The league's reaction to this study isn't very smart. If they said "hey, it looks like there's a problem, but it's small and manageable, and this is how we'll deal with it" this study would blow over in a hurry.

Because when I read the story about the study, that was my reaction--it's a problem, but small and manageable and easily dealt with, and given how race works in this society, it's actually a smaller problem than could be expected.

But then I got to the part about the league's reaction, and I thought "oh, they're really blowing it here." I think their reaction could, potentially, turn a small issue into a much larger one.

I'm sure that company that estimates how much work time is wasted discussing the Final Four will do the same with this story.

I can see it now: "New England businesses lost Umpteen Billion Dollars while Red Sox fans discussed the sock story."

What the Warriors guaranteed themselves last night is a non-losing record. Of course, since the play the Trailing Blazers tonight, they're close to assured of an actual winning record.

As for teams in a playoff race meeting teams that have no reason to play hard, it's just part of the luck factor. Some teams got to play Phoenix when Steve Nash was hurt, it's really just the same thing.

The answer is simple for Congress:

Tell the White House to provide ALL the emails used by staffers using RNC accounts. If they are not provided, impeachment hearings for Obstruction of Justice will commence.

What we really need is a national conversation about race and sex and language. It seems like what's happening is more like a bunch of people talking at and past each other.

I'm sure that Imus was caught off guard by the uproar, as he's been saying this sort of stuff for years, with no repurcussions. It's also true that far worse goes out over the airwaves every day, with no repurcussions.

I haven't actually heard his apologies, so I can't judge how sincere they are, but it does seem like there should be a place for atoning for one's wrongs. It seems like we have fuzzy lines, but when it's deemed that someone has crossed the fuzzy line, retribution is swift and total.

There also seems to be little or no gradation of punishment. I have to think that Imus is wondering "gee, nobody said anything after all the other stuff I said."

I've often wondered how the producers and station managers for these shows can sleep at night, and why, apparently, they don't ever say to the talkers "you know, the stuff you said today is repulsive."

So, the talkers keep pushing the bounds of decency, and every once in a while, one is deemed to have crossed the line. Most of them cross the line all the time, yet they continue to do so without consequence.

I also have to wonder if Imus is a sacrificial lamb because he has been critical of this administration and the war in Iraq.

You write in the beginning of the book, "Everything that's called cheating is not cheating" and "all cheating is not morally objectionable." I'm wondering, how do we define cheating, and do we just define it as what the other team does?>/i>

Okay, I hate to be the grammar police, but I think what he probably meant in the book was "not everything that's called cheating is cheating" and "not all cheating is morally objectionable."

Because some things that are called cheating really is cheating, and some cheating is morally objectionable.

Bush and co. keep talking about a "pre September 11, 2001 mindset", but that's not what changed the world. What changed the world was the President being warned of the threat on August 6, 2001 and doing nothing about it.

Maybe Democrats need to be talking about Bush's August 5 mindset, and the fact that his August 6 mindset was exactly the same.

I agreee with the other letter writers who say that Cowherd's unlistenable. Unfortunately, here in Portland if you listen to the sports station you also have promos for his show to avoid.

I don't understand why people would listen to someone whose persona is "I'm a bigger doofus than you are."

Jim Rome is often unlistenable, too, but at least he'll have the occasional good interview, and he was spot-on about the Pat Tillman a couple of weeks ago.

He probably needs to wash his hair in there somewhere.

It's long overdue for the Republicans to relinquish the elephant as their symbol. It's said that elephants never forget, yet Republicans seem to never be able to remember.

I don't know of an animal that is the epitome of forgetfullness, so, unless such an animal can be found, I suggest the Grand Not As Old As The Other Major Party change their symbol to Huh?

Let's hope it's a Widmer, Red Hook, Amnesia (is Amnesia Brewing a great name, or what!?), or one of the other great microbrews available in the Northwest, and not a bland corporate brew.

I'm sick and tired of people throwing around the man-hating feminist crap.

I've known quite a few feminists. I've also known a few man-hating women. It's been my experience that there's no overlap between the two. The feminists all seem to have healthy attitudes towards men.

If anything, I've found that feminists don't have the same expectations of men fitting into stereotypical roles. Funny that, it seems that seeing women as people leads to seeing men as people.