I just reread the closing paragraph on this piece:

"In a conference call with bloggers today, McCain attacked Mitt Romney for his views on immigration reform, ultimately suggesting that the former Massachusetts governor "get out his small varmint gun and chase those Guatemalans off his yard." "

I'm desperately hoping this was a joke that, since we're only hearing the punch line we've lost the funny. But, I fear not. While I admire the "varmint" shot, the sentence reads more like George Allen than anyone I'd entertain as president.

(And Anne, thanks for the Zachary Taylor pottymouth note. Of course, he doesn't exactly leap to mind when one thinks of Great Statesmen of the US. I think it's perfectly ok for people, including would-be presidents, to get angry. But to lose control when cameras and tap reciordersare rolling does not bode well for a job that requires grace, or at least eloquence, under pressure).

Did *nobody* ask Ms Goolding hat Gonzales "laid out" from his "recolletions"??

Seems to me that was the next logical question ...

What was the Democratic leadership afraid of?

They've given the game away without helping Iraq, America, or our troops. And Bush lost .... nothing. He even looks stronger to his base by refusing to be "a uniter."

The congressional leadership now, at best "lacks all conviction." Hardly a clarion call for 2008.

In president as high school boy terms, Al Gore is "the one that got away" when we were too young to know that there was more to find in a boyfriend than "coolness."

To continue the analogy ... it's our HS reunion and we're waiting to sign the divorce papers on a bad marriage to a guy who was "cool" but who routinely beats us up and takes our money.

Should we dance? We're dying for it. But will he say yes? We didbreak his heart all those years ago ...

Maybe we take it slow. See each other casually thiss pring and summer, and see what the fall brings. I think he wants to see if we're really committed this time. (God, I hope we are).

If, as a previous poster suggests, that the gossip became sexual harassment, then follow sexual harassment protocols. If that leads to their termination, then you have a paper trail, with i's dotted and t's crossed (and a chance for the offenders to be educated or reformed).

If the gossipers were becomig insubordinate, unproductive, or creating a hostile work environment, then reprimand them accordingly.

Stating "I am firing you for gossiping" seems a different (and flawed) action to take.

Can you fire someone who gossips with coworkers about you leaving theseat up (or down) or not washing your hands in the restroom? CAn you fire someone for gossiping that you rreated your spouse/child/mother/friend/employee unfairly in an overgheard conversation or email?

What if you are a Democrat, and you overhear employees gossiping about how much they hate your candidate of choice? And they think you gave too much money to the campaign? And someone muses maybe you crossed a line in campaign donations? Assuming these rumors are false, are you justified in firing them? Or is that a case of silencing free speech?

Seems like a slippery slope to me ....

How many times have we heard about men, really messed up men, finding a woman who takes care of them while they heal (mentally, sexually, financially, etc.), and then when the men are "better," they leave the woman and go find the "real" love of their life?

Yes, I believe the LW doesn't see that she's the pot to her partner's kettle. And, yes, she should break it off honestly, take respomsibility for her finances, her future, and her culpability in this failed relationship. And, for goodness' sake, she should spend some time *alone* before dating someone new. But she's not the worst person ever.

You may think a vegan diet is not suitable for infants but the American Dietetic Association and American Academy of Pediatrics disagree.

The AAP and the ADA agree that for babies under 6 months of age, the *only* appropriate food is human breast milk, or (failing that) infant formula (whether it be cow's milk, soy or other-based). (Formula-fed babies are often started on solids at 4 mos, but the medical community is starting to shift to 6 mos as the start date). That's it.

*After* 6 mos, a properly balanced diet, whether it be vegan or omnivorous, is fine, *so long as* the main source of nutrituion is still milk or formula until 12 mos.

As other posters have said, soy milk is very different than soy-based infant formula.

Any pediatrician, RN, family doctor, nutritionist, and reasonable baby book, parenting guide, orwebsite has this information. These parents, I am sure, were not ignorant. They wilfully disregarded medical advice and starved their baby.

Someone else mentioned this before, so I don't claim it as my idea. But, why couldn't the Democratic Senators insist on a voice vote to overide the veto?

Yes, the bill might not have passed, but every Senator who stood up and said "Nay" would then have some 'splainin' to do. (Wouldn't it be nice for the Republicans to have to explain why thy aren't "supportng the troops" for a change?) And every Senator who voted "Aye" could say: "I approved of this bill. It funded the troops and expressed the will of the American people. It also attemted to check the rampant abuse of power by the Executive Branch."

Just maybe, then some Senators would change their mind. And then we'd have an effective Legislative Branch.

Was it Harding who was referred to as "His Fraudulence" during his term (after seeming to steal the election in some shady backroom vote counting)? Ah, good times ...