Salon's coverage of this issue has been solid, and I would agree with most of this article, but the following non-sequitor jumps out:

"While women may have held the majority in higher education for more than a decade, men still earn more than women, still hold the vast number of tenure-track university positions. Women possess executive positions at less than 2 percent of Fortune 500 companies. Could it be that men aren't going to college because they don't have to?"

Where did that last sentence come from? Does the author seriously imply that top wage-earners, CEOs, and tenure-track professors get where they are without even going to college? The uber-rich, the CEOs, and the tenure-track professors are a miniscule segment unrepresentative of society at large, either male or female. Obviously there are inequities keeping women from these positions, but it's certainly not because drop-out males are somehow slacking their way into them. Moreover, while not unimportant, focusing on these plum positions ignores the more everyday plight of Joe and Jane Ordinary, and the sex discrimination that goes on in more typical career paths.

Besides, from the perspective of the struggling working-class woman (or man), it's a little hard to get worked up about the travails of poor Ms. Senior Executive hitting her seven-figure glass ceiling in the boardroom. The kind of sociopathic "assets" possessed by these movers and shakers may not be the ones that women should be striving to emulate to get ahead. Perhaps instead of trying to knock down some male robber-barons and install females in their place, we should be changing the system from below--replacing it with one in which women can earn their rightful place without having to unquestioningly adopt traditional male corporate culture.

Obviously, there was grounds for impeaching Bush years ago. But with his friends controlling Congress, calling for his impeachment makes about as much sense now as calling for Congress to establish a maximum wage, or a ban on meat.

Even if Roe v. Wade is overruled and Middle America and the Bible belt ban abortion, it would still be reckless to try this. There are enough blue states that any Constitutional change forcing an abortion ban nationally is never going to fly no matter how kooky Congress gets. Already NYC gets a steady stream of pilgrims from states with restrictive laws, because New York has abortion on demand, no waiting period, no consent requirements, through the second trimester.

Don't let some unqualified person go stabbing around in your uterus. Pass the hat, take out a loan, steal a credit card, whatever you need to do to get a flight out from Pierre to Laguardia. Might as well make it one-way while you're at it, things are not getting any better in the Dakotas.

N.B. A Supreme Court extreme enough to pass Roe v. Wade combined with a wacky Congress might affirm a law prohibiting interstate travel for abortion. But, as was the case in Ireland, such a law is unenforceable.

"... we can tax less of America's hard work (which is what we do when we rely solely on income taxes) and more of its fuel consumption."

In other words, we can make America's tax code even more regressive than it is now. Isn't this exactly what the Repubicans want? Better than a flat tax, eliminate income tax altogether and have a consumption tax! Since the poor folks spend as fast as they take in, and the rich folks have plenty to save and invest, this way the peasants can actually contribute more proportionately and absolutely than the wealthy.

Excuse me for not getting excited over this idea. (And I do think taxing fossil fuels is a good idea, to promote conservation by everyone, as long as there are enough social supports to ensure that everyone can have a decent standard of living.)

... are also 99 cents a dozen. Move along.

Normally I am sick of letters bitching about articles that are too lowbrow or un-Salon, but this one takes the cake. An article by a Seventeen editor bemoaning the "recent trend" of girls making out with girls to impress guys. O tempora, O mores! Save this crap for Reader's Digest, this is definitely not going to make me renew my premium subscription.

This is some quality writing and original research. Journalism at its Salon best!

*sigh*

So one senator was having trouble keeping his open during some farm bill subcommittee hearing. Who cares. Does anyone really think that legislatures are that engaged? That they even read a more than a tiny fraction of the legislation dropped into the hopper, if it's not something they have personally sponsored or written?

News flash: appellate justices, all the way up to the Supreme Court, can occasionally be caught dozing at oral arguments in cases that they are supposed to be deciding. That's a bit more of a story, and perhaps another reason why we don't have cameras in most appellate courts.

I don't know if it's linked from anywhere, but it is up at http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/11/economics-prostitution-marriage_cx_mn_money06_0214prostitution.html

I found Mark Fiore's style grating, annoying, and generally neither funny nor effective.

This is not Tom Tomorrow's strongest output, but I'll take This Modern World over Fiore anyday. Granted living in a big city in America you can get it from the free newsweeklies, but not everyone has that luxury.