I like the idea that prospective presidents should undergo tests of their cognitive reasoning. Of course, it's never going to happen, but it's a sound idea that contenders for high public office should demonstrate the ability to think rationally, weigh the evidence before acting, and be able to change their minds if necessary - why would anybody not want that in a president?

My own rule of thumb for knowing when a policy is wrong is when the best argument a politician can come up with is to say it is 'right' to do such a thing without providing any further justification. This happens a lot and sets off my bullshit alarm instantly.

In particular, faith should play no part in decision making. Having a philosophy, vision, ideals, etc, is fine, but not blind faith. My own view is that publicly expressed beliefs in the supernatural should count against the candidate and not, as now in American politics, be a necessity.

...why anybody thinks it's a good idea to stop Ahmadinejad being present at the UN. He's there to talk - inflammatory though it may be - not throw bombs.

He has every right to be heard.

It's not quite as bad as that - I can think of 3 female conductors in the UK before Ewa Strusinska: Marin Alsop was principal conductor of the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra from 2002 to 2008, Jane Glover has been a professional conductor since 1975 (London Mozart Players, Glyndebourne, etc), and Sian Edwards since 1986.

You need to wear your hard hat when writing about male/female issues on Salon, but I don't think even Rebecca Traister with a microscope could have discerned any sexism in your article. Whew!

The US has no business trying to reshape the world according to its designs, whether it's about "democracy" (i.e. killing people) in the Middle East today, or "stability" (i.e. propping up tyrants who kill people) yesterday.

Its policy is the reverse of what it should be: in Israel where the US could definitely do some good, it doesn't; in other places that would rather sort out their own problems (messy and bloody and unhelpful to the US though that may be) it crashes in with guns blazing, turning a bad situation into a worse one.

And your point is?

Firstly: in Britain, Parliament's call for "zero-tolerance" of sexist advertising has generated negligible debate in the media. However, it is the dog days of August so the gutter press have picked the story up and made a day or two's news out of it which will have been completely forgotten by this time tomorrow. But, judging by your comments, you nevertheless are offended by the press's take on this non-story.

Secondly: you report the European Parliament's non-binding report recommending sexist advertising be prohibited. (This also has been largely ignored in Britain and the rest of Europe.) You might think this would help neutralise the press's behaviour that you complain about, yet you council us it would be unwise to go down that road (and I think you'd be right).

So what's it to be? Is there a point here or not? I admire your zeal in scouring the world's press for traces of sexism but but there's no story here. Nothing.

Dog bites man.

You're right: most of us take flying for granted these days. Sad but true. There IS no romance or mystique in spending hours crammed in a cattle truck, fighting for elbow room on the armrest, screaming children, horrible airline food.

My ideal would be a Tardis-like plane that looked like Concorde on the outside and an A380 on the inside. But, in the real world, give me function over form any day. (And, call me a Philistine, but I don't get why the 747 - a big plane with a fat nose - is so aesthetically pleasing either.)

Anyway, how often does your average flier actually see an aircraft? I mean really see like you do in photographs? At major airports, for example, you might just glimpse the bulk of your plane outside the departure lounge window before you're sucked down a tube directly into its innards and then vomited up again at your destination.

Gary Kamiya says that "Of course every country wants to win". Not true.

Every country wants to win medals but the only countries who viscerally want to 'win' (as in top the medals table) are those who feel they have a right and a duty to do so, such as the US, China in these games, and the old USSR.

Other countries in their dreams also want to 'win' but they know it won't happen and therefore view the Games differently from a superpower like the US: for them it is not a test of national virility that they must pass or fail, or feel humbled in the eyes of the world if they don't 'win', but for the US (or China or the USSR) it IS an "athletic war between the U.S. and the rest of the world".

Maybe this explains the extreme America-centrism of the NBC Olympics coverage - there's a sheer desparation for success that they must reflect by revelling ad nauseam in US glory while sidelining other countries' successes.

UK 400m relay team beats US team Athens 2004, ergo:

"there are still some lager louts holed up somewhere hoisting pints over that epic takedown of the Cretins from the Colonies"

After 4 years...?

Anyway, got to go now... must get drunk and beat up some old ladies.