It's odd that this discussion could take place without any mention of the Catholic Church, whose policies against birth control and abortion are the cause of much misery for women. (As is religious fundamentalism in general.) It's true that prosperity would bring change, but as long as women are being told that it's a sin to use contraceptives, there will be more unwanted pregnancies and more STDs. China's policies strike us as cruel, but the flip side is treating women like breed sows, which is the case in many parts of the world thanks to priests, imams, and preachers. Education and inexpensive or free access to contraception are the solutions here, but both run counter to the wishes of the celibate males/misogynists who tend to be at the helm of the big three religions.

Well, LW, you were brought into the department to shake up all those white-haired folks and now you have. You've instigated a little round of musical chairs with the offices. And apparently you didn't achieve this with a great deal of finesse.

I'm curious about the mindset of someone who comes into a place with a self-conscious effort to "shake up" all those older more experience colleagues. A German movie called "The Forest for the Trees" comes to mind. Check it out!

And good luck trying to smooth out the ruffled feathers. Kindness and some baked goods might be a start.

The Bush Doctrine of preventative war (going to war because it seems like someone could possibly threaten you down the road) is dangerous on its face, but even more dangerous in the face of dishonest government combined with a lazy press. The administration presented shaky and manufactured "evidence" and was greeted by war whoops by the networks. After his war was underway, Bush stood up at a press conference and announced that we wouldn't have gone to war if Hussein had just allowed the weapons inspectors in--and in the press, with few exceptions, crickets chirped.

It's hard to expect serious policy debate when our press can't even remember that there were weapons inspectors in Iraq. Or when they're unable to sort through the obviously lies being tossed at them by the McCain campaign.

Look behind you--women leaders, generally, have been conservative sword rattlers. That's because to win and lead they have to appeal to women AND men...or in the old days, just men. (Think of a box-office smackdown between Amelie and Lara Croft, Tomb Raider: Who would win? Why?) Sarah Palin is nothing new, except that she's been surprisingly quick to embrace victimhood along with her sham pitbull persona. (Real pitbulls wouldn't be afraid of Meet the Press.) She's not a feminist, she's just a female. And when liberals become terrified by conservative jujitsu, they don't sound like feminists, they sound like fools.

It wasn't just the Swift Boat scum who took Kerry down. It was his own inability to go on the offensive and stay on it. Example: In the debate when he was asked about abortion, why come up with a nuanced deeply felt answer to defend being pro-choice? Who cares? Conservative Christians will never give Democrats brownie points for being pro-choice for any reason, no matter how the candidate explains it, and neither will conservative commentators. He should have pointed at Bush and said, "The president's aim is to make abortion illegal," which would have put Bush in the no-win position of defending an unpopular position, or not defending it and pissing off his conservative wing.

I would love to see Democrats break out of their defensive crouch. There are plenty of people who agree with liberal positions, so stop apologizing! It's the Republican's who have some 'splaining to do, not Democrats.

I used to think that the news is ratings-driven and shallow personality-based attacks are what viewers want to see/read. But now I'm convinced that the majority of beltway journalists are just too dirt stupid to cover an election any other way. Surely a moment of reflection would make a journalist of any minimal intelligence realize that the Cokie Roberts-style "It's out there" argument for covering sleaze and inanity makes no sense if he/she is the one actually putting it out there?

I remember hurrying to the school library every Tuesday afternoon so I could be the first to grab The New Yorker (though in truth my only competition was the journalism teacher). To me, The New Yorker meant one thing: Pauline Kael. I lived in the middle of nowhere and had limited opportunities to actually see movies, but I saw them vicariously through her, and earlier, through the PBS version of At the Movies. I still open my magazine and flip directly to the back, hoping for Anthony Lane.

But I can now flip to any number of film discussion sites and find wonderful writing about films any time of day. And what is more wonderful is that these places can discuss films that are actually interesting instead of the latest blockbuster atrocity. I have the same fondness for a blogger like Self-Styled Siren that I have for any professional film critic, who, like hand weavers, are simply becoming obsolete. Like the newsreel said, time marches on.

I remember perking up considerably during this French movie when Sidney Pollack showed up as himself trying to cast a movie about Simone de Beauvoir. It was just a small part in a subplot, but it made me have confidence that my two hours weren't going to be wasted.

And I agree with the person who said Husbands and Wives was actually a pretty good movie. Stephanie Zacharek likes to describe every Woody Allen movie as awful, but there's a world of difference between Husbands and Wives and, say, Anything Else.

Actually, some people consider the sidesaddle a more secure seat than riding astride, because the rider is practically hooked onto the saddle.