I read the first paragraph of the first letter and skimmed the rest. Finding the letter illogical, jingoistic, brainwashed, and generally unpalatable, I skipped to Paglia's response. I was hoping against hope for a coherent rebuttal, only to be left wondering exactly which planet it is that Paglia considers home. Yes, "terrorism" is a challenge for us, but the right-wing oversimplified approach has been a catastrophic failure.

I couldn't bring myself to read beyond Page 2. Either edit Paglia or quit running her bloggish ramblings and rantings. This is a good example of why I, like many other readers, am not renewing my Salon Premium subscription. I've been gravitating toward Slate a lot lately instead.

Assume (at least for the sake of argument) that Cary's suggestion would fail if the parents remain married. They would both be equally responsible for the child, and societal and marital pressures would inevitably place the onus of childrearing upon the mother no matter what they privately agree. If they did reach an agreement and things soured, keep in mind that this would not be an enforceable contract in any U.S. jurisdiction. It's unconscionable, pure and simple. The only way it could work, legally: They divorce and she terminates her rights to the child. Because no judge in his right mind would deem it to be in the best interests of the child to enforce such an arrangement.

The teaser is so titillating. Wish the link linked to an article.

The governorship of Texas is a notoriously weak position, as heads of state go. Unlike, say, the president of the U.S., the Texas governor does not have the power to choose certain key high-ranking members of the executive branch. For example, the state attorney general, comptroller, and heads of certain executive-branch departments are actually chosen by the electorate. As another example of the weakness of the gubernatorial position in Texas, the governor's executive orders *do not* carry the force of law. Thus, Perry's move is tainted by overreaching and cronyism, not to mention his transparent desire to be the GOP VP nominee in 2008. In a perfect world, the TX legislature would now attempt to pass a pro-Gardisil bill, but they cannot do so because of -- yes -- their rampant conservatism. Likewise, there would be a huge outcry because the vaccine is pricey and other areas need the funding more--e.g., public schools.

Salon, PLEASE quit running solipistic quasi-apologies from these 15-minutes-of-fame figures at the center of the minor political scandals du jour. It would be one thing if there were anything but navel-gazing presented. But you've run several of these in a row now (see also: Edwards blogger dust-up). These essays, being so close to the time of the events in question, can do nothing to shed light on these individuals' true thoughts and motivations. Matt Sanchez and Amanda Marcotte might as well share a brain, these essays were so similar--so defiant, but of what?--and utterly unaware of the real reasons they are at the heart of mini-scandals. Neither appears to have learned ANYTHING or grown in the short time between the headlines and the Salon article. Had Salon followed this path 9 years ago, they might have tried to get an exclusive from Monica Lewinsky (wait, that was a real scandal with legs beyond PageSix, wasn't it?).

He's an MBA.

And he probably *could* have gotten into *a* law school, just not the law school of his choice. There are lots of law schools out there. There are also lots of people who aren't committed to the legal profession per se, people who apply to only one school and don't apply to any fallback schools or think about going somewhere else. Dubya took this all-or-nothing approach; as far as I know he only applied to the University of Texas School of Law, which had a very selective admissions policy *even in the 1970s* when he applied. Even if he couldn't get into UT with his connections, however, he probably *did* have the connections to get him hired in some Big Firm or other had he chosen to apply to and attend a less-elite law school.

Aside: his application--test scores, grades, etc.--must have been atrocious! because there ARE connections that will get you into UT Law, even today.

(If you're stuck in a town with one law school, and can't leave that town because of family reasons, that's different.)

suggests that readers are tired of the issue. Please let this dead horse rest in peace. Edwards made a mistake and has demonstrated that he surrounds himself with politically tone-deaf people--not an asset we want in a president, considering the disastrous consequences we see from the tone-deafness of the current presidential administration.

Even if Marcotte did spend her formative years in Alpine, she is neither uneducated nor a hick. She LEFT the small town and got herself a bachelor's degree. Ergo, she is not uneducated (she attended St. Edward's, a Catholic university, but I will leave the exploration of the ironies therein for another day). As for the "hick" part, Webster's defines "hick" as "an unsophisticated provincial person." She no longer lives in Alpine and her worldview is far from provincial. (That said, in my opinion, her writings could have more sophistication: the bulk of them are strident polemics, but if she would just go beyond name-calling, reading her might be worthwhile. And it was also unsophisticated to not expect that the right would bite right back.) Hick? probably not.

By the way, I'd watch out in referring to people from Alpine as hicks. Do you think that no one from said town (besides Marcotte) reads Salon? Or do you mean it ironically? Ah, so difficult to decipher writers' tones online...maybe you are you from Alpine, too, and your name is really Larry Sechrest.