I hate to nitpick, but when the author said he reacted to Sandoval's death with "total devastation," I lost interest in this article.

Was the author really "totally devastated"? His life is ruined forever? He can no longer function as a human being? He requires around the clock medical care now?

It sounds like I am being a supercilious jerk, I know, but I get tired of hearing people use exaggeration to make a point. "I reacted to his death with sadness and regret" would have been a nice way of putting it, without lending me this sense that the emotions are being forced down my throat. People talk this way conversationally, but in formal writing, it makes the article sound like used-car sales copy.

Please, just tell it like it is, and save the violin crescendo.

The people who want to abuse Rachel Carson are definitely NOT the people who really care about controlling malaria. The critics are only using the tragedy of malaria as a tool to thwart environmentalism.

DDT may not have been as dangerous as Carson made it out to be, but this does not mean we should not be aware of its dangers. Spraying the walls of a house in central Africa is one thing; dusting a soldier head to toe with the stuff to eradicate lice is quite another. If we are going to use a pesticide properly, we need to be aware of its toxicities. Carson's detractors would have us, stupidly, cast all that is known about the harm DDT can cause aside.

If there is ever to be lasting global peace and free trade, it means closer cooperation among nations. It doesn't take a super-genius to figure out that, for example, the world economy would benefit from a single currency, or from uniform environmental laws. As economies grow and international trade grows, free nations must bind their fortunes together. Either than or get run over.

The world is devolving into several large economic powers -- the European Union, the U.S., China, and possibly India. Of these, the U.S. has the smallest population. We need more people to compete! Absorbing Mexico and Canada would boost our national population to near 500 million, more than the EU and nearly half of China's. That will give us a fighting chance.

Corsi is stupidly swimming against the tide of history. If we go with him, we drown.

First, I'll say as a Louisianian that I agree witht the contents of this article.

But, the throwaway comment about annulments being only available to the "well connected" and the "rich" is completely false. All a person who wants an annulment has to do to get one is petition the bishop. There is usually a fee involved, most often a few hundred dollars. It is not necessary for the petitioner to know anyone on the inside to get this done. I know this for a fact -- I was granted one 5 years ago in the Archdiocese of New Orleans. The Archdiocese could not have been more helpful and supporting.

It is also important to note that an Annulment is not technically a divorce. The annulment does not mean the marriage never took place, or that it is somehow cancelled. It means the marriage was never sacramental in the Church. Legally the marriage still stands, but the Church is saying that for one reason or another the married couple did not spiritually donate themselves within the faith, and therefore it did not meet the standards of a sacramental marriage.

Clearly this is a murky matter in Church doctrine, but the Church recognizes marriage as a very holy state, and realizes that some people who get married are not morally prepared for its sacramental demands. The annulment is an attempt by the Church to square the weakness of human commitment with the holy nature of full sacramental matrimony.

Annulments really only matter to committed Catholics. For those who do not consider marriage a sacred religious bond, legal marriage and divorce are the only relevant matters.

so easily if the writers had made the excuse for the marriage lack of health insurance, instead of a pension issue. That would have opened up the entire "Sicko" world. It is hard to make a fight against prejudice funny. But sticking it to lazy politicians and selfish HMOs who refuse to improve the health care system -- now that would be funny.

It is clear Gonzales has no intention of cooperating with Congress. Congress has every right to impeach a public official it feels is obstructing the public interest.

What are they waiting for? Impeach him. He would then be tried in the Senate, and if he continued to give such vacuous answers during the trial, removing him from office would be an easy vote. Who would vote against removing a public official from office who has so little regard for the public interest that he does not think he is answerable to the public?

But anonymous posters should have limited rights. Sort all anonymous posters and make it a policy that they will not be posted until they are reviewed.