Usually I find Cary Tennis not willing enough to take a stand and actually dispense advice; this time he came through and is spot on.

This guy needs to grow up. "Be a man" means face your obligations. You know, this is supposed to apply to ALL adults--not just men. You got married, you had kids, you have responsibilities, other people whose very lives are wrapped up in you. Put it back in your pants and go play catch with your kid, doofus.

Reminds me of the old Denis Leary routine, where he mocks the guy who whines, "my life didn't turn out like I wanted": "Join the f***ing club! I wanted to play left field for the Red Sox."

Too harsh? He's humiliating his own wife behind her back. "Oh, but the prostitute REALLY understands me".

Wow, until I read these letters it didn't occur to me that this is really about a lack of tolerance for sex, alcohol, cigarettes, and religous and moral mass hysteria--since none of that could plausibly be extracted from the actual letters or response.

Silly me. Now I see that a married father who think he's fallen in love with a hooker is just having a much-needed "romp", and that his wife will probably find "nothing shocking" in it.

Let's tell her and see!

...could someone please explain what the hell this piece of gibberish was supposed to be about? Grace? What would Jesus do to a dishonest carpet merchant? Flowers?

Wtf? If this is some sort of religious parable color me lost, unless it's about the dangers of a confused mind.

I thought Anne Lamott had some great reputation. What WAS this thing?

All I know is, I've never read the bible--any bible. Not one word of it. Haven't read the Koran, the Talmud, "Dianetics" or "Men are from Mars, Women are From Venus".

And I've never had any trouble buying carpeting.

As dog is my witness I haven't got the slightest idea what Lamott is talking about. I've read it twice and can't make heads or tails of it.

Why would she become enraged because a dishonest guy tried to cheat her? Angry, sure, but enraged? I mean, what part of "he's lying" would cause rage? It's not that hard to get your head around and it's not that uncommon.

Why would she naval gaze about her "rage" and not just recognize that it was a bad reaction and try to do better next time?

What is up with the flowers?

Why would she take a check refund for a cash purchase?

I honestly don't get it At All. This might as well have been written in Chinese as far as I understood it.

Ok, I read it again, and all these letters, and now I get it.

It doesn' t make sense in context because the context is irrelevent!

I could not for the life of me figure out what the heck her religion had to do with running into a crooked salesmen because, you know, it has nothing to do with it. But of course it was about her reaction, not the situation!

What any normal person would do when the guy refused to pay her (by lying) is dial the cops on her cell phone. They show up, he pays, case closed--happens all the time in the big city, and religion figures into it not a whit.

But what this was about was Lamott's own reaction--because, OF COURSE!--that's what religion is for now. Not contemplating the greater truths or the mysteries of faith, but for handling minor internal issues on a daily basis. Shall I have the oatmeal or the waffles? Oatmeal has fiber but I really want the waffles...WWJD????

And, apparently, anyone who has the audacity to find her religiously ruminationing on such a trivial bit of business, well, a bit grandiose, must be an atheist--or at least a Christ-hating communist. Heck, I've never read the bible so I *must* be an atheist, right?

Sure, a non-religious person could just as easily realized they'd lost their composure and consciously back away from confrontation--and maybe even turn it around on the guy with a gesture--lie flowers. But when a religious person does it, well, it's something Very Special called Grace.

This sentence:

As Novak recently explained, she had indicated to Luskin, in a meeting over drinks sometime between January and May 2004, that Cooper was saying he had spoken with Rove about Plame.

...tells you all you need to know about how this whole Iraq War con went down. A TON of the American media was in on it.

The time has come to wonder how many members of the press are on the take from the CIA. Don't think this is crazy conspiracy talk--it's happened before.

It would explain a lot.

...it has nothing to do with the movie, or the review.

The review says the movie is about the consequences of violence. That is a real thing.

What has all this crap to do with that?

..did you READ the review?

..did you READ the review?

...was addressed to the "Why Liberals Will Always Lose" letter.

BUT..this subject is impossible--it brings them out of the woodwork. Pointless to try. I regret posting about it. Adios.

Goldberg right here falls into the Manichean view

Goldberg is describing the movie's view. She's not falling into anything. She's countering what she perceives as an inaccurate attack on the film's sensibilities by describing them, not defending or advocating them.

Yes, of course I got sucked back into this nonsense.