The multiverse theory seems the most elegant and explanatory. I don't know why Davies is so set against it. In "Cosmic Jackpot" he repeatedly dismisses it, but typically not on logical/scientific grounds, but on something like aesthetics ("it's just not very satisfying," or some such, as I remember). I especially don't understand it given the theory of Wheeler's he prefers, which I don't see as all that different (the universe could be in - and has come in - any number of flavors, but now we see it as the particular flavor necessary for us to be in it observing it).

Regarding Paulson, he just so, so, so wants Davis to say he believes in a designer God. It was so satisfying that when Paulson was pushing him in that direction, Davies shoots back with, "I think that's just a naive, silly idea that doesn't fit the leanings of most theologians these days and doesn't fit the scientific facts. I don't want that. That's a horrible idea." I don't think Davies would like how Paulson has titled the inteview. Nothing that comes out of Davies' mouth comes close to sounding like "we were meant to be here."

Rudy is the most ripe target of all the nominees, so be nice. He's the one we want in the general election. Save this stuff up for then.

...probably represent about 95% of the democratic electorate. So the dems in congress are ignoring the desires of almost all of the people who voted for them.

This strip would be perfect. It's obviously right about Cheney, but also does a surprisingly good job explaining/exemplifying some very challenging ideas in quantum physics.

I must say that the amount of blatant man-hating on this site is not nearly enough. 'Tis but a drop in the bucket of misogyny here and throughout society. "How dare two women communicate in ways that men can't understand! How dare Traister believe that there continues to be inequity in male-female relationships! The nerve." I'm one of the most pro-feminist men I know, and I can still be a sexist bastard.

seems to be pure, uncontained rage, as RealName says. It is a rage fueled by a sense of injustice (whether real or imagined). The thing is, you can't *fight* rage. It's the old "I'm going to hit you till you say you like me" trap. I'm worried the war excuse "we fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them at home" is this year's "bring it on," luring the rage into our backyards.

Something enrages me at a deep level when I hear this argument. It's a bullying classic: Person A blames Person B for a failure that Person A caused. The right-wing gleefully pounces on the democratic congress for being unable to pass much legislation, when the primary reason for that failure is right-wing opposition. And the electorate will buy it: they think congress is ineffective, and will therefore vote for the party "not in control of congress," even though that is the party that is at the root of the ineffectiveness.

Excuse 1: it's not a lie if you ignore all the more recent evidence to the contrary.

Excuse 2: it's not a lie because everyone else in the administration was saying the same thing.

Excuse 3: We're just really incompetent.

I don't know why the right generally seems to be all hot for another terror attack in the US. They really do want it, thinking it will confirm everything they've obsessed over for the past six years: the threat of Islamo-fascism, the need for a police state. However, could someone explain why it doesn't prove the opposite: the total failure of the Iraq war to protect us ("fight them there so we don't have to fight them here"), and the total incompetence of the domestic 'war on terror.'

"There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse"

Right - there hasn't been one case, there have been many, so that's another reason he wasn't really lying.

I think it's great that Camille Paglia continues to write so poorly. It's simply stunning what good readers most of the respondants are. Paglia voices an opinion outside the norm for intelligent discourse and engages in facile debate with conservatives and the immediate response is "hey, she's a really bad writer!" Do any of you really think that Paglia is in danger of being dismissed by the editors of Salon given that her columns are consistantly the worst pieces of writing published here? If you really want Paglia gone, you need to realize that that decision is not based on whether readers love or hate her, but by the number of hits and responses to her column. Paglia is the only voice in the liberal media who actually lies about being a liberal and crafts disingenuous and poorly thought-out responses based on the illogic of her personal philosophy. She does not understand her adversaries but reduces them to shallow stereotypes. I think many Salon readers dislike Paglia because she challenges their preconcieved notion that Salon is a quality website.

it's the number of unread messages that can kill. My inbox is also a year-long river in which I feel free to travel back in time whenever I need to. But I read/delete/ignore/respond to every message that comes in as needed. I'm amazed when I look at a colleague's inbox and see hundreds of unread messages, obviously going back weeks. How can they stand it! I also can't stand it when I send an email to someone that requires maybe 3 seconds of work on their part before they reply ("what's the date of the budget meeting?"), but they print it out and put it in a pile on their desk and respond a week later, if ever. I don't understand how those people can clothe and feed themselves.