Andrew, you said that a "major" reason for moving R&D to China and India is because there are emerging markets in China and India. But why does that matter when it comes to research? Consider drug research. Chemists and biologists in the US work on research that results in drugs that are manufactured and sold all over the world. Once those years of research results in a viable drug, the information needed to make that drug is sent to a manufacturing plant - which could be located next door or around the world. It doesn't add any value to have the research facility physically located near the end consumer. It may be a valid reason to locate manufacturing plants nearby, but not R&D. Would a company need to have R&D facilities in the US to research drugs for American consumers and R&D facilities in China to research drugs for Chinese consumers? Not really. It's an excuse.

As far as salaries going up in India and China, that's a valid concern, but there's a long way to go before salaries there equal salaries here. American workers have to deal with the cost of living here - it doesn't get matter what you get paid, it matters what you can buy with that amount of money. It's unlikely that salaries in China and India will rise to the point that they'll equal salaries here, when American workers have to pay rent and buy groceries etc. at the price level of the US market.

The absense of women in state and local government is more discouraging than the lack of women at top levels. A reasonable argument could be made that most members of Congress and other high level government officials started their careers decades ago, before many women moved into these jobs. Once women moved up through the ranks, the arguments went, the numbers would rise. But if women aren't making their way into state and local government either - there's something more involved.

Dan Marino? Who's he? King Kaufman talks about him as if he's universally known, but I've never heard of him. To me, he sounds like a guy who makes pizza. This probably seems impossible to the sports fans who read this column, but to someone who's not a football fan, the name means nothing. The only football player I can think of off hand is Joe Namath, and that's because he was in a bunch of commercials. Dan Marino is "famous" to football fans, not to non-fans. It's just that there are a lot of football fans, so sports fans just assume he's "universally" known. Most people who aren't football fans only know football players because they do commercials or appear in the tabloids, not because of the way they play.

It's the same for skating. Whether Michelle Kwan will become famous outside of "skating fans" probably has more to do with her endorsement deals and her public image than the number of medals she won. Tara Lipinski disappeared off the earth, while Nancy Kerrigan (who never won a gold medal either) parlayed her moment of infamy into commercials and commentating jobs, which kept her in the public eye. Kerrigan is certainly better known than Oksana Baiul, who won the gold medal that year.

Only a few figure skaters ever become famous outside of the figure skating world. People vaguely remember their names, but most of them disappear into obscurity - gold medals or not. If Michelle Kwan becomes a skating "celebrity", she will probably be remembered longer because of this scandal, not in spite of it.

Several people have talked about animal testing as if it's just "jumping through hoops", to appease the FDA. That's not the whole story. Some animal testing has been excessive (especially 10-20 years ago) but it's very difficult to test drugs without using animals. Cell assays and computer models just aren't the same. You have to test a drug in a whole system - drugs often react differently in an animal than they do in an isolated cell in a petri dish. Animals aren't perfect models for humans, but they're the best we have. Many drugs end up being toxic to other parts of the system - a heart drug that affects the liver, a cancer drug that causes kidney disease. Unfortunately, it's hard to predict these kinds of reactions, even with the best cell assays. It would be impossible to do these kinds of preliminary tests on people, unless drug trials with 50% mortality were considered acceptable. Animals are the best choice we have right now.

I can understand that Salon wants to avoid the spam, rants and personal attacks that are common on many parts of the web. It's probably easier for someone to post those kinds of things if they can do so anonymously.

But I think there are also good reasons to avoid posting one's real first and last name. I don't always share my political and social views with my co-workers, sometimes with good reasons. I've lived and worked in places where admitting your views might not get you fired, but would definitely make you unwelcome in the lunch room. Therefore, I'm cautious about what I post under my real name (and since I have an uncommon name, I have to be more cautious than someone named John Smith). There are things that I've posted online that I wish I could take back - not because I regret my beliefs, but because I'm not sure an employer would think the same way.

Maybe that's cowardly. But I'm not a political activist, and my ability to get a job in the future is more important to me than my ability to post letters at Salon. I realize that people who post anonymously or use "handles" will still be able to post, but I think Salon will lose more than the rants and attacks by making this change.