Ronald Reagan was not a terrible President, nor was he great. He was an average president who had the luck of immense popularity. Without that, he would be viewed with a much more critical eye than he is.

Let's not forget Iran Contra- which was treason, plain and simple. The Reagan Administration sold arms in shady deals to a country with which we have no diplomatic ties, a country whose leadership at the time despised us, and then took the profits from those illegal deals and gave them to Central American death squads who killed civilians and clergy members.

Do I need to even mention what would have happened had a Democratic president done this? But it was all shuffled away and blamed on low level personnel and the fall guy Oliver North.

Need I also mention that "Reaganomics" and the ideology behind it is the DIRECT reason why we are currently in the recession we are in?

No, the GOP will never mention these things, or if they do, they will blame them on other tangental "reasons" which often have little or nothing to do with the reality. The fact is- the GOP is dead in the water without the benevolent ghost of Ronald Reagan looking over them and allowing them to paper over their gaffes. Their ideology is bankrupt, they cannot govern, and they leave nothing but a mess in their wake. Who else to they have? Without Ronald Reagan, the American people would wake up to the fact that Republican ideology is, and has been, a disaster.

Unlike our Federal Government who can't waste money fast enough. We're not supposed to save because we're supposed to spend? But then if we spend our savings instead of holding on to it we're being reckless?

I don't think it's the average American citizens who need balance. Our Federal Government and the incompetents who have been managing it these past years are the ones in need of balance.

This is just a typical cheap shot- blame the little guy while the ones who really have an impact (Wall Street, the Federal Government) do nothing but screw things up worse.

Why are you in such a giant hurry to marry and have children? Marriage is a huge commitment and children are a major, life changing responsibility. Unless you are in late middle age and feel that you will have no further opportunities, why hurry?

Ultimately, neither man is for you. Both lack something you desire.

How will you know when you meet someone that you want to marry? His very presence in your life will make you completely blind to other men.

That's how you know.

the last time evangelicals got to dictate policy and swing the election- we got the biggest fuck up of all time elected into the White House.

Results, people.

and more to the point, it revels in the tired gender-role cliches that are becoming more outdated and less true over time. ie: Men are forgetful and slovenly and incapable of love and affection, women the opposite.

It's not true. Sure, some of the men you encounter in your twenties might be "deadbeats" - because they haven't reached full maturity yet. But I resent the implication that all men are disposable because some men in their twenties are irresponsible. It negates the men who raised me and whom I grew up around- men of integrity who cared deeply about their families and loved ones.

"Ah, the simplifying idea that one specific group -- women, feminists, men, the bourgeoisie -- is to blame for all social ills!... So refreshing, so soothing, so... childish..."

Exactly. Because by blaming others and "groups" (which even themselves have diversity of concepts and opinion) we excuse ourselves from the responsibility of our own actions.

Thank you for your intelligent posts today.

I am in complete agreement with the author re: her closing paragraph.

This is a bit tangental- but I've noticed that a lot of posters here tend to blame the media for various presentations of men or women.

Let's not forget that "the media" is not a hulking singular entity but a collective term for everything from broadcast, print, film and online. A multiplicity of sources, therefore a multiplicity of ideas.

Also, mass media in this country is a commodity (as awful as that is, see: Iraq war coverage). If you don't like it, don't watch. If you're unhappy, write letters. If there isn't a market out there, it won't be made.

In years past authors and artists wrote letters to each other. Because of this we have a record and can piece together fascinating aspects of their lives and interactions when we make biographies and scholarly works.

But what about today? Most of our interpersonal communication takes place via email. When was the last time you actually wrote a letter? Personally speaking, it's been years.

But I also think it's a bit arrogant (again, personally speaking) to think that my emails are some great insight into the human condition. Mostly, it's my friends and family sorting out ideas and problems. Insightful? Sure. Timeless? Who's to say. I guess that's all contingent upon whether I or my friends do or create something valued in history.

We live in a period of great multiplicity. Never in human history have so many people had the means and the spare time to write, paint, photograph, make music, or take part in any number of creative activites.

I believe the best things will rise to the surface and over time be valued, the same way it's been for all of our history.

But hard copy tends to last.