In light of what broadcast news has become -- ten minutes of disasters and scandals, punctuated by republican/corporate spin, and followed by twenty minutes of ads and health news for seniors -- Katie seemed like a breath of fresh air. Lara Logan's intrepid reporting, this time from Afghanistan, is as good as it gets; and the whole format seems aimed at a new generation that, while still old enough to be in front of a TV in the early evening (late afternoon out West), is young enough to be familiar with the internets.

The real discovery is whatever on earth has gotten into MSGOP (that's hilarious!) and Keith Olbermann. It's like the Prague Spring of '68; and I just hope we don't wake up one day and learn that he, along with Stewart and Colbert, is doing his show from Club Gitmo. One right-wing dervish has already had a near-meltdown on 'Hardball', railing against the "liberal media" that refuses to report the Good News from Beyond the Green Zone; and, considering that the truth has a liberal bias, his faith-based ilk might finally have a point.

For what it's worth, I agree with your latest post, especially your criticism of the current system; there is nothing I can add. Thank you for your respectful exchange concerning (an article discussing a new movie regarding) an issue of great interest to us all. Peace Out.

The purpose of the ratings system, as I understand it, is to help parents make informed decisions concerning what their children see. If, as earlier respondents stated, the movie 'Whale Rider' was rated PG-13, then we must assume that many children under the age of 13 of 14 were prevented from seeing that wonderful and inspirational film. If that is not the case -- as you seem to claim -- then the current system should be abandoned at once, because clearly no parents are using it to make decisions for their children. Meanwhile, the American moviegoing public is being treated like children due to the current system, as when adults here were not permitted to see Kubrick's version of 'Eyes Wide Shut' as shown in the U.K. and Europe. Though you have seemed stangely keen on defending the current system from the beginning of this discussion, you didn't respond to that point.

I did Google "Ramzi Yousef", and confirmed (as I suspected) that he was tried, convicted, and, in 1998, sentenced (to forever and beyond) for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. I think the span of time between the crime and the punishment was even less for the Oklahoma City bombers. That was under the Clinton administration, despite the distractions of the Whitewater nonsense and the republican impeachment circus. Oh, and let's not forget that at roughly the same time a U.S.-led NATO force stopped genocide in the Balkans, at the cost of virtually zero American casualties.

Now please respond to my questions regarding, a) what, if anything, the republicans did about terrorism in the 90's, while they were otherwise busy impeaching a popular, successful, and duly-elected president over a blow job; b) what, if anything, the Bush-Cheney "adults" did about terrorism starting in January 2001; and, c) why five years after 9/11, catching the alleged mastermind and dismantling his terrorist organization is asserted by the so-called republicans to be irrelevant. Along the way, you might also tell us how many WMD's were in Iraq in 2003, and what happened to Saddam's "reconstituted nuclear weapon" alleged by Dick "Cakewalk" Cheney (Meet the Press, 03/16/2003).

If you can't answer any of those questions, then at least answer this: how can you -- especially as a Vietnam-era military veteran (as you've claimed) -- support the ongoing carnage taking place in Iraq -- in a war that wasn't supposed to happen, following an invasion over WMD's and a connection to 9/11 that (as Bush Jr. confessed earlier this week) didn't exist, for the purpose of carrying a mission that, insofar as it consists of the world's Christian superpower(s) imposing a legitimate government on the Muslims, is hopeless at best? I would think that someone like you should be in the forefront of opposing the misuse of the U.S. military.