Our situation today is not completely unprecedented. Twice before in American history we have had periods in which a very small handful of very rich people owned most of the country and enjoyed most of the income. This occurred in the first Gilded Age (roughly 1876 to the panic of 1893)as well as during the Roaring Twenties that ended with the crash of 1929. In both previous cases, there had been an extended period of Republican government with an emphasis on low taxes and no government regulation of business. The first two ended badly. We are now seeing the end of the third. How bad this one will be remains to be seen.

There is a lot that can be done to improve the situation for the American middle class, but not until we have a Democratic president (and it does not matter which one) and a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate. Then we can start running the country for the benefit of the majority of its citizens, not one percent.

In November, I will vote for Obama and any other Democrat that I can, as should any sensible person who is not seriously rich. People who see voting for McCain or staying home as an option need to come to grips with the facts.

When I vote, however, I will do it with a sense of bitterness over the way Mrs. Clinton has been treated by the media and members of her own party.

The Clintons are not a dynasty. They are two very able people from modest backgrounds (Bill a lot more modest than Hillary) who rose to positions of power based on their own abilities, and who happen to be married to each other.

My great fear is that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, who have never elected a president, may have figured out the only path open to them to lose the White House in 2008.

Any discussion of difference in test scores or ability between men and women, or between ethnic groups, or anybody else is tough. I have a couple of somewhat unrelated comments:

First, as someone has already noted, comments about numerical differences in test score are meaningless. What most statistically minded folks would like to see is an "effect size" which is basically the percentage of a standard deviation of scores you see between two groups.

You have to be very careful about ages and what part of the distribution you are talking about. There are no average differences between males and females in math (or physical size)until after puberty. Most folks think this is when the social pressure on girls starts not to be good at math; more likely, that is when we actually start teaching math. Before that it's arithmetic, and girls do fine at that.

The big difference between boys and girls on most measures is not the average, but the variability. There are more boys good in math than girls, but there are also more boys who flunk math. Boys out number girls in special ed classes something like 10 or 12 to one.

The differences in math don't really get large and interesting (at least in my opinion) until you get out into the freaky top end of the distribution. How many people could be a math or physics professor at Harvard? Not very many. Most of them (not all) are men. The president of Harvard lost his job (in part) for saying this. True, but not politic.

I heard recently, but have not had a chance to check out, that women who are good at math tend to be better at verbal stuff than men who are equally good at math. That would suggest wider career choices for women who are good at math.

Finally, one of the women commenting on this article cited differences in interests, rather than ability, as important. That is a tricky idea. I think if you look developmentally, interests tend to follow from ability, not produce it.

It is highly likely that felonies have been committed by officials in the Bush administration (going way beyond the Plame affair), and possible criminal acts may involve the President. It is clear that nothing can be done about it until after the election--and nothing then if McCain is elected. The President has ordered members of his administration to ignore subpoenas, and ordered the Justice Department not to enforce them. The only constitutional remedy available until the next administration takes over is impeachment, and that is not going to happen.

People have been wondering what a President Obama could do with Hillary Clinton, and I have a suggestion: appoint Hillary Attorney General. She could set up an office in the Justice Department to discover, investigate and prosecute any crimes associated with anyone in the Bush administration. This is clearly unethical--to investigate people, not a crime--but this is exactly what Republicans did to the Clintons (and apparently other Democratic politicians), so I think it would be fair. Hillary may be the world's leading expert on investigations for the purpose of personal destruction since she has been on the receiving end of the process.

Luckily for the Clintons, they were not guilty of any crimes (except Bill's criminal narcissism) or they would have done time. I'd bet a vigorous investigation of the Bush administration would end with a bunch of them in prison, and I think Hillary's the one to do the job.