An Abandoned Iraqi
Christopher Stewart's "The Betrayal of Judge Radhi" [April] is a sickening commentary on our secretary of state and the president.

As a lifelong Republican, I am ashamed that I voted twice for the ­inhumane bunch of turkeys in ­Washington that have made life a hell on earth for this remarkable man.
Russell Bauman
Northridge, California

What to Do With the Times?
I tried, really I did, to read Howell Raines’ column "Murdoch vs. the Times" [April]. I got as far as “I ­believe a Murdoch takeover of our last independent national newspaper would be a disaster for the trust­worthy reporting on which our civic life depends.” Oh my goodness! That one brought tears to my eyes.

The Times is heading toward ­irrelevance at warp speed. Rupert Murdoch doesn’t need to buy it; he can simply stay on the sidelines and watch it implode.
Dave Martin
Houston, Texas

Raines obviously subscribes to the broadcast media’s significance theory: If it’s not happening in New York City, it cannot be important.

I don’t give a rat’s ass about who owns the New York Times. A better question would be whether any newspaper across the country can survive in its present paper form.
Gary Lewis
Springfield, Virginia

Bailout!
In "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" [April], Jesse Eisinger points out that bond insurers get a great deal by counting low-risk municipalities as customers. He attacks rating agencies for overstating the riskiness of ­municipal bonds and then calls for government intervention to ­effectively solve the problem. But, as ­Eisinger notes, local governments don’t need bond insurance anyway: “When ­municipalities are hit with a disaster or a bridge collapse, they can always get the money from taxpayers.” The real “giant, and enormously lucrative, taxpayer rip-off” is not practiced by bond insurers, but by governments, their coercive taxation regimes, and their unlimited hunger for spending.
Nick Spurrell
Moscow, Russia

Power Player
The photograph of Erin Callan that accompanied Sheelah Kolhatkar’s profile ["Wall Street’s Most Powerful Woman" April] is quite something! As I understand it, historically powerful leaders, kings, and chiefs wore as much clothing as possible to signify wealth, power, and protection from the elements—robes, velvets, furs, boots, silks, caps, ribbons, beads, ­feathers, crowns. They did not show legs, thighs, and little-girl Mary Jane strap shoes. Maybe the glass ceiling is related to the nearly bare legs on the floor.
Julie Jones
Sonoma, California

The ConversationWhy aren't women doing better today than yesterday?

Quite a few readers found Harriet Rubin’s April cover story, ["Sexism" April] a cogent and timely overview of how women are faring in the U.S. workplace. “While we have made progress in giving women the right to vote, get an education, head a university, own a business, enter the executive suite, be elected to Congress, and get appointed to the Supreme Court,” LindaKBolliger wrote, “we are a long way from attaining parity commensurate with our qualified numbers.”

“After years of progress,” Rubin noted, “women’s gains at work have come to a baffling halt.” It’s true that in 1977, just 2.3 percent of U.S. executive posts were filled by women, whereas today 52 percent of middle managers are female. But as Rubin pointed out, by the markers used to measure advancement in corporate America—board seats, corporate officer posts, pay—women’s progress has, in fact, stagnated or declined over the past few years.

Condé Nast Portfolio editor in chief Joanne Lipman told CNBC’s Squawk Box that gains had come to a “grinding halt” and suggested that people have simply “assumed that progress was continuing.” But at the current pace, she said, we’d have to wait until the year 2081 for true gender parity.

A number of Condé Nast Portfolio readers who joined the online conversation cling to the belief that women’s “choices” have limited their advances in the workplace. A reader calling himself Andre notes that the traditional female occupation of teaching is conducted indoors, where it’s always warm and dry. Although teachers are relatively poorly paid, he adds, they do get a lot of time off.

Many responses to Rubin’s polemic were suffused in personal experience. “Change is happening in a parallel stream,” wrote Alphabeta, a woman who started her own business. “Women leave establishment structures to set up their own enterprises.”

“I’ve worked for 26 years in the defense industry—certainly a macho environment,” wrote sbc, another reader. “The company pats itself on the back for promoting so many women, but as I pointed out in a staff meeting years back, few promotions lead to the mahogany office. Sexism is alive and well!”