I agree with the other commenters here; the article describes a speech event, not debate. The author complained about the lack of improvisation, but one of the great things about policy debate is that the rebuttals always have to be off the cuff because you're never really sure what your opponents will say until they say it. And policy debate is mean and competitive and maybe unique as far as academic competitions go because the public school kids can be competitive with the private school kids (to a point... but there are a couple of state schools that are among the top teir of college teams right now).

I find political leanings of debate teams vary by region. In my experience, the Northeast is by far the most liberal region, both politically and in terms of what they allow in the debate round; judges are more tolerant of unorthodox rhetorical strategies (using music or rap or, in one round I judged last year, reading from a children's book, or in making philosophical arguments instead of strictly cause-and-effect policy arguments).

I agree that the public humiliation in the form of the secret footage can be awful, but I do admit that I love the show. One of the great things about it is that every single person I've ever seen go through it has come out with more self-esteem and confidence. Many episodes deal with women (and men!) who are making a transition to a new career and dress completely inappopriately, and the hosts show the person how to dress "for the job you want instead of the job you have." If dressing better translates into success, I don't see how it's bad to show people how to do it.

I also never interpreted the message as "only expensive clothes look good" more, "You've got $5,000 to spend, let's spend it on some really nice pieces." Once you've got the rules, you can go to your discount store of choice and find similar clothes for less money. (Sorry folks, I'd totally turn the show off if they went to Wal-Mart.)

I saw an episode recently in which a woman cried to the camera that she'd never felt attractive in her whole life, but Stacy and Clinton showed her that she actually was. That seems empowering to me.

I flew a couple of weeks ago and had a really long layover in Minneapolis during which time I heard the spiel about no liquids, etc., so many times I had it memorized by the time I reached my destination. And yet, I noticed when I boarded that I could have shoved a bottle of Diet Coke in my carry-on bag and no one would have been the wiser, because it's not like they were checking at the gate.

I feel the same way about these new security measures as I do about checking bags on the New York subway. The bag checks serve absolutely no purpose -- if you don't want to be searched, you can turn around and leave the station and come back in another entrance where no search is being conducted -- but the first weeks after they were instituted, all these people were happily complying and offering up their bags to be searched voluntarily and telling news reporters how much safer they felt! I ride the subway daily and as of today, I have not been searched (I'm a white woman, so I guess I don't fit the profile) and I wonder what that says about this so-called security measure, also.

All symptoms of the same disease, and it's inconvenient and annoying, not effective security. It makes people not want to fly, I think. If I need to get somewhere on the East Coast, I'm gonna take the train; it costs about the same and sometimes it takes less time because you spend so much time in the airport that a 2-hour flight can take all day. (I waited an hour in LaGuardia for my bags to show up at the baggage check when I flew home from my recent trip. That's ridiculous.)

I read that Barbara Ehrenreich essay a few months ago (and I urge those of you reacting negatively to this post to do this same). My grandmother had breast cancer, and I donate what I can to a friend of mine who does the walk every year (her mother died of breast cancer a few years ago) and I've bought some pink things in support of a cure. But breast cancer "awareness" is big business, too, which is Ehrenreich's well articulated point, and companies who sell special edition pink items know that they'll sell a few more to people who are eager to support the cause. Since reading Ehrenreich's article, I've been more aware of the way that breast cancer is marketed, and kind of alarmed, too, that other more sinister diseases (other cancers, even) don't get the same kind of attention.

And there's nothing wrong with the color, either -- I've been known to wear pink -- but it's loaded with meaning, too, the connotation being "girlie" or something less than an adult woman. Go ahead and wear your pink and buy pink-gowned Barbies and pink lipstick and pink teddy bears, but be aware at least of what pink has always implied.

This is just more fodder for the whole "A woman could never be president because she's useless/crazy/cranky/etc. for one week out of every month." So, no, women shouldn't get menstrual leave.

But paid leave in the US is a joke. Most of us get 2 measly weeks or none at all. I think we'd all be less frazzled and more productive if we got more paid leave time, regardless of gender.