"the mice and rats aren't a naturally-occurring population. They live in much greater numbers than would be supported by nature because they eat the grain which falls from the horse troughs."

That's a really good point.

Most of the information I've read about cats' effects on bird populations are more about rural-but-non-farm, suburban, and urban cats, and no one is saying this is a new effect--just that it's one that people didn't really research until fairly recently.

The truth is, many bird populations are declining dangerously--unfortunately not goose, gull, or some other problem species, but many others, including beautiful songbirds such as Scarlet Tanagers, meadowlarks and bobolinks (and farm cats HAVE had a significant impact on them), Piping and Snowy Plovers (and outdoor cats have had a devastating effect on those!) and other beautiful species of historical and cultural as well as ecological importance. There are a whole array of reasons, tied to development, pesticides, habitat destruction, windows, communications towers, etc., etc., etc. We can throw up our hands in despair, ridicule anyone for even caring, or try to look at the contributing factors one by one and see what we can do, and what we're not willing to do.

I see the value in cats, which is why I've taken in several and loved them as genuine family members. But I don't see that an individual cat has more value than an individual bird, and the more we learn about avian intelligence and social systems, the more we learn how they are equal to mammalian intelligence and social systems. Obviously, even based on some of the posts here, cats bring out the worst in humans--one of the cats I took in had clearly been cruelly abused by humans, and some of the posts here show that genuinely sadistic impulses. But the way some cat lovers talk about wild birds seems equally dismissive and borderline sadistic in its own way, and we should remember that we're talking not just about individual deaths but declines of entire species at the hands of a species that is not here naturally but entirely because of us.

It's all sad. And if we can't even discuss this one topic without people attacking each other and without people talking about sadistic acts as if they were funny, how can we possibly solve the problems in the Middle East?

The letter writer may be 50 years old chronologically, but in many ways her letter reminded me of my junior high students, pondering in endless discussions what a particular boy might be thinking when all the situation required was for the girl he was "dating" (if dating is really the word for junior high relationships) to ask him directly. The letter was exceptionally short on actual information (How old are the children? How did he get children in the first place? Via a marriage? If so, how did that marriage end? We just don't know.) She's giving very few clues, and I think Cary's response showed how fluffy and juvenile the whole "problem" is as presented, while he deftly used a literary device--his discussion of the letter with a friend--which also brings into light some real issues the LW should take into account. Yes, Cary takes far more creative liberties than "normal" advice columnists. Everyone knows this, and one would assume that those people who send him questions have actually read his columns and realize this.

I've finally figured out Camille Paglia. She's something of an authority, in the pseudo-intellectual sense, with regard to pop culture. But she has the most bizarre, especially for a lesbian, hard-on for what she sees as manly men, and the most anti-intellectual bias against science, scientists, and real human history (as opposed to fictional classics) I've ever read in any columnist. She reviews the people running for President and Vice President of the United States as if they were characters in a television show. That's the entire basis of her political analysis, which explains why she has more respect and admiration for Paris Hilton than for Al Gore.

The tragedy is that her bizarre thought processes resonate with so many pop-culture saturated people who can no longer distinguish between political figures and pop icons, between policy and plot, between science and faith (how can one be an "agnostic" with regard to science?). More than anyone except perhaps Joan Walsh, Camile Paglia has mentally merged pop culture with politics. By absorbing pop culture so deeply into her sensibilities, she has evolved from a marginally interesting anti-feminist lesbian to Salon's very own Paris Hilton--vapid and self-important, and yet somehow drawing intelligent people to read crap associated with her name in the strange way we are drawn to gawk at a car accident.

Paglia has nothing to offer to those of us who want insights into the policies and political strategies of candidates and potential candidates, which I suspect is the majority of Salon readers. Her writing belongs in the entertainment section (though Heather Havrilesky's work is MUCH more insightful than hers), and her headlines should reflect the pop-focused content of her pieces rather than suggesting that she has any intelligent insights to offer Salon readers with regard to climate change and other scientific and policy issues, or with regard to political candidates in what is a very serious time in our nation's history. Heck, she can't even offer an intelligent insight into why people so enjoyed The Sopranos, though I bet she'd have one huge hard=on for Tony Soprano as a presidential candidate, such a manly man who knew exactly what he wanted and how to get it.

Glenn Greenwald, I just want to say how very grateful I am that you are on this planet, in this country, writing what you write, at this time in our history.

I'm inclined to like Justin Long ever since his small but adorable geek sci-fi turn in Galaxy Quest. He IS an actor. A quiet, understated one, but a good one.