In my northwestern corner of Louisiana, prior to the advent of SIRIUS and XM, talk radio options were exclusively hard (harsh?)right - a conservative Louisiana-themed show, followed by Rush, followed by Sean. The only broadcast venue even remotely close to the center -let alone (gasp!) left of center - was FM PBS. AM radio in this area was and is one uninterrupted spew of right wing diatribes with absolutely no dissenting opinion. Because I spend substantial time in my vehicle I'd listen to these shows for lack of anything better. Anyone who listens exclusively to Rush and Sean day after day, week after week, becomes either a nonthinking dittohead or a reactionary offended by the propagandistic bias of these shows. There can be no middle position. With my subscription to SIRIUS I'm now able to sample diverse opinion. I'm occasionally as offended by left-wing bias as right-wing, but with satellite radio I have options - CSPAN, CNN, BBC, PBS, ABC, FOX, Left and Right Talk, etc. And should these pall, there is copious music and now even. . .Howard. . .should worse come to worst.

For all I know Mike Jeffries is - like some intimates say of Mr. Cheney, for example - a warm and caring individual if only one interacts with him on a personal level. Having offered this disclaimer and allowing that I have zero chance of ever knowing him, never mind Mr. Cheney, on a personal level, let me hasten to add that I very much doubt it. He appears to be a poster boy for the mean and meaningless aspects of our society. Worse yet, he has the effrontery (or the obliviousness) to relish it. Some say with obvious admiration that he is laughing all the way to the bank, as though this justifies, say, Saipanese sweat shops. Did I mention mean and meaningless?

Being an old fogey I have a different take on some reasons why boys are becoming underachievers in school. Many years ago, when I attended high school, the girls dressed very conservatively in a style that would today be regarded as downright frumpy. Even so, we boys were in a state of near constant tumescence. Given the decidedly unfrumpy mode of dress that girls affect these days, I can't imagine how the average male teenager manages to concentrate on anything other than lust. Worse yet, it drives them to demonstrate the idiotic behavior that they think impresses girls. An older male who cannot remember his hormones driving him to distraction at fifteen or sixteen years of age has gotten. . .well. . .let's just say very, very old. I never thought I would feel this way, but I'm becoming supportive of single sex education, not to benefit girls so much as boys. If single sex education is too radical, then at least modest dress codes or uniforms might be prescribed. Moreover, these days, many high school kids, particularly those from affluent families, are treated as independent adults. They possess automobiles, cell phones, computers with internet access and a plethora of addictive games, not to mention substantial disposable income. Problems arise from the fact that they are not independent adults, more particularly the boys, just kids making their way through what is usually a turbulent and uncertain period in their lives. Even though they are privileged, they are still kids after all. I occasionally wonder whether some affluent and busy adults tacitly decide that it's simply easier to buy off their offspring rather than. . .gasp. . .actually pay attention to them.

Many of these reader's letters, on this and other subjects, are no less than superb. I am impressed by the thought and effort invested into many of them. It is impossible to remain dogmatic when exposed to articulate protagonists for one side or another of any issue. The letters are becoming my favorite part of Salon, dialogue being so much more satisfying than monologue.

Regarding the present subject, I take the side of Ann Regentin. There are no greater generations, nor is there a greatest generation. There are only individuals, and within any abribrarily-defined generation one will find a relatively small number of awful people, a vast majority of folks like me who bumble and fumble along, and a vanishingly small number of brilliant and gifted people who actually move the human agenda forward.

For most of us, to take putative credit for the accomplishments (or the failures, for that matter) of any so-called generation is analogous to the winning teams's fans in the Super Bowl wildly celebrating "their" accomplishment.

The same generation, for example, that produced FDR and Churchill is after all that very same generation that produced Hitler and Mussolini. If one wishes to take credit for the former, one can hardly avoid responsibility for the latter.

Ms. Dobkowski allowed as how she was "...more sick of religion shoving its way around the public consciousness like a belligerant drunk than the Kids-Free movement is sick of toddlers at their favorite restaurants." Amen (no pun intended)! It's sad and disappointing that religion, through its vested and invested leaders, still exerts such untoward influence over the world's SECULAR affairs. Probably 'cause religion through the centuries has performed so magnificently in making the world, to borrow an expression, a kinder and gentler place. Yeah. Sure. That's gotta be it.

Mr. Sable attributes the little man's presidency to the absence of a viable Demo candidate. Au contraire, I, as did a majority of voters, thought Al would have made a splendid president. Unfortunately, we were overruled by the Supreme Court. On a different subject, Anne's impassioned defense of dedicated government employees who labor in the trenches where the actual work of government is performed (as opposed to the opportunists and political hacks who populate some of the cushy suites at the top) was superb.