Gary,

You start off by saying that, essentially, everyone knows that the media failed in major ways between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. However, I don't think that's true. I'm not sure most of us, even those who read Salon.com, realize the extent and degree to which the media rolled over for Bush. Reading your essay was an eye-opener for me.

So, I'd just like to say that I think you should consider turning the story of how the media failed between 9/11 and the Iraq war into a book.

Another worthy story is the lead up to the war in Afghanistan. The generally held opinion seems to be is that war was justifiable. However, I've always felt that we did not give diplomacy enough of a chance before invading. Maybe I'm wrong on this. However, the lack of discussion on the build up to the Afghan war makes it hard for me to decide.

You are correct that Salon.com has been consistently against the war, right from the start. This is the reason why I've been a subscriber ever since. Keep up the good work!

Mike

The media is full of hypocrites. For years, Imus has been making racist, sexist, homophobic, and just plain mean remarks about people who didn’t deserve it. At the same time, all sorts of notable people from politics and the media appeared on his show to further their own agendas. They promoted their books while conveniently ignoring his dark, ugly side. He’s been the subject of countless print and TV news magazine stories and interviews, all for media organizations happy to make a profit on his ugly take on the world.

Now, the same media is breathlessly reporting on his demise, calling for the destruction of his career, and debating the nature of free speech. Perhaps the real story here is the media’s relationship with Imus.

Most gun deaths are the result of one family member shooting another. This usually occurs with a hand gun.

Like you and most others in the USA, older men in my family owned guns. The US used to be rural and rural people owned and used guns.

My own feeling on this is that if you want to own a rifle, you should have a reason. Perhaps you hunt. Perhaps you shoot at targets at the local range. If you don't have a real, practical reason (instead of a psychological one), then you don't need to have a gun around.

With the exception of police officers, etc, no one needs a hand gun. Hand guns are designed for only one purpose, killing other humans at close range.

Cary,

Thanks for refusing to extract meaning from such a senseless act!

-Mike

Dear LW,

It was just business? That's bullshit. Cary is wrong, you were screwed. You should be mad about it. Your bosses should have taken the blame for their bad decisions. There is no excuse for their actions.

However, you've learned an important lesson here. In the working world, you can be fired whenever something can be blamed on you. It sucks and its unethical. But, its true. Maybe next time you'll have your eyes open a bit wider. Maybe next time, you'll know enough to stay clear of the shrapnel when things go wrong, or to get out while you can.

In any case, the advice of the other posters on having a ready and well-rehearsed answer available to the inevitable question is good. Look them straight in the eyes and deliver the answer like a pro.

Good luck!

Dear LW,

If you are seeking stillness and calm, why not try finding it within yourself? Try meditation. Many college towns have some sort of buddhist or meditation group (not that the second implies the first). Mediation is not easy and requires one to stick with it for at least a few months before one can see the benefits through the frustration. If the idea of sitting still for an hour or so a day drives you batty, then try one of the calmer versions of yoga instead.

One of these practices may give you the ability to find this stillness that you desire in your life without having to depend on your mate for it. To me, this seems like a better option...

Is the downfall of Tony a long-planned event, or is it just the writers trying to put some good spin on a series that trivialized violence and brutality?

When Seinfeld ended, the last few espisodes put the four main characters in jail for doing essentially what they'd done for the whole series. The talk at the time was that the writers were punishing the characters for all of their past sins, literally putting them on trial for all of the horrible things they'd done and laughed about. My impression of the Seinfeld ending is that this was not planned from the beginning, but rather tacked on at the end of the series to give it a better or more substantial legacy.

Are the writers of the Sopranos doing the same? Does it matter?