Obviously my calculator was on the blink: 6 + 12 = 18 (not 17).

This makes the percentage of top ten book lists with solely men authors, by chance alone, 3.03% (not 3.81%), and instead of occurring about once in about 26 top ten lists, the correct figure is once in about 33 top ten lists.

This does not change the statistical reasoning.

I don't know the books selected or passed over.

But a successful, rather than knee-jerk, argument against the Publisher's Weekly list would explain why a number of the books passed over are better than the books selected, or why the selection process was compromised, or why some of the judges were gender-biased, or *something* to back it up beyond the mere fact that no women authors appeared on this list.

But it doesn't.

This much is true: Over the last 30 years of Pulitzers (1980-2009), of 31 prizes in non-fiction, 6 went to women; and of 30 prizes in fiction, 12 went to women. So of 61 Pulitzer prizes for fiction and non-fiction in the past 30 years, 17 went to women.

Suppose. then, that 17/61 is approximately the probability that a book that is Pulitzer-worthy is by a woman. Then the chance that 10 such books happen by chance to be by men instead is (1 - 17/61)^10 = 3.81%.

This means that, on average, one out of about 26 top ten book lists will -- by chance alone -- be exclusively books by men.

How much do you want to bet that, among prominent top ten book lists, this actually occurs a great deal *less often* than once every 26 of them?

As someone who is totally pro-choice, I watched the same episode of Law & Order the author writes about. (Except in the episode I watched, the murder victim's name is spelled "Benning," not "Bening").

But my reaction to it was diametrically opposite to the author's shock and awe that not every character on the show held the one and only correct view on the issue.

The show showed intelligent people of good faith with various opinions about abortion. Horrors! Just like many actual people in the real world -- can you imagine?

The extremists, by the way, were clearly portrayed as such, and the guilty verdict seemed to satisfy the prosecutors.

The show deliberately chose a very, very borderline case to exhibit the fact that the issue involves shades of gray. I don't know the answers, but -- to anyone who thinks it's all black and white -- just when *is* it OK for a mother to choose to terminate her developing embryo/fetus/baby's life? When it's just a fertilized egg? When it could not live outside the womb even with modern medical technology? When it could not live outside the womb without medical technology? Anytime up until birth? After birth if there are serious birth defects? After birth, period (and if so, up to what age)?

I'm emphatically pro-choice, but not all the answers are obvious. The moment that "life begins" is a very, very blurry line.

To criticize Law & Order for pointing out that the answers are not necessarily obvious strikes me as terminally naive.

From the article:

". . . that make speculation about what really happened darn near irresistible, despite the lack of confirmed information, or even much trustworthy gossip."

Why not, just so long as no one confuses such a piece with journalism.

I am still a serious Obama fan despite wondering when he might fulfill his great early promise.

For all I know, he's doing as well as anyone in his position could do, given the compromises needed to accomplish anything in U.S. politics.

One certainly can't blame him for being awarded the Nobel, and his reaction to it (acccepting it and displaying appropriate humility) was unimpeachable.

But it is preposterous to say that up to now he has come anywhere close to earning the Nobel Peace Prize.

(As many have pointed out, his nomination came less than two weeks after his inauguration. He has not yet accomplished anything concrete in the way of peace, even if he is on the right track. And although he is obviously blameless for the mess that George W. Bush left for him, it is not irrelevant to the Peace Prize that the U.S. is still conducting two wars. Some say the award was given to Obama for not being George W. Bush; some say it was an award for the people of the U.S. for electing him. Sorry, but neither of these stands up as a serious reason for the Nobel peace prize.)

Sadly, undeserved awards like this devalue the Nobel Prize in general, both past and future.

The fact that many Republicans are spouting utter knee-jerk nonsense about this prize does not change ther accuracy of the above sentence.

The fact that Joan Walsh is also spouting utter knee-jerk nonsense about this prize is disappointing, but not in the least surprising given her past opinions published in this venue. But the fact that she is editor-in-chief of Salon makes this all the more disappointing.

Part of this review reads:

. . . her new and very naked neighbor, the doctor she'll ultimately set her cap for.

We don't need to know how the plot turns out, and many of us would really prefer not to be told.

Ms. Zacharek, you are an excellent writer, and you have plenty to say without any need to spill the beans about plot twists.

So, in the future, please don't. Thanks.