How can a party that ran an entire campaign against monolithic imperial presidency and an increasingly unpopular war rather than for anything be described as liberal?

Traditionally liberal positions are ones that view government as a social regulatory process which protects the rights of individuals. The Democrats haven't posited a singular view of a government that assures quality health care, that sees an educated citizenry as the foundation of freedom, that identifies itself as part of the world, not separate from it. The Democrats didn't say anything except, "Those guys are bad." Then they went out and found people similar to the bad guys. They couldn't even hold Rick Santorum up to well deserved ridicule.

As for being pro-choice, the Dems didn't merely soft peddle the issuse of reproductive rights, they made a terrific effort to back creepy, anti-choice candidates like Casey and invited anti-choice people into their ranks. They didn't talk about the stupidity of the abstinance only programs paid for by the government or the creationist crap or the gutting of the National Science Foundation and the National Insitutes of Health. They didn't talk about abortion, they talked about stem cell research. Pointing out that the Supreme Court shouldn't be making medical decisions would demand that the Dems have a perspective and apolicy about the function and role of government and law, but they don't.

If the Democrats are to have any sway, any say in governing, they have to do some civics homework and take a leadership class.

I'm wary of seeing Borat as the work of genius because the undercurrent of cruelty within the character and contained in the premise of the movie disturbs me.

It's one thing to go after the inflated egos and bloviated bodies of the powerful, but to take advantage of the kind or unwitting is both too easy and mean spirited. In sketches, Sacha Baron Cohen made fun of stupidity or dumb ideas. Now he seems to be making fun of people who are being kind. It's like taking candy from a baby, poking the kid in the eye then not just complaining about the crying, but belittling the baby for reacting.

The premise is that everyone who isn't in on the joke isn't hip and is therefore a legitimate target for abuse. The problem is Borat isn't making fun of Borat. Sacha Baron Cohen comes off as the new, mean Allen Funt.

As for what's real, like Andy Kaufman before him, Sacha Baron Cohen seems to have problems discerning who he is from who he plays. Having a personality treat a person as a fiction is distressing and, after a short time, not terribly amusing.

I am unclear as to the basis of Ms. Karnasiewicz's criticism. Does she find the photographs of a dying parent and a dying lover too intimate or not intimate enough? By admiring the manipulative distance of Sally Mann's work Karnasiewicz seems to come down in favor of distance as a requirement of valuable perspective, but only after she has determined that many of Leibovitz's images are so personal that they should have been kept hidden in shoeboxes.

Photography is not as akin to writing as Ms. Karnasiewicz imagines. For one thing, in photography the picture is framed; in writing the pictures are created in the mind of the reader. An image is not the same as imagination.

Neither is journal writing the same as publishing personal photos, it more like publishing letters - both are meant to be seen. The many snapshots of family are more like rough drafts written to build a finished piece. That Leibovitz's finished piece is sad and harsh, a public contradiction to personal vanity, is at once courageous and calculated.

Ms. Sontag may have wanted us to see herself primed for presentation, but her work was about what lies behind the public actions. These photographs are Ms. Leibovitz's work, so she gets to choose what is shown. Yet even she doesn't get to tell us what to think about we see or what we think of her.

Arguing that not telling a partner that you have a communicable and potentially dangerous disease is immoral. There's no way around it, not telling is wrong … and dangerous.

Herpes is not a cold; herpes doesn’t go away. Herpes is not a stigma; it’s a disease that may have serious health consequences. Giving birth during a herpes outbreak endangers the child. Herpes may complicate ongoing medical conditions, especially those involving the endocrine system.

The people whining about herpes hindering their fun are being dishonest about their reasons for not telling. They fail to remember how awful they felt when they discovered they had had contracted the disease.

They’re also being cruel. Their core argument is the same as an adult who wants to hit a child – I got hit when I was a kid and I’m fine, so it’s OK for me to do it to another child. Injuring someone else – and it is an injury – is OK because so many people have already been hurt.

Sex is fun, but it’s fun that doesn’t operate in a vacuum. No one has died from embarrassment or frustration, and, unlike herpes and other physical injuries, emotions are transient.

Honesty may diminish one’s chances of having sex, but if inconsequential pleasure is the goal, get an X-Box. The only activities that are without consequence are those that do not involve anyone else.