both with most of Jacoby's themes as well as Miller's select criticisms.

Jacoby's experience preaching to the choir on the lecture circuit is such a far cry from the intellectualism in my imagination: Jewish scholars a thousand years ago standing in the open market arguing about what a particular passage in the Old Testament really means; the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia making high-minded speeches opposing each other's ideas about slavery and federalism, attempting to gain influence on the rules of a fledgling nation; my uncles sitting around my parents dinner table in the late 60's arguing into the night about politics, religion, race, their bowling scores.

My French friend lived here in America for five years, just long enough to become a member of the library and join PTA. She simply never got over the sheep-like behavior of the suburban moms who accepted what principles/police/ husbands/priests told them or their desperation to keep the peace; she describes a France where everyone argues with strangers outside every coffee shop or grocery store.

It sounds glorious to me.

PS I spent two hours on the phone tonight debating Obama v. Clinton with an acquaintance, whom I can now call friend. She called about a kids' school matter and mentioned my letter to the editor in support of Obama. I sympathized with her candidate's poor coverage in a media that fawns over her male competitors, she acknowledged my candidate's transcendent communications skills. Then we went at it. I think we respect each other enormously as a result.

The only candidate who professes not to believe in evolution, Mike Huckabee, has fallen behind a front-runner

This is meant as a rebuttal to Jacoby's anti-intellectualism rant? Out of 350 million Americans who could run for president, only one of the remaining four doesn't believe in evolution? That's 25 percent of the field.

There's a dearth of it.

When Achmadinijad spoke at Columbia, I went to the college's website, and our family sat around for an hour watching both his speech and the administrator's introduction of him. That way, we knew ourselves, amidst much discussion, what we thought about both rather than taking anyone else's view.

When wing-nuts (that would be my father) were recently on a bandwagon to convince everyone that ours is a "Christian nation founded by Christians," we went to the library and looked at the Madison papers to see what the Founding Fathers called themselves. We also read a lot of the contentious letters between Jefferson and Adams.

I've gone to the Bible, The Origin of the Species, Thomas Paine's writings, the Constitution, transcripts of speeches (MLK, JFK, Nixon, Reagan, Carter, Obama), autobiographies, archived newspapers, and many other sources to find out what actually happened rather than take someone else's slant on it. I listen to hearings when they're on NPR (Supreme Court nominees a couple of summers ago), I love C-SPAN, I prefer Charlie Rose to the bumper-sticker "interviews" on cable TV.

You know what my new favorite is? It's kept me well-informed above almost all else (besides the internet in general): You-Tube! Whenever I hear of any controversy at all relating to any public figure, including politicians, I go right to the Tube and get my own take on it. I guess that muddies things up a bit, since Jacoby wants independence but less technology.

Have you detected a common theme? Being well-informed takes an awful lot of time. It's kind of a luxury, and I'm grateful I've been able to indulge. Most working stiffs absorb the little they can and call it a day. No criticisms here, just reality. Kinda sucks for those of us who have to live with the presidencies of the likes of George W. Bush as a result.