Since the ascendancy of George Bush's new Christian coalition, I have struggled to understand who these war-loving, oil-company-admiring, tax-cuts-for-the-rich Christians are. Now, this article has given me a useful handle on them. They're secular consumerists, who are offended that Wal-Mart does not exploit one of the most sacred days on their liturgical calendar aggressively enough, for the purpose of selling foot massagers, video games and Bratz dolls.

Cheney 'says it would be a "dangerous illusion" to think that "another retreat by the civilized world" would satisfy terrorists or persuade them to leave the United States alone.'

Who is arguing this? Has anyone, anywhere, suggested that getting out of Iraq would reduce the threat of terrorism in the United States? I've never seen it. I've heard plenty of arguments for getting out of Iraq, principally around stemming the death toll of the our military, but also related to the spiraling cost of the occupation, etc.

He seems to be setting up a straw man here.

Fantastic, fantastic, fantastic. If Wienstein needs some money to pursue this, please publish the address. He gets my check -- no question.

You have my sympathy. I, too, experienced having a mentally ill mother. My mother was very paranoid and resisted all care during her illness. She died 7 years ago from a heart attack that could almost certainly have been prevented if she could have been persuaded to get routine health care, but she was much too paranoid to see a doctor. My best advice is to get in touch with your local chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI). They should be able to hook you up with a group of people who are also struggling with mental illness in the family, and provide you with lots of useful information about medications, treatment and legal issues.

I found that dealing with a mentally ill family member is remarkably similar to having an alcoholic or addict in the family (which I have also experienced). It presents many of the same issues of understanding the limits of what one can do, learning to set boundaries with the ill family member, and coming to peace with the fact that other relatives will not necessarily support you in doing what you need to do to stay "sane." And, seriously, if NAMI doesn't have a support group for families in your area, you may want to check out Al-Anon.

The point I'm trying to make is that your mother may continue to act out in her illness for years to come, and meanwhile you have the right, and indeed the responsibility, to lead a peaceful, useful, happy life. It is natural when someone we love initially becomes ill, to be ourselves thrown into crisis. In my experience this is a marathon, not a sprint, and you have to find a way out of anxiety, misery and fear to some kind of peace in your own life.

I'm a woman, and I think preferential pricing for women is discrimination. Good discussion of other places where pricing varies based on sex (hair salons, dry cleaners). Very thought-provoking.

In my view, one of the biggest concerns with single-sex education is that it doesn't offer enough support to girls who are more interested in "boy things" and vice versa. See this Broadsheet item about single-sex camps: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/08/15/camp/index.html?source=search&aim=/mwt/broadsheet.

It seems to me predictable that an all-girls school will tend to develop electives and activities that a lot of girls are attracted to, and similarly for boys schools. In a coeducational school you can have, say, an astronomy club draws a majority of boys, and a fashion-design course that enrolls mostly girls, but if a girl wants to stargaze, or a boy wants to sew, and they have the personal courage to buck the trend, they can.

For me, the single-sex education argument is cleaner if schools taught ONLY a core set of courses, e.g. math from algebra through calulus, and a core set of sports and activities that are THE SAME for both schools. Schools don't usually work this way, though.

This reminds me of an article in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/business/24golden.html?scp=57&sq=elderly+rights&st=nyt

An interesting additional perspective on the clash between senior citizens' right to self-determination and the need for protection when judgment declines.

May I suggest Debtors Anonymous? It's not just for people with scads of credit card debt, though they are welcome, too! DA gets into the question of why some of us are chronic underearners. You will find a community of fellows who are grappling with the same issues about what it means to become personally solvent. Meetings are free -- they pass the basket, but there is no requirement to put anything in it if you can't afford it -- and you can find one locally at debtorsanonymous.org. There are also phone and online meetings.

My main problem with Kennedy is this that she would never be considered a viable candidate for a senate seat if she weren't "a Kennedy." I'm not saying she hasn't done useful work in the political arena, but she has never actually run for any office, or even been employed full-time as a staffer, civil servant or similar, so I consider her the equivalent of any politically engaged celebrity (think Streisand or Bono). It's the Kennedy name that gives her (in my opinion spurious) credibility. I think the tendency to anoint certain families as a kind of hereditary ruling class is distressing and deeply un-democratic. Frankly, I think a Kennedy or a Cuomo or a Bush should display more ability and preparation than a no-name candidate, not less.