In theory, if properly packed in some kind of cool pack, breastmilk could survive being checked. The problem is that you would just never be sure what had happened to it. Adults could eat something a little "off" and end up with just a little stomach discomfort, maybe at worst you're stuck with a bad case of diarrhea. But it just isn't something you can risk even a miniscule chance of when you're dealing with a newborn who could potentially die. For example, you can't just throw a newborn's bottles in the dishwasher, you have to actually boil or steam *sterilize* them. The rules for storage of breastmilk (durations at various temperatures, etc) are very complicated. Maybe if you have some kind of temperature sensor that would record the temp at all times and ensure it never went above some threshhold. Bottom line is that you would probably be ok with well-packed milk in checked bags, but "probably" just isn't near good enough.

Compare her pose to the man on the far right. She's in the EXACT same pose. Their bodies, except for shape, are strikingly parallel. She is smiling maybe a little more than the man, and most of the others. But she just looks cheerful, whereas everyone else looks like the photo was taken at an hour about 3 hours earlier than they typically arise (maybe everyone else is West Coast, that would explain it rather precisely). So the only difference between her and that man is in the gaze of the observer, and to most gazes, she's a good deal more attractive. How is that her problem, rather than we observers??

Just throwing this out there--it is possible to breastfeed adopted children. The human body is able to lactate without having just been pregnant (or ever having been pregnant). It is a difficult, extremely time-consuming process to achieve any milk production, and most often production does not reach enough volume to fully feed a child. But some people enjoy the bonding that breastfeeding gives. You can also have a thin tube attached to the breast that provides formula to the infant while simulating breastfeeding, with or without some breastmilk coming out too. (I've never done it, but know some people who have.) La Leche League has info about how to do it on their webpage, as do most other breastfeeding books and resources. I'm not the hugest fan of LLL, but the last line of the article does seem a little unfair given LLL supports and educates about adoptive breastfeeding.

While I agree with everything in the article, I wish it had emphasized Sidarth's positive and proactive role in the aftermath of the incident. Simply being a victim, as important as the exposure of his victimhood was to flipping the Senate and redirecting the course of the nation, is not itself heroic. However, I was very struck with Sidarth's classy and assertive use of media in interviews he did after the incident. In his first television interview, he wasted not one moment on the incident itself, but seized upon this rare access to the nation's megaphone to delve right into the core issues of the race and the positive message of the Webb campaign. Most people thrust unexpectedly into the limelight would twiddle away their 15 minutes with sympathetic, though amateurish blow-by-blows of their ordeal. By contrast, Sidarth had a perfectly polished television presence, and was focused like a laser on the real issues: Iraq, a new direction, etc. They say opportunity favors the prepared. Macaca didn't make Sidarth a political leader, it just introduced us to him, already one.

This was a moving and melancholy piece, and I appreciate the overall sentiment of it.

However, there does seem to be an element of not appreciating that just because an antiwar movement doesn't look like the ones that Gary knew back in the day, that there isn't one. And to the poster who said there was no antiwar music--we have Eminem, Pink and the Dixie Chicks, three of the biggest names out there, doing absolutely explicit anti-Bush/anti-War music. Oh, wait, but it isn't a guy on a stool with an acoustic guitar, or something. Look, times have changed! Face it, things don't happen the same when you're old as they did when you were young. Why does every. single. generation. ever. not understand this when they get old?

I'm mid-late-twenties. Taking to the streets seems, well, ok I'll just say it, SILLY. And juvenile, and a waste of time. Its only appeal is maybe some kind of indirect "retro" charm. Most of all though, it just seems ineffective. Who on earth would I reach by doing that?

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll write a letter to the editor, a letter to my congressman. I'll blog up a storm, I'll comment on the websites of the major newspapers. And I'll reach more people and be more effective than if I wore some goofy getup and marched around to a bunch of cars who are driving by so fast they don't even have time to figure out what I'm protesting, much less be impacted by my message.

Hillary gets a cute, chipper caricature and Obama gets the kind of black and white make-you-look-like-a-criminal photo treatment that is usually the specialty of NRCC attack ads? Good grief.

Amen, Mr. Kamiya.

You forgot to expound on several abnormal-psych diagnoses of Mr. Kamiya based solely on a line or two from his this piece.

"We think Donald Rumsfeld was an enormously consequential..., and somebody who led to the transformation of the Department of Defense."

Yup. But it ain't a good thing.