You know, what really struck me about this interview was the utter lack of discusssion of economic considerations.

Ms. Sloan must be fairly wealthy, or at least have an extended and selflessly giving social network in order to be able to find the financial cushion to have a child this way. Good for her!

Unfortunately, reading this interview left me with a strange sensation of unreality, as if having a child single is no more difficult than other lifestyle choices such as getting a dog or moving to Seattle. If you can afford a nanny, childcare and a nice house, as well as have the aforementioned extensive social network to fall back on, I'm sure it must be an attractive choice. Not for most people -- I am married with a baby, managing a lower-middle class career, and am terrified when I think of how to provide for my son in the future.

When I hear people like Ms. Sloan talk about their dreams, I feel conflicted. I want to congratulate them on fulfilling their what they "want" (a word that seems to come up a lot in these types of interviews), and simultaneously shake them, screaming "What planet do you live on? Can I move there?"

I think gay marriage is to be championed. I think gay adoption/birth is to be celebrated. Single mothers should not be stigmatized (well, except for maybe after the 4th or so rugrat), and hey if you're a single lesbian woman who can afford it, go ahead and have that sperm shipped to your door for easy processing! Seriously -- I have no problem with it.

The fact that the lifestyle "choice" championed in this interview is applicable to such a tiny, insignificant fraction of America as wealthy, single lesbians speaks volumes about its relevance. It's a faux-cause; it is certainly admirable that she is so happy with her choice, but to attempt to link it to fundamental issues such as sexual identity or single motherhood sounds like narcissism to me. I think this is why books and polemics of this type are always doomed to fail. So a few right-wingers pooh pooh your choice -- I don't, and I still don't really think you're making some grand stand for womens' rights.

Start talking about affordable daycare, living wages or the working class and I might think otherwise.

Well said, Mr. Maher. You're hard to pin down as "left" or "right" (no pun rescinded), and I think that's why I respect your opinions.

I've rarely heard you be so blunt -- and that's saying something, to your credit. Loved the part about the magnets. When I see those yellow ribbon magnets I just have to think, "how fucking fake."

...is this: how disconnected from underlying value can these quants be before the bottom falls out?

I don't see how the Fed, effectively printing money by slashing short term rates in a desparate effort to appease leverage-addicted Wall St., can possibly help with the fundamental problems of risk mispricing and asset overinflation. Cheap money will make the problem worse.

Let the Fed go ahead and create another artificial bubble, hey let's make it even more exotic and hard to understand than CDOs, hedge funds and quant derivatives!

This path will only accelerate the recent spiral downward of the dollar, and consequent economic chaos. Why does a financial wizard such as Bernanke find these facts so hard to understand? This is elementary economics; I don't even have a college degree yet.

Great post, Mr. Leonard. I wish more of the media were as insightful and probing as this blog.

I agree with you, Ms. Clark-Flory, about "emotionally independant pop heroines" vs. "puffed up male pop heroes." But my issue is this: why is it an issue at all? Because David Brooks wrote an editorial?

That guy is not only a bad writer, but usually he doesn't even make sense. His specialty is to take pop cultural phenomena and extrapolate imagined social trends according to his own conservative illogic. I find it hard to take seriously anything he writes.

"She's disgusted by male idiots and contemptuous of the feminine flirts who cater to them," Well, so are lots of women. Is this something new?

Q: Who in the hell is he talking about? A: Some woman in his fevered imagination. Do you really think he has a bead on young women? No, he dips his toe into pop music for half an hour, thinks for a minute, writes a half-assed column, and thinks he's stumbled onto a profound insight about young American women today. Like most conservatives, he imagines something to be true... therefore to them it must be, right?

I agree with your points about trends in pop music produced by females. It's certainly a valid topic for discussion... except by David Brooks, who doesn't have a clue.