It's often been asserted that most of the land now occupied by Israel was being "wasted" by not being fully occupied by suburbs, farms, cities, and all the other Western accoutrements of civilization. I submit (having recently read Jared Diamond's Collapse) that the land was supporting as many people as it sustainably could, given the residents' current level of technology and wealth.

The equation changed massively with the influx of wealthy northern Europeans, fortified and still sustained by economic aid from countries like the US.

It's also claimed that Arabs and Jews have been fighting each other for "thousands of years", the implications being that the current conflict is normal, and a pox on both their houses. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Moslems (who didn't even exist until about 700CE) have frequently been the Jews' best friends - particularly when European Christians have gone on one of their frequent jihads - er, crusades.

It's us Christians who have been the most bloodthirsty against Jews, right up until quite recently. Who failed to provide refuge during the Hitler years? Meanwhile, in the middle east, there are many stories of Moslems failing to take economic advantage of Jews being persecuted by pro-Nazi governments, and also, risking death by protecting them.

Apparently, the events of 1948 changed all that.

The "new" anti-semitism sweeping Europe really is new, and it's not based on religious dogma and semi-mythical events that took place two millenia ago (they killed Jesus!), but on the concrete, documented and continuing actions of the Israeli government, as witnessed by people, who, as aVulcan points out, are still alive today.

Marie Cocco's article was fantastic. It shames me to admit that one of the reasons I'm leaning more toward Senator Obama is that he'll be treated better by the media - and if he isn't, at least there will be an outcry.

"As Republicans are fond of pointing out, Byrd was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan"

And they're still members. Is that what the problem is?

I strongly suspect that, even if the mask fell off and Repub spokesfolks started referring to their base as "a bunch of ignorant racists" who "we can use," and otherwise detailing their loathesome strategies, it wouldn't matter.

The base wouldn't mind, would be proud of it (Dittohead!), and/or the media wouldn't elaborate on the comments. Unlike the "no thanks, I'd like some orange juice" remark. Or the reference to "hard working white people."

And let's not forget the enormity of referring to people who have been left out of the booming economic prosperity, see their wages and benefits (if any) squeezed out, if they have jobs at all any more, while the price of gasoline goes through the roof along with prices of all the other staples, and government support programs that used to help have been starved into submission - let's, Gawd forbid, never refer to these folks as possibly being "bitter."

You so-called "Democrats" may now resume bashing each of the presumptive Presidential nominees. No, I'm not bitter...

"-The goal is no longer to diagnose, treat and cure an illness; the goal is to medicate someone for perpetuity. This guarantees a steady revenue stream, at the cost of the patient (or the taxpayer)."

You've got it right there. Have you noticed how few of the drugs of the last few decades actually cure anything anymore?

• AIDS/HIV: you have to keep swallowing your "cocktail" for the rest of your remaining life.
• Baldness: Just keep rubbing the stuff on - if you stop, it'll all drop out.
• Runny nose: Spray into each nostril for a couple of weeks before you think you'll need it, and keep it up daily until you know the danger has passed. It takes several days to become effective, you see.
• Cholesterol, blood pressure, and diabetes meds just go without saying. None of them will make you better - they'll just maintain your rate of dying.
• On the other hand, you probably wouldn't want a permanent erection, and neither would the women in your life.

So increasingly pricey meds are needed for increasingly long periods - like, the rest of your life, if you want it. Don't expect to see many more vaccines - they don't provide a steady revenue stream.

And that's what we all want. Patients who don't get sick are worthless.

Passengers prefer Southwest because we don't expect much from it?

Come on! When you fly Southwest, you know that the flight attendants will always be cheerful and friendly - and that this has become an anomaly. They'll have a sense of humor - which is all but banned from airports these days, with our "homeland security" anxieties. SW gives you food - packs of crackers or cookies, little bags of peanut-free snax, whatever - which the big airlines now charge five bucks for. SW has done this all along, and hasn't been "forced" to discontinue it. The great thing about the pre-packaged snacks is that they keep, and you can take them with you for later, if you aren't hungry on the plane. This really helps when you're traveling with children.

Plus, SW has penalized late passengers by its open seating policy - you get to the gate late, you sit beside the engines, or wherever is left after people who arrived earlier have selected their seats. This has probably helped its on-time record.

Moreover, they're relatively cheap - it's like some miracle. Why shouldn't passengers "prefer" SW?