

Clearly, this constitutes a hostile work environment that the men in question had to participate in by order of their superior.

That the harrassment was perpitrated by persons outside of the control of their superior does not keep the superior from being responsible to ensure that all practicle accomidations are made to ensure their employees do not suffer in this way.

Had crude, unwanted, sexual inuendo been directed at female firefighters I doubt there would even be a debate as to whether or not there was a case.

Come on, we all know they're guilty, every last damn one of them! I know it, you know it, no one denies it!

Laws are to protect the innocent, and we know the Church is no innocent, so why bother with laws at all!

10 years, 20 years? 50 years time, what does it matter, I know I belive the accuser, not the accused, so why even bother with a trial.

Come on, we all know the truth here, so let's just get about to seizing assets, and riding everylast preist out of town on a rail, it's the only safe course of action.

Won't somebody think of the children?

Well let's see, 10 - 20% of the population has a vote, 90 - 80 % in abject poverty, voicless subjugation, indenture, or servitude. Yep, that sounds like just what we need.

Perhaps, a more practical idea is to have a large group of politicians each with a certain ammount of power, but none more powerful than the next. And the more power one has to weild, the more of the populace they would need to support them in order to weild that power. Add in a group of scholars, appointed and approved by the elected officials, but who who are not beholden to the electorate, and give them a final arbitration over the legality of the rules of law, and you have a pretty good system of government.

Yes, that could just about work, a large enough group would limit the power of demogogues, and a final court of arbitration would settle disputes between a singular executive and a body of representatives. So long as each politcal operative is foreced to periodically go to their constituants and ask for permission to serve them, this system might just work.

If only the framers had thought of such a system when they were busy trying to create an American Aristocracy.