First Ms. Waldman admits that she let herself be conned -- and made an utter fool -- because JT made her feel good about herself, and she can't get angry at people who make her feel good about herself, however dishonest or evil they may be. Then she adds insult to airheadedness by saying she's not really that concerned about the possible consequences of con-artists pretending to be victims in order to divert attention away from people who really are victims.

Can a journalist get any more oblivious and self-indulgent than this? Can't Salon find someone who actually cares about the world on which he/she is paid to report? You know, the world outside our heads, where actions have consequences?

I'm not paying good money to be embarrassed by such useless fluff as this.

Even more pathetic than Waldman's article ("Who cares if he's a manipulative liar? He made me feel good about myself, so I'll excuse whatever he does!"), is the brainless babyish sycophancy of her defenders, who completely ignore our stated reasons for trashing her useless fluff and conclude it's really all 'cause we're jealous of poor Ayalet 'cause she's such a swell girl and everyone secretly wants her blissful wonderful life. Way to elevate the debate, kiddies!

Just one question: why should we be at all jealous of a woman so desperate to feel good about herself that she'll allow any huckster or loser to play her for a fool, so long as he/she will prop up her ego in the process? Anyone who expects us to aspire to that sort of life is too stupid to participate in any adult debate.

If Salon is aiming for the clueless-immature-wuss demographic, I think I'll have to look elsewhere for real information.

I am concerned about the extent to which one of the organizations mentioned were willing to offer a "Christian version" of their program, which altered the group's advice on an important subject to accomodate the beliefs of that audience. How much alteration were they willing to countenance to get more business? Would they consider a "Sharia version?" How would this differ from a "Pagan version?" When does "accomodation" become "pandering?" And what does this say about how strongly the group really believe what they teach, or how important their specific advice is?

This author may be right in all respects here, but his credibility is pre-shrunk by the hysterical boastfulness of the first few paragraphs. This attitude of "I know everything, no one else has a clue," combined with obvious hysteria, lead me to believe that this person may be unwilling to calm down and learn from others, and may thus be a lot less on-the-ball than he would have us believe.

This is a serious issue that needs to be publicly, and sensibly, discussed at all levels. Let's not be too quick to draw battle-lines and shout down reasoned debate with hysterical self-righteousness, as ideologues have done in regard to nuclear weapons, drugs, terrorism, Elian, Terri Schiavo, child sexual abuse, sex-ed, "satanic ritual abuse," etc. etc.

Let's see how many postmodernist poseurs take her essay seriously...

Why does the president get away with such "lies?" In part because they're grounded in just enough actual truth that his critics look stupid when they accuse him of "lying." There were, in fact, enough instances of interference or hindrance of weapons inspectors here and there that Bush can indeed credibly claim that Saddam "chose not to disclose" something or other. That's not an excuse for war, of course, nor is it the whole story, and the whole affair was a bungled joke since 1991, but part of that bungling consisted of liberals and Democrats who couldn't get a coherent and credible message out, and still can't.

Here's a hint, Mr. Conason: focus on present-day mismanagement and malfeasance, not on "winning" last year's moot arguments. You'll sound more relevant that way.

I can't speak with any authority about cellphone calls at umpteen-thousand-feet, but I can take issue with this idiotic paragraph which Jonathan quoted:

"It must also be remarked that the alleged hijackers of the Cellphone Flight were remarkably lenient with their passengers, allowing some 13 calls. However, it would seem highly unlikely that hijackers would allow any phone calls for the simple reason that passengers could relay valuable positional and other information useful to authorities on the ground, thus putting the whole mission in jeopardy."

Here's how it works in the real world: there were about four hijackers, who couldn't bring guns onto the plane; without guns, they would have had their hands full just keeping passengers out of their way; looking for cellphones, among about a hundred tightly packed passengers, and lunging at people on cellphones with sharp objects in such a crowded place, would not have been an option.

Oh, and what's this crap about "alleged" hijackers? The plane was indeed hijacked by someone.

I hate Bush too, but this sort of blithering only makes Bush look smart and compassionate, while insulting everyone else's intelligence. Grow up two decades and come back in the morning, Jonathan.

July Canute blithered thusly:

Why doesn't the movie make the point that Jews control our government with their money?

Um...because that would be a bunch of bigoted Hitleresque hooey, not relevant to a movie about a hijacking by non-Jews?

Walt Raleigh pompously blathered:

Your citation of military service as being a credential towards common sense or the ability to reason is undermined by what we know about the military...

And your superior and more dependable experience is...what exactly?

Just one quibble: Walt is not a "liberal" -- he's an idiot hiding from reality behind a conspiracy theory that makes him feel enlightened. He's no more "liberal" than Lyndon LaRouche, and probably hates real liberals as much as Pat Robertson and Osama bin Laden. Other than that, though, your response was spot-on.