When someone becomes substance addicted or starts to behave in a bafflingly antisocial way, the people who love them become very confused and upset. When a glimmer of hope appears that their friend will return to sanity, they can become wildly enthusiastic. Such is the situation with the USA and Western Europe.

Science and religion deal with different questions. The simplest way to put it is Science deals with the objective reality while relgion deals with the subjective reality. Unfortunately religion has dealt historically with that which is not known, but nontheless objective measurable reality, such as the origin of man on earth. Religion, however deals well with questions of meaning, purpose, comfort, wonder, atonement, forgiveness, morality, love, acceptance etc. Yes even atheists deal with these things, but in a spiritual rather than scientific way, even if they won't admit it. So why religion if you can get there by other means? Religion provides provides a community and a support system for dealing with these essential issues of life. When we see all the evil that has been done in the name of religion, we have to pause and see the benefits, not only to society, but to each individual believer.

As a gay teen growing up in the late sixties and early seventies for me it was Paul Simon's music. I know there was no intentional gay theme in songs like The Only Living Boy in New York, So Long Frank Lloyd Wright and Me and Julio Down by the School Yard but they had that meaning to me. And so many of their other songs, even ones with obviously heterosexual lyrics gave meaning to my feelings of alienation and separateness.

"They don't appear to be constantly testing their identities against another man's example, calling into question, at the drop of a hat, their clothing style or hair or general sense of being in the world." Well, for one thing men don't base so much of their self worth on their physical appearance so they are likely to admire other things in a man (fame, wealth, intelligence, athletic ability). But the real reason you don't hear about it so much, is homophobia. Whenever I've heard the word "man crush" or "bromance" it has been on TV, usually in a comedy and with a definite implication of a latent sexual desire. Men do not talk seriously about such feelings for fear of being labeled as homosexual.

I'm thinking how since Roe v Wade, the anti-abortion people have made it nearly impossible to get an abortion in many parts of this country, but crafting legislation that gets around the court ruling, by using harassment and intimidation and by relying on the nut cases who actually use violence against abortion clinics. Now can't we do something like that to gun dealers and gun owners?

The author can't expect us to believe that this is anything but a joke, and a dumb and rather insulting joke at that.

Anticipating the negative reaction is no excuse. Sterotypes are stereotypes, even if you find them appealing.

Before anyone brings it up, I'll say a word about camp humor. The reasoning behind it is very complex (clue: it is actually making fun of heterosexuals) and very few straight people can jump on that bandwagon and steer it correctly. It's like white people trying to use the word "nigger" in a positive sense.

It's not what you know but who you know that's important. A US Senator knows people in Washington and knows how the Federal government works, or doesn't work. That helped Lyndon Johnson, but then again we've had mostly former goveroners in the White House since then.

Actually this isn't so bad, as long as larger people get something for their money. I'd be willing to pay 50% more for a seat that's 50% bigger.

Some man wronged them, and it would be sweet revenge to have a woman on top for once.

I'd have more respect for Clinton supporters if there was one single political issue involved, but I have yet to hear it.

The idea for this came from a website, created by the Philadelphia Inquirer. http;//www.flyderrie-air.com It was a hoax, but was done to gauge public reaction. Obviously many people believed it, since the the opening screen now states very clearly it is a hoax. The fact is Southwest Airlines already does something like this. They require people of a certain size to buy two seats.

The dark side of that rugged American individualism is that as a society we are reluctant to provide for people who have different needs. Fortuantely disabled people have a law to protect their rights, fat people do not. No one questions disabled people weather they were responsible for acquiring their disability, or weather they are taking proper steps to overcome it, yet fat people are denied consideration with the argument that they are responsible for their situation.

Perhaps these people should read Brave New World. Cookie cutter babies coming off the assembly line, each exactly like the other. It would be the end of our humanity. There is so much for an individual to gain and contribute to the world that comes out of being different from the rest.

I wrote and told them why I wouln't send them money for the ad. This ad distorts the facts and appeals to the emotions. Unfortunately the sword cuts both ways (and already has). I was hoping with candidates like McCain and Obama the campaign would be more honorable and focused on real issues, but that was a vain hope.

This war makes strange bedfellows.

We have Joe Liebermann, a liberal (former) Democrat who supports an agressive policy in Iraq and the Middle East and we have Chuck Hagel, a conservative Republican who is a vocal opponent of Bush's war in Iraq. They are almost mirror images. Bipartisan politics would say you work on areas of agreement, but you don't totally embrace either one, certainly not as a VP.