"It's a regrettable omission, since it allows people to dismiss the entire piece as frivolous or untrue -- the prevailing argument seems to be that without those references (or, as one reader asserted, without a man as a coauthor), Benedict is completely unbelievable."

So, in your world, you can just cite facts absent any documentation or references and you should be believed why? Because it's about rape?

I'm sorry but you're an idiot if you think any journalist can just pull facts and figures out of their rear and expect their assertions to fly unquestioned.

You're equally idiotic if you believe unsubstantiated assertions you read in the NY times or anywhere else for that matter.

I didn't know who this was until I read about her on salon.

I cruised some of her writing, and though I will concede she is a "female voice" in that she presents as female and writes, I can't say I am particularly moved either way.

She does eye roll a lot.

I want to say a couple things as someone trying to be rational.

First.

Being involved in covert operations in Vietnam shouldn't be flung out there as some sort of vague aspersion. Are you making a specific allegation? I thought this was salon, not some left wing freep bullshit. Armitage's actual record is probably more than ample, right?

Anyway. I want to ask, what are we objecting to, specifically? Is it the privatization of the intelligence? Is the privatization a separate issue from the revolving door?

Is it the revolving door?

Is it not somehow defensible that someone who was once a consumer of intelligence be involved with a for profit venture to help furnish them? I mean, an argument could be made that he knows exactly the kinds of tech that would rock and so is valuable to have on the board, especially given his contacts. So, doesn't a for-profit venture have the right to offer just compensation to someone they would deem worthy of it? Shouldn't that help them make the best equipment and thus out compete the other firms?

That seems logical in the abstract, but smells fishy to me to be honest. So what is the problem?

Are we arguing over a question of degree? How much money? Would it be ok if they were making less money?

I guess? That answer doesn't feel right to me either.

Is the problem that the people are relying on their contacts to steer business? I want to say that would only be a problem if the money spent did not buy the best stuff or if we were somehow defrauded. I want to say it might also be iffy if the technology or product were somehow not improved through this arrangement.

Still, even if I knew the NSA was getting the very best product for its (our) money as a result of these arrangements, would be somehow uncomfortable. Why would that be?

I can't quite put my finger on it.

Oh wait, I know.

It's the way they made the entire government into a giant device for giving themselves money they borrow from China and Saudi and sticking us with the note.

I didn't hear John Kerry complaining that people were anti-windsurfing back in 04.

She's a woman - you use it against her. He's black - you use it against him. There are two kinds of politicians. The kind who use any and every trick to win and the kind that lose.

Oh and for the party hack who mentioned loyalty, I will say only this: I sure felt the loyalty when she voted for that awesome war we're fighting. That was loyal.

But no, her losing can't be about her crappy disingenuous war vote. It must be her vagina.

He is also one of 2 Asian SNL cast members, the other being Fred Armisson.

Are you ashamed to be Italian-American? It's a slap in the face to those olive farmers who came here, likely faced discrimination that you will never know for their "funny sounding names" and yet never abandoned them. What kind of girl was this? Is she still around? I hope for your parents' sake you have a brother with enough sense.

Show some pride in your people, even if you're napolitan.

"I sometimes wonder if our species (not just our culture) is pro-pair-bonding and pro-parent because it leads to the perpetuation of the species."

Nothing to wonder about there. The reason is that cultures to whom pair bonding and child rearing were not important simply died out.

Ever heard of the Shakers? Sort of an extreme example from the opposite side, but seriously having children, also known as reproducing, is LITERALLY the meaning of life.

Now, you might just be a semi-sentient being who is now saying to themselves "well, it's not the meaning of *MY* life," and you know what, you would be right. However, you're just an anomaly that evolution will take care of given enough time. That's no reason not to whoop it up while you're here. I say go for it and more power to you.

There's a word for people to whom pair bonding and reproducing is important: ancestors.

I don't get why this is so hard to figure out.

In my giant file called "criminal acts our congress won't bother to care about."