I agree that Obama's reaction sealed it for me. Has he been perfect? Of course not. Glenn Greenwald has made that pretty clear. But he's done a lot, and he's done it both here and abroad. It would be wrong to underestimate what it means to many around the world to see the United States at least starting to act like a helpful global citizen again. As for me, I can disagree with some things Obama has or hasn't done, but overall I feel pleased and proud to have him as president. He is a fundamentally decent person who brings intelligence and humility to the large tasks he faces in trying to lead the way out of the mess Bush and Cheney et al. got us into. That's pretty darn noteworthy to me.

Use whatever word you want, the fact is she's a total babe.

And the other editorial, while seemingly well intentioned, is way, way off-base. The guy raped a child. He has to pay a price. And what gets me as much as anything is all the whining by the French government etc. about how unfair it is. Excuse me? It's unfair for a child rapist to receive some consequences? Mais non!

St Pete, maybe if you found a medical practice you trust (it can be done, particularly if you live in a university town with a good teaching hospital), you wouldn't feel the need to rely on corporate-owned media on issues like this.

Silenced, I wish you well. I also hope you will remember that there is no monolithic group called "parents" that all think or act alike. It makes sense to make alliances or a less all-or-nothing basis.

"The problem is not just that vaccinations can cause autism..."

This is an outrageous statement deriving from a point of view that is completely devoid of scientific support. Not only that--i.e., not only does it lack support--it has been debunked by multiple large studies, some of which were not supported by drug companies. Your tossing this statment out so blithely calls into question your judgment and/or integrity regarding medical matters, and it does a huge disservice to parents, children, and the general population. You should really look up some old news footage about, say, polio, or go to a pediatric unit and observe a tiny child suffering immensely from dangerous respiratory distress brought on by an illness that could have been prevented by a simple vaccination.

does have a liberal bias. So having a smarter right-winger in charge is better than having a dumber one, but neither of them really gets it in the overall picture.

My six-year-old son has it now, and he's had a high fever for seven straight days. He hasn't been hospitalized, but it has been a bear, to say the least. I can understand some reluctance regarding a new vaccine, but I don't understand the hubris in some of the posts here. This thing is nothing to take lightly.

Moore knows good and well what he's doing, and he's doing it on purpose to get people's attention who are so desensitized to certain entrenched realities that they don't see them any more, or if they do see them don't think about them, much less think they can do anything about them. It's a job that needs doing, and he does it well. Not sure, on the other hand, that movie reviewing really needs doing.

The female DA in this case has dropped all charges due to lack of evidence against Merriman. All indications at this point are that he is innocent, and it's not the first time such a thing has happened to an athlete. I think everyone on this board agrees that domestic abuse is horrible, and certainly any number of athletes have been guilty of it and should face proper consequences, but it's also a terrible thing when a man is falsely accused. How would you like to have your personal integrity and your standing in the community ripped up when you have done nothing wrong?

"Lascivious people are less credible? Did you just post that? WHAT!? And modest people are MORE credible, one would suppose, according to your 'logic'?"

Given that lascivious means given over to lust, and that the original poster also mentioned alcohol-related irresponsibility--both of which involve less than fully functioning judgment--then yes, someone who has been imbibing and acting lascivious would generally, and rightly, be viewed with more skepticism as a witness than would someone who was sober and behaving rationally at the time. Does this mean that the former is automatically lying or wrong, or that the latter is automatically truthful and right? No, but it does suggest that more skepticism be employed toward the former.

More generally, the original article by TCF was knee-jerk, and I hope that Merriman's vindication will serve as a corrective for her in future approaches to such stories.

"I was using Crayolas even before the 70's or 80's. And Never saw a 'flesh' colored crayon.... Perhaps Amy's 'remembering' something that has been planted in her mind."

Actually, she's remembering a crayon that was sold in a box. I was born in 1964 and remember it as well. And if you want independent confirmation, go to Wikipedia or google.

More generally, I'm not sure where the vitriol toward the writer of the article is coming from. She is simply trying to process the point of view offered in the book in a reasonable fashion. If she is, as some here have "accused" her of being, from a relatively privileged white background, so what? She was born to who she was born to, and she seems to be a thoughtful person trying understand some research about race relations? What's wrong with that. I found it to be a properly thoughtful article about an interesting bit of research.

May it be so.