Segregating buses by popularity? Or size and weight? Or IQ? Or family income? Or just by putting all the jocks on one bus, and everyone else on other buses? (I would have gone for that option when I was in school.)

Can anyone now rationalize to themselves that Limbaugh isn't a racist? Ye Gods.

Usually the previews for a film are a distillation of the best of that film. Sometimes, they give you a completely inaccurate idea of what the film is like; far too often, the trailers turn out to be a lot better than the film. But the idea is that you see a trailer and you think, "Man, I don't want to miss that one."

And then there are films like "Love Happens," when I watched the trailer and thought, "Man does that look bad." ("Year One" and "Land of the Lost" are a couple from this summer.) Glad to read your review and know that, indeed, I can miss this one quite easily.

With regard to Aniston, I've never quite understood what all the fuss is about. She's pretty, I guess, in a generically-blonde kind of way; she has a nice figure, if you like women who are--how shall I say--on the slender end of the spectrum. But I've never seen her as anything special, and always thought she was much better utilized--as she was in "Friends"--in ensemble pieces like "Office Space" (where I thought she was terrific). Why she keeps getting starring roles is really quite beyond me.

His "deepening faith"? Are you kidding me? You would think that by the time someone is pushing 70, they would have come to terms (or not) with issues of faith. Somehow, this sounds more like one of those foxhole conversions, similar to an atheist in the 18th Century making a deathbed conversion to Catholicism.

Every time I see Dick Armey speak, he wears a smirk and barely even acknowledges that there is a different side to whatever position he is advocating, let alone--as you saw personally, Joan--that there are actual, understandable, fact-based reasons why someone may disagree with him. It's hard for me to remember that smirk, and think that Armey is experiencing any kind of compassionate epiphany.

No sir, I just don't buy it.

I live in Austin, Texas and work in Sunnyvale, California. So I can relate.

At the risk of sounding petty, I can't tell you how glad I am that this series of reports is over. We need this kind of reporting on Beck, Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and all the other figures of the right, but I have to say that seeing Beck's face on the cover of Salon for so long has been making me almost physically ill, and I'll be glad when he's gone.

There are many decaffeinated coffees that taste just as good as the regular ones.

I think the real problem at base is not just that we're looking at a very conservative court that's looking to overturn a whole lot of laws that they don't like (whatever happened to stare decisis, Justices Roberts and Alito?); it's that the Court, in it's Wisdom, decided that money and speech were the same as far as the first Amendment is concerned and, as a result, if you have more money, you get a "louder" voice. Which means that General Motors or Goldman Sachs or British Petroleum or Humana Inc. have very loud voices indeed, while the rest of us are stuck shouting into a hurricane.

When a liberal court overturns that insane decision, it will be a day for celebration. Until then, we fight on the margins.