I am about the 100 poster, so you may not read this, but ....

I have a decent job, but if I had to start over, I'd consider starting my own business. Sounds expensive, but it doesn't have to be. I have sometimes been tempted to start over as craftsman. Get a few tools and learn how to build custom furniture. Learn how to fix motorcycles. Maybe bake cookies and cakes for a living.

I recently read an article in the New Yorker about a man who makes custom knives for a living. I would never think you could make a living at that, but the man makes 5-7 blades a week by hand and sells them from $500 a piece. He has a 2 year backlog of orders. I have also read about people who build violins and accordions. There is a man in Louisiana who builds custom accordians for upwards of $2500 a piece. Three sales a month would easily cover the rent.

The point is, people are always looking for products that are built really, really well, to custom specifications. It would take 6 months to a year to learn to build furniture, for example, so well that people would line up for it, but eventually, if you learned to do it right, they would.

The point is that you need to be your own boss. You need to produce a product very, very well that you can create at your own pace. Instead of making 100,000 units for $1, make quality that you can sell for $1000. No boutiques or gift shops. Make something of very high quality that no one can equal because no one else has the time you have to put into it. Bake bread. Make pottery. Build boats. Create something with your hands that also requires your mind. The artisan is an ancient and respected occupation and one that would rebuild your self-esteem.

Kindle may be great, but I am not paying $300 for a device that only lets you buy from Amazon. I already made that tethered device mistake with satellite radio. Won't make it again.

When Amazon prices the Kindle below $100 or lets me download from sites other than Amazon, then I am interested.

The old movies this film borrows from are all B movies, to put it kindly. None of them were anything more than kitsch entertainment.

I don't see why anyone would expect a film that borrows so heavily from such old flicks to be transcendent art. That's asking too much.

This movie, and other recent kid flicks I have seen ("Space Chimps," "Beverly Hills Chihuahua," "Paul Blart: Mall Cop," "Pink Panther 2") view better when you stop larding them with social meaning.

It's not that I am opposed to criticism. It's just that criticism isn't always necessary.

Glenn, you used the term "Orwellian script." Now, I know what you mean and you know what you mean -- that is, a script that could have come from the book "1984."

But I want to clarify something. The word Orwell, through misuse, is becoming synonymous with authoritarianism, and that is unfair to George Orwell. Orwell was a strident supporter of civil liberties and "1984" is actually the opposite of what he thought. "1984" was a dystopic vision, an ironic book.

I know you know that. The only reason I am objecting is because I don't want Orwell's name to become a synonym for authoritarianism. It will if it continues to be used in this fashion. Orwell stood so strongly against such things that "Orwellian script" makes about as much sense as "Lincolnian slavery."

Otherwise I support everything that you have said.

In the U.S., it has always been illegal not only to commit a crime such as murder, but also to plan to do it. It is called "conspiracy to commit murder."

In the case of murder, you don't even have to succeed. All you have to do is try, or make a serious planning attempt, and you can go to jail.

So what's the problem with enacting a "comspiracy to commit a terrorist act" law? If you can prove someone is planning a terrorist act, that should be enough to land them in jail. Conspiracy is something that can be proven in a court, before a jury, and can be handled constitutionally.

This proposal is deeply disturbing. Obama is displaying the same disposition that always scared me about Bush and Cheney. That they don't trust the justice system to do the right thing.

So the justice system needs a little help, just the light pressure of an official's thumb, to keep the scales of justice balanced. In other words, let's rig the system so it always gives us the results we want.

The whole idea of a separate judicial branch is that it allows courts to make decisions that the executive branch cannot reverse or modify. And here Obama is, constitutional scholar and all, trying to be a big eraser of an open judicial system.

What bothers me the most is that Obama has now revealed the suspicion he has for the justice system. Sure, we may be able to pressure him to abandon this particular plan, but what will stop him from insidiously trying to slip some of its elements back into future proposals?

It is not enough to knock this proposal off the table. We have to crush it completely, and never let it slip into public dialog again.

My fear is that this will be the torture argument redux. We can shout down torture, but once it is out there, as an item of discussion, somehow it never really goes away.