Look, folks, either your Big Daddy In The Sky is omnipotent, or he's not. If he is, then He has the power to reach into the most miserable sinner's heart and forgive them and bring them grace, glory hallelujiah, yea I say unto you even the pedophiles shall He make clean and holy, amen. Or He isn't, in which case, why exactly are you bothering Him every Sunday? I mean, what do you expect Him to do about your mortgage payments and your cousin's cancer and your friend's son who's over in Iraq if He can't be bothered to turn His infinite gaze on the kiddly diddling going on right next door? (And, quite possibly, in your own home? ... Except you'd be perfectly okay if He didn't notice that part, okay? Thanks, God-buddy.)

... is the option I'd support. They should send him the same bill, say, once a week or so. And every time he vetoes it, they should choose one of the many Democratic veterans in the House or Senate (more vets in Congress are Democrats than Republicans, I believe) to make a speech along the lines of:

"We have sent President Bush a bill authorizing funding for our brave troops in the field. He refuses to sign it. My fellow Americans, you heard me correctly: the President is refusing to give our troops, our sons and daughters, the funding they need to defend themselves and our nation. Mr. President, why are you playing politics with American soldiers' lives?"

Of course, that would require a Democratic party with a spine.

... but as a fellow scientist, I have to say, don't expect to convince anyone.

Science as a discipline is in a strange position because everyone (okay, almost everyone) wants its tangible benefits, but nobody likes it politically. The Right fears and loathes it because it presents discoveries every day that show the Sacred Word of Gaw-ud to be superstitious nonsense. The Left is a little friendlier, but distrusts it because it deals in absolute truth rather than philosophy and relative morality. And people of all political stripes -- often otherwise intelligent, educated people -- turn into anti-intellectual goons when presented with technical terminology they can't be bothered to understand, even when that terminology is the only accurate way to describe the way nature works.

Check out this phrase from the article: "the mumbo jumbo surrounding the medical aspects of the disease." Right, because if you don't understand what a physician or scientist is saying about AIDS, it must be "mumbo jumbo." It couldn't possibly be that the jargon they're using is the clearest, most elegant, and most accurate way to talk about the effect of a deadly virus on the human body, could it? No, because that would mean that we cold, unemotional, left-brained scientific types are better with words, at least in some circumstances, than the warm, creative, right-brained folks with liberal arts degrees. Can't have that, no sirree!

The "mumbo jumbo" isn't hard to understand. Any reasonably intelligent person can figure it out with a little effort, and once they do, they usually see that getting rid of it inevitably leads to dumbing the subject down. But they have to be willing to make the effort; and it's easier to sit on the sidelines and snipe, occasionally addressing their insecurities by reading watered-down pop-sci presentations and convincing themselves that they're instant experts.

Honestly, the battle isn't worth fighting. People like you and I will do better to keep doing what we're doing, figuring things out, moving humanity forward, making the world a better place. Everyone benefits from that, even if they don't choose to understand it.

... and I think the Memorial Day protests are a great idea.

Don't buy into the Republican line, even a little. Don't assume "the troops" are so mindless and easily manipulated that they'll believe the protests mean "that the left devalues or ignores their sacrifice." Soldiers, veterans, and their families are people, and Americans, and like all such we have the means to form opinions of our own. Now, I was always a bit more leftish than most of my fellow soldiers, but I can tell you that I know a great many formerly staunch Republicans among them, many still in uniform, who believe absolutely that it is time to bring the troops home and who will support civilians -- on the street or in the White House -- who work toward that goal.

The American Legion does not speak for us. We speak for ourselves. And we who pay the price, or watch our younger brothers and sisters in arms pay the price, are not afraid to speak out when the price is too high, and what is bought with our blood worth too little, to keep on paying.

... "frat boys" with "men." Thanks.

... the Democrats should do the opposite.

Seriously. It's obvious that she's a Republican shill who's terrified of the idea of President Gore, President Clinton, President Edwards, or any other President who isn't a right-wing nutcase. Her advice to the party to which she claims to belong is about as believable as a serial killer giving advice to the cops.

But that's okay, Paglia. Keep on spouting your hatred of real Americans and the freedoms they hold dear. Those of us who still believe in America will defend your right to do so, however little you deserve it.

Emma Roberts is 16, and Max Thieriot is 18 -- results I came up with in about five seconds of Googling. So in other words, they look like actual teenagers, because, you know, they are teenagers. As another letter-writer pointed out, maybe they look "much younger" to Stephanie Zacharek because Hollywood has the irritating habit of casting actors in their mid-to-late-20's in teenage roles? Try taking your eyes off the screen long enough to observe actual people, and you'll see that all sorts of roles are filled by actors who really don't belong in them. Casting teenagers as teenagers is a refreshing change.