Hagee is the head of an evangelical Christian organization yet he advocates loudly for a US-led military strike on Iran? One might think that Christianity and airstrikes would be incompatible with one another, particularly within an ideological organization. Obviously this is not the case here.

CUFI expects both presidential candidates to attend their conference this summer. Will John McCain cower before King Hagee, kneel and kiss his ring? Will a McCain Whitehouse consult with CUFI and AIPAC on foreign policy?

In addition to its efforts on Capitol Hill, CUFI has also held meetings with senior officials in the Bush administration, such as one in 2006 with Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams that focused in part on Iran, and one this past fall, around the Annapolis peace conference, with National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley.

From where do Hagge and CUFI derive the power that affords them this sort of access to policymakers in the Whitehouse

I unconsciously assigned a gender to the LW and found it jarring when one of the comments here referred to LW as the other gender. I reread the letter and realized that it was gender neutral.

Does everyone automatically assign a gender without thinking when it isn't obvious in the letter?

What assumptions did you make re: this LW?

I see that the first comment here by Francesca stole my fire!

I found myself withdrawn into a shell that was paralyzing. I cringed at work tasks, particularly communicating with customers or colleagues. Aside from my wife and kid, I didn't even really want to interact with anybody. A friendly phone call from my folks was unbearable for me.

I was seeing my doctor regularly at the time as I was recovering from a serious illness. We discussed this withdrawal and he diagnosed depression. Depression?

I was never SAD. I didn't feel "depressed." I wasn't weepy or emotional. I was just sort of dead to the world.

Well, lo and behold, apparently "depression" needn't manifest itself as SADNESS. Some sufferers unconsciously build barriers between themselves and the rest of the world. What felt to me like apathy, boredom, anxiety and perhaps fear was, apparently "depression."

I'm sure everyone can guess what came next...

Yes - the prescription for Prozac and it's literally LIFE-CHANGING impact on me - something I starting feeling just two weeks after the first dose.

Once the Prozac had taken hold, I remembered that THIS IS HOW I USED TO FEEL and/or THIS IS HOW I'M SUPPOSED TO FEEL. It was a spectacular and very positive change.

The LW's story reminded me of myself pre-Prozac.

I downloaded this one and just finished watching it with my wife and teenage daughter. My wife and I thought it was quite good. I was especially pleased with the strange and beautiful soundtrack. I was surprised that our daughter didn't like it. She was very focused on the dialog, some of which was sub par. I really felt for Alex and I felt like begging him to come clean with his folks or with the police. One assumes that he escapes being associated with the accident, but his failure to come clean is going to haunt him for the rest of his life.

Beautiful soundtrack, beautiful photography. Some sequences were a tad tedious, but overall the film was pleasing and I'm glad to have seen it.

prytania:

You said:

The question is whether Wikipedia, like the user reviews at Amazaon et al., has turned into an engine for self-publishing--one without the economic gateway of the vanity presses of old.

That is certainly *a* question, but it isn't *the* question. I doubt that even the most rabid "Deletionists" would cite vanity/self-promotion as the primary reason for deleting articles. While vanity and self-promoting articles do exist, most articles are written in good faith.

If somebody has taken the time to write "Tidal pools along the Jones River" because it interests them and they wish to share it, once such an article exists, I think the decision as to whether or not it should be deleted should not be taken likely.

edgarde:

Once an article has been written, I think, perhaps, that a different standard should apply. There are two very different situations at hand:

1. Should somebody create an article about non-notabile [GARAGE BAND X] for the Wikipedia?

2. Somebody has written a structurally perfect article about non-notable [GARAGE BAND X]. Should it be deleted?

Just as much work and care can go into an article about something non-notable as with a notable subject. You've no doubt written any number of articles about notable subjects and feel some measure of pride, ownership and accomplishment about them. You can well imagine how the author on an article on a non-notable topic feels about his article. It should be noted as well that in order for somebody to write a given article they, at least, are likely to legitimately think it is notable.

I've watched the new article queue and am aware of the dozens of genuine crap or machine-created articles that enter the pipeline. I remember once seeing somebody systematically add a one sentence article about each and every street in their town - "Winter Street is in Fairview." "South Street is in Fairview." Nobody would ever argue that there is a need to keep the Wikipedia free of this sort of thing.

If the same person, however, sat down and wrote an eloquent, interesting and well-cited article about Main Street in Fairview and discussed its history and the architecture of the houses and how things changed once the trolley tracks were torn up and who once lived there, what is the harm in allowing it to remain there? Add a conscientious editor who demonstrably cares about the article and wants to see it remain and a "hostile deletion" by self-appointed notability police seems almost cruel.