Truly, this reminds me very much of the fights I have to break up between my children. My daughter (12): "Will you shut up? I'm doing homework!" My son (9): "I'm just playing! I can play if I want! You're not the boss of me!" And if forced to quiet down by the parents, son will throw a fit, sometimes bad enough to get sent to his room.

Bush--like a spoiled child who hasn't been disciplined enough--is not getting his way now that Congress is actually showing a modicum of spine. So he and his Administration are throwing a fit. "We'll all die!" "We can't listen in on phone calls!" "You're putting the whole country at risk!" One can only wonder how they will continue to escalate their lies and hyperbole should Congress continue to stand up to them. What will Bush do in the end; go on live TV and threaten to hold his breath until he gets his way? Lay down on his famous yellow rug in the Oval office and pound the floor with his fists and feet? Say that "God will call me home if you don't pass this bill my way by Friday!"?

I hope Congress does keep thwarting him; I am eagerly anticipating the continuing Presidential tantrum of this spoiled frat boy.

Fortunately for all of us, of course, he's going to have to go to his room in just a few months. And let's hope we parents never let him out again.

You are absolutely correct, ondelette. What has bothered me greatly about the supine press over the last several years is their adamant refusal to call a spade a spade. And this is a great example.

The Administration recently admitted that they have tortured prisoners. So their assertions to the contrary earlier are lies. Not mis-statements, mis-interpretations, misunderstandings, or any other euphemism; they are lies. But the press is allergic to using the word "lie," even when lies are admitted to.

The Administration has admitted that they've been breaking the law. In other words, they're criminals. Why isn't the press using terms like "breaking the law" and "admitted criminals," since they apply?

The American public, in general, is not hip to these euphemisms. But they know what lying and breaking the law is. Isn't time the press told them about the lying (admitted!) criminals in the government? Because those words are "too explosive." We wouldn't want to write the truth in a way that can be understood; no no, that would be too simply. Better to obstuficate with $5 words and linguistic jiggery-pokery.

"Free press" my eye.

No offense, Pablo, but I'm definitely mourning the day when regular incandescents vanish. I have installed CFL bulbs in a number of places in my house, while leaving regular incandescents in place in others. The comparisons are interesting.

First, the lifetime of these bulbs in nothing near 3 years; that assertion is simply nonsense. So far, I haven't gotten any of them to last one year, and a few have zonked out after only a few months, just like an incandescent. At the price, that's a pretty annoying result.

Second, no, I'm sorry, but the light sucks. Buy a bulb with the same rated wattage, and the difference is obvious. If you put in a "60 watt" CFL floodlight in your bathroom, it's too dim. Put in a "75 watt" CFL, and it becomes that harsh fluorescent glare we all know and hate. Am I exaggerating? Well, I installed two bulbs in my daughter's bathroom, one regular incandescent, and one CFL, both with the same rating. Further, I installed the CFL so that it was on the switch nearest the door, to increase it's use and (theoretically) get all that extra life we're promised CFLs have. The result? My daughter always uses the incandescent, even though it's less easily accessible. "I don't like that one," she says. (And no, I didn't tell her in advance.)

Look: I've installed CFLs in all the places in my house where the quality of the light doesn't matter--front and back porches, pantries, closets, and so on. And I'm perfectly willing to do it to help the environment. But this happy happy joy joy talk about how good CFLs are falls on deaf ears in my case, and frankly I think it's just plain untrue. They don't last longer, they're more expensive, their light sucks, they have to be disposed of like toxic waste, and they contain a neurotoxin. I'll use them, but I sure ain't happy about it.

And by the way, Pablo, when was the last time you actually saw a thermometer with mercury in it? I haven't since, oh, Reagan was president.

I love my iPhone. I mean, I really love my iPhone. But when people complain about the cost of Apple products, Farhad, this is exactly what they're talking about. $2800? That's unbelievable.

The initial cost and running costs of having a Mac are what make the jump so hard for some people, and this is a perfect example.

I am not quite as vehement as Mister Marker, but I have to agree that I have never understood the appeal of Will Ferrell. Never. Every time I have seen him in a film, it's as if he's dropped in from a completely different reality. Jay and Silent Bob, Wedding Crashers (contrast the scene with Will Ferrell in his house with the scene between Rachel McAdams and Owen Wilson on the beach--those are from the same movie?), The Producers.

For my money he's nothing but a schtick-using, scenery-chewing, one-note clown. He doesn't act; he mugs. I am completely baffled as to how he manages to please so many critics. Perhaps Stephanie or Andrew can explain it--I certainly don't understand it.