We did it in my office with two employees and three kids. The only policy was that it was as long as the kids were not a major distraction as determined by your coworkers. By and large worked pretty well. One secretary hung on to the benefit too long and was begining to disrupt the work of others by having them "babysit" while she worked, but the other workers quickly suggested that it was not time to find an alternative. The fairly rigid (and male) CPA didn't much cotton to it, but he lived. To me (sole shareholder and male) it was, at worst, a minor annoyance on rare occasion, and I realize that it provided a substantial benefit to my employees so I was glad to do it.

At least their it's not "Pink Taco: Liquor in the Front, Poker in the Back."

Serirously, the only way to regulate this sort of thing is through market pressure. Do as the citizens of Scottsdale are doing and try to keep the place from opening. Then if it opens, don't eat there. I'm mildly offended by the name and would not eat there for that reason alone -- just like I don't eat a Hooters. But whether I like it or not, societal norms of what are acceptable are changing. But I still have the right, and some might say the obligation, to push back when it pisses me off.

It's hard to see which is more depressing -- reading this hash up of an article, or reading the desulatory letters that it has generated. But the combination of the two certainly does nothing to encourage one about the future of the Middle East.

It is unfortunate that extremists seem to be at the helm on both sides. No one seems to be looking for solutions, only to pour more gasoline, actual or methaphorical, on an already out of control inferno. No one is looking for root causes. No one seems to be looking for real solutions. Just blaming and inflaming. Retribution and prostitution via spinning or shilling for one side of the other.

Six years ago, President Clinton at least had the two sides in the same room (or at least at the same mountain retreat) talking to each other and if not on the verge of a breakthrough, close to one. Now, after six years of cowboy tough talk, neglect, and general pissing away of American good will, the situation sure has changed, hasn't it.

I'm certainly no fan of Joe Leiberman. He deserves to be defeated even if he opposed the war. He's been a terrible senator on any number of issues, most notably civil justice issues, for many years. And I don't think it will be the end of the Democratic party if he's defeated.

However, the argument that too much anti-war emphasis will, in the long run, hurt the Democratic party, is one that you take much too lightly. The Iraq war is more unpopular than the Vietnam war was, but that earlier war still provides us with our best model for understanding the politics of our current situation. Democratic opposition to that war left a generation of voters with the impression that Democrats were soft on national security. And the same can happen here.

Fear of domestic terrorism is still a powerful issue for many voters. We must be seen as strong in this fight. It is not enough to talk about fighting a smarter war on terrorism. God knows that would, in fact, not be difficult. But huge numbers of swing voters equate smarter with weaker. This may not be fair, but it is real.

So I guess my bottom line is that we can run agains Joe Leiberman. But I think it's better to run against him on a broad range of issues where he's lost touch, not just on the war. And I think that is we become a one issue party, we do so at our long term peril.

Boy, I don't know what kind of peer review this article went through, or whether it's being accurate describer here in Salon, but if they really alledged that there was a causal link rather than simply a corelation, I'd love to see the evidence.

I could easily see a corelation -- the more sexually active teens listen to sexually charged music and and the less sexually active teens list to less sexually charged music. But if there is a causation arrow here, I suspect that it runs the other way.

I'm not urging giving Bush a break, especially when he's down, but if this is the best you can do for satire, maybe I'd better check and see how much you guy's pay for articles. I could reread The Stranger and make something up that was a hell of a lot better than this. And it's got to be easier than practicing law.

"I could be worse . . ." is progress for this no-good, dishonest SOB. At least this contains some acknowledgement that things are going bad. Give him five more years and maybe he'll figure out that Cheney's job performance needs to be reviewed!!

The sooner Americans realizes that there's not a dime's worth of difference between radical fundamentalist Muslims and Christians -- and starts to treat them the same -- the better off we'll all be.

I don't know who this Olbermann guy is, but he hit the nail on the head with this one. For this administration, above all others, to belly ache about somebody who professes to know it all, is mind boggling. George Bush is such a liar if he walked up to me and said, "Good morning," I'd go home and put on my pajamas and go home and go to bed.

He's also a tort reformer who sucks up to big insurance interests at the expense of consumer rights.