Read all the hype, including the glowing NY Times review, and finally heard some of it on the radio earlier this week.

Not trying to be "backlash-ist", or contradictory, or whatever--just judging the music as I heard it--and I thought it was unremarkable. Sounded exactly like everything else on the radio (which sounds exactly like everything else on the radio). Mostly reminded me of Franz Ferdinand if a young David Bowie was singing.

Maybe it's the Bowie-ness of the singer's voice that has all the older music writers wetting their pants--who knows. But having read that they pile monster hook upon monster hook, I was disappointed. Even when I cranked the radio way up the riffs didn't seem to have any power of their own; they weren't really saying anything. If that's the point then it's not for me.

As for the lyrcs, I'm probably not hip enough or Scottish enough to get them. Just sounded like normal bone-dry teenage angst to me.

Might have been a case of unreasonable expectations. But nothing about them sounded any different than all the other "out" (by-the-numbers) stuff on the radio.

Sorry. I tried. Didn't say anything to me.

Start with the answer and work your way to the means.

I don't believe torture has saved any of us from Islamic terorists. I don't believe it because the people saying it are liars. They've lied about everything--everything.

I do wonder, however, how many lives this torture will end up costing. Lots, I suspect.

Who will pay for this blunder, when it's over? Just those who did it? Or will we have the courage to assign proper responsibility to those in the media and on the sidelines who cheered it on?

Regardless of one's moral stance on this, it's a god-awful tactic. Stupid beyond belief.

And frankly, the justifications for this sort of behavior are always secondary and reactionary to the pleasure taken in doling out the abuse. To confirm that just take a step back and think about the likely result, whether pictures get out or not: an intensification of hatred, driving us further and further from any chance of winning without maximum bloodshed, expense, and damage.

What else would happen, unless you plan to kill them all? And anyone who might notice they're gone? And anyone who might notice THEY'RE gone? You think people put through that will suddenly say, "gee--we'd better not mess with the Americans--let's back off"? This isn't a goddamn TV show. If that dead guy packed in ice was your dad you'd be strapping a bomb on yourself right now.

We have the means to revolutionize the world with our wealth, our freedom, and our culture. It's worked all over the globe. Yet this administration used 9/11 as an excuse to put the process back in the hands of the neanderthals among us--not even the regular military, but hired goons--with predictable results.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Every move we've made since 9/11 has made things worse, not better--and made us exponentially less safe.

What's next? A thirty-foot-high concrete fence around the whole country?

Morons.

You're missing the point. Having a system that allows a "Texas Aristocracy" to develop isn't bad at all.

We need to refrain from doing anything that would curtail the ability of people to amass that sort of wealth and unfettered power, so that we can ALL become Texas aristocracy.

Once that happens, everything will be fine.

Was this satire or irony? I have to look it up.

Got it--it's satire. Pretty good, too.

Texas wildlife officials say that Vice President Dick Cheney was violating state law when he shot a 78-year-old attorney while hunting Saturday

Why? Is that illegal in Texas?

...I hope these new laws aren't retroactive. Otherwise I'm in big trouble, high school-wise.

My poor kid; what a world he's growing up in. They're trying to criminalize getting to second base in 10th grade.

Can you grant that there might be situations in which a 6-year-old boy could be behaving in a sexually inappropriate manner toward a female classmate?

Sure. If you grant that the mingling of hypotheticals with the specifics of this case (as far as we know them) leads to bad things. Like comparing a first-grader to high school kids molesting girls behind the shop teacher's back. Or, for that matter, accusing a six-year-old of sexual harassment.

Wasn't implying you had a dirty mind; was pointing out that we can all imagine lots of things. But in this case--again, as far as we know--imaginations may have already run a bit wild.

You spend 90% of your time teaching your kid not to touch others? Good for you. Obviously the parents of the first grader in question didn't do that, and the parents who think it's cute when little kids kiss each other aren't doing that.

We don't know this kid's parents aren't trying to teach him. We only know that, for whatever reason, he hasn't learned it yet, or had a momentary lapse, or whatever. But they all do.

And it's not as easy as saying don't touch--unless you want a world in which little kids can't hold hands or hug. That's what makes it hard. The differences are tricky at that age, and it takes some kids longer to figure it out.

Why don't YOU have a dozen kids, pookastew, since you're so good at it, and I'll just stop at the number I already have.

You know what they say: practice, practice, practice.

My strong feelings about this stem from the fear that reactionaries can make so much out of it. I keep expecting to hear that O'Reilly and Limbaugh are in Brockton to mock the "feminazis" who are picking on boys in school. Why did they have to call it "sexual harassment"? Couldn't they have just said, "failure to keep his hands to himself"? They make progressives everywhere look like fools.