The author, Phillip Pullman, is being a ninny when when he says his books mean nothing. Fiction writers do have that option, to say that everything in the book is made up and nothing signifies anything, but this is coward talk. Most serious writers mean to say something when they write a novel, and I doubt Pullman is the exception. He means something in this series, but is not man enough to admit it.

I will concede that a novel's primary purpose is entertainment, and can accept that "The Golden Compass" is mostly written as a page-turner. But the term "Magisterium" specifically applies to the Catholic church. If Pullman did not mean to attack Catholicism, he could have picked another name. If instead he used the term "Synagogue" or "Mosque" to describe the Magisterium, other people would have been in an uproar also.

I have no sympathy for Pullman. Either he was a class A fool and picked the term at random, or he meant something by it. So what is it? Is he a fool, or a ninny who refuses to own up to the intentions in his own book?

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the book should be banned. And I do accept the argument that the book's primary purpose is not to bash religion. Still, the allusion has significance, and Catholics are not wrong to point this out.

Because it is too terrifying. As bad as the Cold War was, it was one superpower against another -- a manageable situation. No matter how bad things got there was always the chance that cooler heads would prevail and something could be worked out.

As more groups get their hands on nuclear weapons, the likelihood one will be used increases rapidly. This is simple statistics. Eventually, if enough people have them for a long enough time, it becomes inevitable.

Getting a handle on this problem means accepting this fact. We have to approach nuclear proliferation by saying, "We know eventually someone will use one. What we have to do is establish an international support system that will prevent a single use from escalating to a full-fledged exchange." What a horrible premise that is. No wonder no one talks about it.

I'm sorry, but you're going to indict the entire Catholic Church over a work of FICTION? Ok, so the Church doesn't like "His Dark Materials." The Church has been reviewing books and movies and recommending them (or not) for years. There is nothing new about the Church coming out against a movie.

This is a case of a person getting dogma and politics mixed up. You can believe wholly in Church dogma (as stated in the Nicene Creed said in every Mass on Sunday) and tune out the rest. I know the Church is embroiled in a lot of controversies, but that is the time to set aside the squawking and concentrate on the basics.

Someone (I forget who) once said that sometimes it is the duty of the Catholic to believe despite what its leaders do. There is no reason whatsoever to entertain rejecting a Church over a movie. Just as there is no reason to leave the United States simply because GW Bush or Hillary Clinton is president. There is more to being an American than presidential politics, and there is more to being a Catholic than "His Dark Materials."

We tend to think of NFL players as aging quickly, but this happens because football is a meat grinder. Vick might have lost quite a bit in the next 3 seasons if he had played football, but I think 3 years in the clink will preserve his body from the NFL standard-issue pounding.

Look at other supreme athletes in non-contact sports. Carl Lewis won a gold medal in the long jump in 1996, at the age of 35. He won his last sprinting title at the World Championships in 1991. He was 30 then. Michael Jordan was easily the best player in basketball when he won his last NBA title, at the ripe old age of 35.

I think Vick, even at 30 or 31, will be very quick, especially having been spared 3 years of abuse. I wouldn't write him off. No, not at all.

You said: "I'm sorry...impeach who and on what charge? If executive privilege is called, won't it require the US Supreme Court to make a determination on this?"

Well, let's take a look at the Constitution, shall we? It says that the president may be impeached for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." Note that none of these terms are defined. A misdemeanor does not have to be a felony.

Suppose a president were insane and offered to sell California to the French for 50 bucks. This might or might not break a law, but everyone would agree that such a president is loony, and should be removed from office. Impeachment can be initiated for incompetency, as well as illegality.

Congress can impeach Bush if it wants to. It does not need a broken law to do so. All it has to say is that the president's actions represent a danger to the balance of power. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it.