I'm so sick of hearing about the Yankees I can't see straight. Regardless of what else happens in the baseball world, we invariably get to hear about some incredibly insignificant bit of trivia regarding A-Rod, Steinbrenner, Torre, the batboy, the guy selling peanuts in the bleachers, etc. ESPN must be a wholely-owned subsidiary of the Yankees.

Given the fact that 58% of college enrollees are women and 42% men, in 20 years or so, the wage gap will reverse for those who work equal amounts of time. Of course feminists will ignore/excuse that the same way they ignore/excuse the unequal enrollments now. Gender equality? Did someone once claim that was part of feminism?

If feminists ever start being intellectually honest, the world will shift on its axis.

but neither does Page Rockwell. So far, these are mere allegations made in a civil complaint. The fact is, you can say pretty near anything in an initial pleading. The fact also is that you always say more than you can prove because you can't recover damages for more than you allege. Rockewell's use of the word "attest" is highly misleading. "Attest" means to affirm the truth of or to certify the truth of. That is not what initial pleadings do. They allege, nothing more. When writing about the pre-discovery phase of any lawsuit, please remember two words - Duke Lacrosse. That should remind Rockwell and others that allegations are just that. The other side has a story to tell too.

since Eddie LeBaron was their quarterback. I remember the shuttle system with LeBaron and Don Meredith. I love the Pokes, but they'll be no match for the Pats this week. Pats by 20.

Doris Lessing points out feminism's misandry which is plain to see for all but feminists. Asked for an example, she gives one which Lloyd then informs us is the sole basis for her statements about man-hating feminists. Amazing. Carol, it's an example. You know, a single instance to illustrate her broader point. Your intellectual dishonesty as usual serves you ill.

that Doris Lessing, using a pseudonym, posted to some Broadsheet piece, and said exactly what she said at the Edinburgh Book Fest in 2001. How many people would call her "troll" or "misogynist" or whatever? The answer is, "a lot." It's just astonishing how utterly incapable of self-criticism so many feminists are. Whatever you think of Lessing's books, she's smart enough and insightful enough to be considered for and win the Nobel Prize for Literature. To reject her views out of hand is unspeakable arrogance.

to compare Lessing to Ann Coulter, as Lloyd does, is just dumb, a truly desperate bid to deflect Lessing's criticism of the misandry Broadsheet engages in so frequently.

of course I didn't say you should agree with her on everything. You can't possibly read my post to have said that. What I did say is what I meant - that to reject her views out of hand is arrogant, and it is.

But since we're on the subject, what do you think of what Lessing said about feminism's "rubbishing" men? Have you seen any evidence of that? Do you think Lessing was just making that stuff up out of thin air? Do you think feminist writing has generally been respectful of men? I'd be fascinated to know.

to say that politics matter in the nation's economic affairs, but that doesn't necessarily mean party politics. For over 100 years, southern racism was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, but it was a southern Democrat, Lyndon Johnson who signed two Civil Rights Acts and fair housing legislation. Likewise, graduated taxation and big-government spending policies are a fundamental part of the Democratic Party's New Deal, but Republican administrations since 1980 have overseen huge increases in the size of the federal government.

So yes, politics matter, but it's not the party that's important, it's what they do.

What's truly remarkable about the Chicago School of Economics is not that it ignores decades of well-established economic knowledge and public policy, but that that knowledge and policy is what makes capitalism work. So their attack on Keynes is also an attack on capitalism itself. Strange but true.

Marx taught us that capitalism's big problem is overproduction, i.e. the inability of a capitalist economy to consume what it produces. This results in rising inventories, falling prices and falling wages. Falling wages mean less consumption and further rising inventories, falling prices and wages in a continuing spiral downward. That's precisely what happened in the Great Depression which not surprisingly followed the decade of the greatest productivity increases in U.S. history. The New Deal brought government into the equation. By taxing income (particularly progressively) and by both direct and indirect government employment, New Deal economics transfers wealth from the few wealthy to the many poor and middle class. Because the wealthy tend to save and the poor and middle class tend to consume, the system ameliorates the problem Marx pointed out. It enhances consumption.

Therefore, tax cuts for the wealthy are not only unconscionable as gifts to those who don't need them, but they're bad economics. They result in greater income disparity between rich and poor which is also bad economics.

So what we're seeing over the last 30 years or so is an attack by the wealthy on the system that made them wealthy. That's not only morally wrong, it's sick.