This series has exceeded, I think, many of our highest expectations. The reactionaries have splayed out a great series on non-topical vignettes to extremism. At least the loyalists couch their alignments in proto-nationalist 'dignity.' The leftist jacobins are actually far worse -- a series of off topic rants about how the police are all evil and despicable to a man. It is ironic that the same people labeling the word fascist are so able, themselves, to dehumanize a swath of people. And this is coupled with the sort of exaggeration normally reserved for right wing protesters who demand presidential candidates proffer their birth certificates: "Police get off with murdering unarmed civilians ALL THE TIME" or "murder THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of innocent civilians a year. The ability to dehumanize so thoroughly is the font of bigotry and fascism and is tantamount to sociopathology.

I was more than happy to protest the Philadelphia Fraternal Order's overtly anti-Mumia alignment. This was not because I don't think Mumia was guilty (and he was), but rather that such a public alignment is too political given the background, and not helpful. Some of these statements here are just stupid and too polemical. I can only assume these are reflexive rants here are not reflective of the full feelings of the individuals.

Stinks: so your rant there pretty much comes down to 'watched pot never boils' on a global scale? In fact, as has been pointed out, evolution as a process is not a theory, but clear observation. Records clearly can illustrate the process of species mutating. There is no question about that. The debate is about the eruption of new, unique species, and whether we all come from a common ancestor (in lieu of being created)... so you don't even comprehend the basics of the debate.

brightstar: Matrix Theory?? You mean string theory? That would be physics and is irrelevant to the matter of k-12 biology textbooks. And 'panspermia'... I am not sure how that enters into it at all. Panspermia is a theory regarding the origin of life on planets, and really is not oppositional at all to evolution... sort of a prequel, really. But as for your debates about explaining love and mind: irrelevant. Nothing in evolutionary study is attempting to take a dramatic swing at the entire Theory of Mind. This is not a debate about explaining all of human existence, nor for that matter does evolution necessarily refute the existence of God or religion, as can be seen in the number of church-going biologists out there. Evolution is merely a process. The ID people want to crush it because they are literalist radicals inasmuch as they believe the world was created as described in Genesis and, most troubling to them, evolution (and carbon dating) assert that they world is much older than their version of religion states.

Both of you are twisting and expanding a discussion well beyond the reasonable limits. To that end, you are arguing in favor of the IDers.

This is quite a bit of tsk-tsking from the publication that output much more in depth analysis of just about every part of the first lady's body... hair, ass, arms.... please now, you must see some bit of silliness here. Talk about anti-feminist....

Who is he? And the answer is "no."

There is not enough in the letter to justify this as date rape. By the standard as stipulated in the letter, I have been date raped as much as I have had consensual sex; getting drunk and having horrible, semi-conscious sex is essentially what happens (to me at least).

This is not to say that the writer is wrong, but merely that the information provided, taken at face value, does not merit the label. Based on this, the advice is correct. The young individual is clearly in pain and a center could direct one to a doctor whose background suits the cases of rape.

There is no chance he made a rational decision if we are to take your source at face value (did you read your source). According to Mr Diaz-Durran, the girl was his significant other:

"His crime: Having sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend."

If I were a betting man, I would wager Mr Jepson is about 10 jail assaults, a hearing and a few months away from being an instant millionaire.

But I HATE Julia Roberts in any context -- interviews, movies -- just can't stand here. I know, also I am not alone. Plenty of people, men and women, just recoil at the thought of her. It doesn't help that she stars in mostly vapid romantic comedies and thrillers, scarcely was very impressive in her academy award winning performance, has been crap in several movies (Michael Collins was not the best of the Irish Civil War/Troubles movies by any means, but her performance in it was god awful) and has a grating, fabricated persona in interviews. Nonetheless, there is an infection in this nation, of people who loath Roberts. I doubt I could ever enjoy a movie she was in, irrespective of what it was.

Can we get a team of psychiatrists to study this (popular) phenomenon?

click Permalink down below.... there is likely a reason it is called 'perma'

Meet Brightstar.... Brightstar... lifelike.

I think you two can get along with your unvalidated assertions based on flawed experience.

I never thought I would see someone in these broadsheets whose utterly incomprehensible certainty in ill-concieved conclusions matched or exceeded Brightstar.

Match.Com ain't got nothing on Broadsheet.

This is all pop-sociology/psychology/biology ... Broadsheet can be like the stoned kids in the woods discussing life sometimes.

But: "There go my plans to find my next husband by hanging outside the unemployment office .... at lunchtime." -> On one hand this points to the increasing trend for cheaper, high-fat diets in lower income echelons... but more actually, this sentence is disgustingly classist in it's assumption that poor people are slothful, overweight and ugly.

Seriously... what are you thinking?