No, no, no. "I believe freedom of expression is more important than the wide dissemination of correct views." Child abuse is a little strong, but the claim here is backwards. The teacher has a right to academic freedom or the right to express the truth of his (in this case) discipline--not a personal belief. He is not free in this case; he's been directed to teach "young-earth creationism" by his employer.

Freedom of expression is always tempered by context. Your respondents here can claim that Pebbles Flintstone cavorted with dinosaurs, and more power to them. But in the context of a classroom teaching science, there should be no such freedom to mislead.

Check the magic 8-ball . . . "All signs point to . . . no."

McCain's occasional lucidity (e.g., on immigration) immediately damns him for the most vocal section of the present Republican base. As soon as he hazards a reasonable position, he gets shouted down, and then has to raise the ante on one or more of the many insane positions by the Bush administration (e.g., protect Israel at all costs, don't negotiate with opponents, make the tax cuts permanent, "reform" Social Security out of existence). Adding to the problem is the fact that he really doesn't understand many facets of how government works. (Astounding. But what else can we conclude from Phil Gramm's presence among his advisers?)

He can't win without a unified base, and he can't unify his base without throwing away the independents and disaffected Clinton supporters he needs. No strategy is going to overcome that, though intense negative campaigning might set up Obama for a weak and ineffective presidency.

I'm not so sure about cruise control in certain circs--when there are even gradual hills, my car (a Prius) will accelerate madly to get back to the target speed, then coast downhill. This is less efficient, isn't it, then letting the speed decline slightly on climbs and increase slightly on the down-side?

Another help, if your car comes with it, is the meter offering 10-sec. reports on how you're doing. This feedback is a boon to psychological reinforcement for having a light foot.

Careful, now. If word gets out that the viewers of NBC's multiple channels are not just like the athletes, it might hurt viewership and then sales.

What is it that entices millions in the US to tune in every four years, if not exactly the sort of identification Jennifer Sey rails against here? And it extends far beyond the Olympics: If I just buy that brand of shampoo, I can look like that model. (No, you can't. Who knows what horrid surgeries or missed meals or tawdry private arrangements went into that 30-sec. turn on screen?)

We don't like being reminded that our weekend club tennis is many orders of magnitude reduced from Federer and Nadal. Break down this identification with the person on screen--the only way most of us become infected with the illusion that we're just like them--and you destroy what media use to get us to watch. What else are all those heart-warming biographical pieces for? If we didn't have that, we'd be reduced to, well, watching the competitions.

It's not surprising that Americans are so casual about starting wars preemptively. The last time we had war on our own turf was 1865. For us, war is fought somewhere else--on Pacific islands, in Europe, around the globe in Vietnam, with more recent examples St. Ronnie's triumph over Grenada and George the Elder's jaunt into Panama. If we had had invading armies, firebombed cities, occupation by Russians, etc., we'd have a better grasp of reality.

We can watch wars on TV and in mostly glorious films, but not outside our windows. For Americans, war happens to other people.

I haven't read one of "Glenallen's" columns after the third, surmising with other posters that it exists merely to drive traffic. Instead, I do what many do, and just click on the letters. I think it's time to stop doing that as well. The letters reliably fall into a very few categories: 1) they ask Joan why on earth Salon continues to run a mindless compilation of right-wing talking points; 2) they provide trollish provocations (e.g., "Clinton did it in the workplace" above); 3) they respond intelligently but futilely to #2.

Short of raising the collective blood pressure, and perhaps helping Salon's web traffic stats, the article _and_ the letters are useless. Time to sign off both. Maybe subscribers will have to cancel and cite this column as a reason before Salon gets it.