Mr. Keillor writes "I miss the old times when there was a downtown, a center, a cluster of tall buildings seen from afar ..." and Y and V accuse him of embracing Jim Crow, apparently because Mr. Keillor mentions a bus.

I don't really see anything evocative of a preference for racial prejudice in this article. Perhaps Y and V are liberals - if they were conservatives, they'd be complaining about the sexual permissiveness that Keillor flaunts in his repeated use of the words "hoe" and the pedophilia implicit in "I love Daddy."

Sorry, Y - I should have read your response better. Maybe I'm the one with the fevered brain.

In amongst the many thoughtful, intelligent responses, there are still a lot of us who strain to find something that offends them, kind of like marking that ol' tree to show that we were there.

Keep the Aspidistra Flying states "That the number of people who voluntarily checked off the box on their tax forms to contribute to the 911 fund had dropped off to 15,000 last year."

What box on what tax forms? I don't see it on my 1040, nor on my New Mexico PIT. Is this some local New York thing?

By the way, I'd like to thank all the writers who challenged the notion that it was "too soon" to make a movie about 911, or that such movies should "never" be made. Some of us may be delicate flowers; others crave a more personal experience of what "they" may have gone through - and that can only come from Art - or documentaries, or movies. We want to know and feel MORE - not less.

I'm sympathetic with the commentary about "getting a good lawyer," but didn't LW have to sign a release form before surgery that basically stated that s/he accepted the fact that the surgery might not be successful, and that a whole huge list of complications (enumerated over page after page) could develop, and that s/he held harmless the opthalmic surgeon, optical chop shop, and anyone else who could possibly be held responsible?

These agreements are typical, even for surgical procedures that are covered by insurance, unlike LASIK. They state that you're willingly putting your life and health in the doctors' hands, and if it doesn't work out, tough. You have no further recourse.

In my (limited) experience, you get these things just before being rolled into surgery. Are these agreements legally binding, particularly in the case of medical negligence, or do they mainly serve to deter the meek and literal from bringing lawsuits?

Sadly, the online petition that billy fin provides a link for has been severely trolled. I doubt if it has much meaning, at this point.

For those of us who are concerned about the ABC "Path to 9/11", we ought to behave like the wingnuts: call your local affiliate; write letters; write to corporate ABC; write and call your Congresspersons; write to local newspapers; contact the FCC.

A big enough groundswell before the show airs might force ABC to reconsider.

By the way, is Fahrenheit 9/11 being shown anywhere?

Now there's a documentary. Yeah, yeah, Michael Moore is "fat." Get over it.

Mr. Blumenthal writes "Bush's relationship with Rice is perhaps the strangest of his many strange relationships."

What are some other of these "strange relationships"? Can anyone name some? How about links?

(Thanks!)

Mr. Mahrer speculates "Maybe the reason they haven't attacked us again is they figured we're already suffering enough."

I think he's right. At this point, the terrorists have clearly won. The United States has shucked off its own Bill of Rights, disavowed the Geneva Conventions, embraced torture and secret prisons, and given up diplomacy for unprovoked invasions.

Under the Bush Administration, the United States, as we think of it, is dead. And it's a tremendous victory for Osama bin Laden.

I'm in full agreement with the "Homeland" (Vaterland?) thing. And "Department of Homeland Security" is absurd. Why not just call it the "Department of Defense"? Then the current DoD can go back to its historical, and more accurate, name: the Department of War.

Donald Rumsfeld, surely, would not object.

farnsworth is right.

For years now, left-of-center pundits and commentators have been talking about the death of satire since right wing influences have consolidated their hold on the media. In many cases, you can't tell anymore if an article is from The Onion or the New York Times. The most blatant illogicalities are presented, and never a tongue in a cheek can be seen.

Tom Tomorrow, by its cartoon format, makes it a little easier to confirm that, yes indeed, this is satire and not just another Fox News broadcast. No, you're not losing your mind - this stuff really doesn't make any sense. No, your memory is not going - this is the same guy convicted of lying to Congress over Iran-Contra who is now one of our key men in the Middle East. Or the same guy who tried to ruin public broadcasting (NPR, PBS) who has now been expelled from Voice of American for the same antics.

Seriously, articles in The Onion are beginning to make more sense. How many times have I seen links to the classic "Bush Elected - 'Our long nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over!'" article. Some of the best reporting is on Comedy Central.

The current regime is full employment for comedians. All you have to do is quote, or show video or photos of, our self-proclaimed "Commander in Chief" to get the big yucks.

How much more of this genre of humor can the nation stand? Stay tuned for November 7th, when the US portion of the audience votes on who gets thrown off the island.