Well, what would you expect, with a name like Baruch?

But seriously - can a goy host a seder? It doesn't seem quite k ... sorry.

I'm glad you've done an extensive survey of this issue and shared the results in your Salon column. Serious discussion of drugs has been taboo in the US for a long time now - way too long.

Frankly, a lot of people don't stand up, or contact their elected officials, or write letters to the editor for fear of losing their jobs, being harassed by the police, and possible legal retribution. There's a real fear, maybe even justified, that if you speak up for less drug criminalization, maybe you've got some prosecutable offenses that need to be looked into. And the drug laws permit, even encourage, warrantless searches, excessive violence, and property seizures on mere suspicion. As far as I know, almost nobody ever gets their stuff back, even when innocent.

Elected officials like to play it safe, so they can stay elected officials. Drug laws and the "Global War On Drugs" have been mom&apple pie for generations now.

It's going to take a lot of citizens speaking up against these icons - a huge number - before our government dares to act. And those who speak up might potentially risk it all.

We can only hope. This is what can be expected for a political movement that has subsisted almost entirely on rage for the last several decades.

I didn't notice Denver or El Paso in the initial list, not to mention Albuquerque. Albuquerque is the main hub for the Railrunner, which will take you up and down the Rio Grande corridor. Presently running between Belen and Santa Fe, there's a strong movement to extend it down to 'Cruces - once there, can El Paso be far behind? Or Taos, and then on to Colorado?

And about that right-of-way problem - the Railrunner runs almost entirely on existing rails. The railroads, back in the 19th century, got tremendous grants of land for right-of-ways and a huge amount of that is probably still available. It would be the smart place to begin when planning routes.

Sorry - I forgot that Amtrak's Southwest Chief route goes through Albuquerque.

Some of y'all appear to be assuming that rail would virtually replace the highway, or take over all airplane routes. No - assume that it could make a significant dent in each.

Air traffic is pretty nice right now, with fewer people able to afford it (not that this is a good thing) and the airlines cutting back on routes. It looks as if the current traffic level is about what the system was designed to handle. There are fewer delays, fewer canceled flights, less lost luggage, and some gratitude on the part of the airlines that you've "chosen" to fly with them.

Higher-speed rail could absorb a significant amount of shorter-haul airline traffic and long highway drives. Of course, the trains would have plug-ins for people's laptops and offer high speed Internet. Geeze, they have that on city buses these days. High speed rail would actually generate more travel between the various destinations, because rail would pick up

• older folks who may not be able to drive, or would prefer not to,
• business travellers whose car rentals aren't coming out of their own pockets,
• people who would prefer to work, or sleep, instead of driving,
• commuters who take that route every frakkin' day
• lower income folks who currently either take the bus, or just stay at home
• people who are afraid of flying

Potentially, more Americans would go more places. This would pump more money into the economy, via tourism-like expenses (people gotta eat, they like to shop, etc). Americans might get smarter, or at least a little less parochial.

Plus, there is absolutely tremendous rail nostalgia here in the US. A lot of people would try it just because - and if the system worked well for them, would come back.

... the need for a viable, fast rail transport network in the United States.

It's nice to see, judging by all the 50ths and 1sts on your list, that Texas has edged out New Mexico in several categories. I guess we get to upgrade the old adage to "Thank God for Mississippi - and Texas".

Except, if you don't have a professional chauffer's license, you're not really a "chauffer." If you write checks and balance the checkbook, it doesn't make you a "CPA." Cooking food for the family, whether it's just popping things into the microwave or doing the whole "from scratch" deal doesn't entitle you to call yourself a "chef." Procuring the ingredients at the supermarket doesn't make you a "buyer".

Cleaning puts you on a par with the illegal immigrants, who would be lucky to get minimum wage and probably don't. Watching out for the small children and caring for their needs - isn't that something that is actually expected of parents? You're not exactly entitled to consider yourself an au paire for doing it.

Sure, housewifery is important. So is regular bathing and grooming, but it's just something that people are expected to do, not an occupation in and of itself.

Stay-at-home parents might consider showing the children what they do in the evening or on a weekend. After all, the children actually visit the "workplace" all the time.

Well, the minority party Democrats didn't stop it, so it's all their fault.

Even the libruls agree on this one.

Moreover, laws, treaties, and rules of basic human decency only apply to Democrats. Repubs always get a pass.

Even President Obama agrees on this one.