Interestingly enough, I agree with you about internet posting however I've posted before in her articles about how I don't like her writing. For instance in this one, I thought her story at the beginning was not needed and yes, boring and annoying. Her article on BSG made it sound like she already didn't like the show and was forced to watch it. With Lost it seems she is in the same situation - forced to watch a show that is not "culturally significant".

So why the short response instead of going through an explanation? Sure it's been said before but when she says things like "That's because I'm really annoying and tedious." it suggests to me that she's another typical full-of-themselves-critic. So why should I bother writing something she probably will never see or if she did, not take any of it to heart anyway. I thought it would be better to put something down that is quick and to the point, so that's what I did.

In any case, what are we arguing about? A TV show. I'm not even sure why I responded at all. Maybe I was just cranky and her article tripped me the wrong way. I agree with you about internet responses though and I believe they are one of the worst things about the internet today but hypocritically enough, I'm contributing to the same thing I hate. If I could delete edit comments, I would take back mine because it does not help the issue.

However, writers shouldn't put out articles that have decent justification for their critiques and not some tedious story about past boyfriends to make a point, which was difficult to get anyway. Maybe that's what entertainment critics do. But again, this is a TV show. Could there be anything less important in the world to argue about?

That's what I'm wondering too RichEmery. There are smart people working in the republican party, why do they not stop this train wreck? Sure it's easy to generalize republicans but I honestly can't believe that ALL of them are OK with supporting nothing more than a campaign slogan.

When I saw this guy in Israel I was thinking, who the hell thought this was a good idea? He doesn't know anything other than his own opinion, has (from what I understand) very little education, and has never been involved in politics before. Sure, I guess you could make the argument that he's not tainted by Washington and all that, but are there no leaders in the GOP that will stand up and say, "Hey guys, lets get back on track here and drop this Joe guy"?

As far as Democrat criticism of him. I think what Keith Olberman does every time he mentions him (lists his lack of paying taxes, not having a plumbers license, etc) is the wrong way to go about this. We shouldn't be attacking him, we should be attacking the lack of leadership that continues to support him and parade him around like the next leader of the GOP. He simply is not qualified to be in the situations he's in. And in some cases, like sending him to Israel, it's dangerous.

A lot of you here need to stop rubbing it in the faces of the GOP. Sure you can use the "you had 8 years of tax cuts and bad bills" argument but then what is yours? "Now you can have 8 years of our bad bills and excessive spending"?

Come on people. Yeah, Democrats ("we") won. But that doesn't mean we can shirk our responsibility to be BETTER at government than our predecessors. This is not the time to ram through some poor stimulus package that pays for everything you can think of in the hopes of revitalizing the economy. We have the talent in the government now to come up with something that will actually work. Lets actually use that talent to do so and jump off our high horse on how we can do whatever we want.

Simply put I don't want Sarah "I sold the state jet on ebay because it was excessive government spending" Palin to actually have a chance to win in 2012 because the majority of Democrats are set on calling her "stupid" instead of actually coming up with good ideas that work and holding their representatives responsible.

This isn't a trend I want to see. I like seeing responsibility in the White House again and I know he's human, but I hope he doesn't admit to every mistake that goes on. It will destroy his credibility and open him up to leadership critiques. Something like this could have been swept under the rug. He didn't have to say "I screwed up". Perhaps he did because of all the guff he's getting about not really having a "change" record as of yet.

However, like someone said before. No one is going to know who Daschle is next month or why he's in the news today. Hell, I bet you'd find it hard for anyone to name Bush's failed Supreme Court nominee. He could have pushed through this without admitting "I screwed up". The thing is now though, is he needs to smooth out things for a few weeks without any huge distractions to get back on track. Sideshows like this are worse when they are added to more of them.

I agree completely with what Nathan Coker said in his post. This is a really poor bill. I listen to the president talk about it and I'm like...green jobs? infrastructure? Where? That's such a small percentage of the bill.

This thing is a really, really poor bill that does almost nothing for stimulus. It's time to go back to the drawing board and not ram some crap through, spine or no spine, that will just haunt us for 4 years.