The quote repeated by Anonymous 2 is a favorite around our house. Even if I hadn't read another word by Rapaille, I'd still think he was brilliant for that one hilarious observation.

King,

So, I realize that the NHL playoffs are not as exciting as the NBA to most of the country, but is long analysis of the possible implications of Portland's NBA draft prospects really a better subject than the really exciting, fast-paced games that pro hockey has delivered in the last week?

tothdj,

The Boston Globe did an indepth analysis of the signing statements at issue to. They do give pause. Check out a few examples (long link name here):

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

I would much rather have this soldier (and others) release tension, anger, and disconnection through song than, say, indiscriminately killing real-live innocent Iraqis.

Sorry, brightstar, you don't get to use the "I've heard it a bunch of places, it must be true ... but don't ask me for citations" argument. That's just bogus. Either find the data to support your argument or be quiet. How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously?

And on a completely anecdotal level, my husband is a stay at home dad and is a far better parent than I will ever be -- patient, playful, and endlessly creative. Here is one mom who is happy that feminism has helped to relax the rigid gender sterotypes that once limited the "appropriate" roles for both women AND men.

Just to clarify, Hilary Clinton has said she does not support a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. She did sign on as co-sponsor to an oddly-worded bill that would criminalize flag burning under some circumstances. The primary sponsor of the legislation is a Republican Senator who also opposes the amendment. Opposing the amendment while supporting the other bill may be a difference without distinction to most of us, but technically she's not on board with the amendment.

What is the deal with him? He's not even running for re-election! He was willing to risk putting this amendment on state ballots as Republican red meat for years to come on what principle?

It seems to me that what is (mostly) missing from the discussion of "whether Al Queda should be treated like a nation state" is the question of who gets to decide WHO is actually a member of Al Queda. We have enough information about the detainees at Guantanamo to know that some of them were not actually involved in a terrorist group. I wish the argument was more about the basic right of individuals to know the charges against them and to be able to defend themselves against these charges than about how we categorize terrorists apropos our laws and the Geneva Convention.

We regular readers of Salon might think that the fight is between Republicans and Democrats, but it seems pretty clear that when it comes to presidental elections, the vast majority of folks use this principle: "I vote for the person, not the party."

Clinton and Gore are (unfortunately) damaged goods -- they may be redeemable, but it won't be easy. A new, admirable leader who runs on a platform of better government and reform of a corrupt and incompetent system is what people want. McCain and Guiliani appear to fill this bill. Remember that people voted for "honest leadership" when Bush "won" in 2000, and I'll bet that will be what propels whoever wins in 2008.

As is often the case, Jon has what seems to be the perfect solution. On the Daily Show the other night, he invited Kim Jong-Il to Hollywood. Isn't it clear that this is basically what the guy wants? I guess I'm naive, but I don't understand why we don't use a little easy ego-stroking on Jong-Il, since he seems like he could be manipulated by such attention. Maybe some smarter Salon readers could enlighten me.

Thank you, Phillip Robertson, for risking your life to bring us a remarkable series of stories from this hellish place. I am ashamed of my complicity, as an American taxpayer, in the fear, death, and destruction that our leaders' actions have wrought.

I finally got around to renting "Farenheit 911" this past weekend (I know, I know, and I am a premium subscriber, too). I was moved by the scenes shot in Bagdad in the weeks before the invasion. I know they werew a snapshot that downplayed the oppressiveness of the Hussein regime, but to contrast the daily lives of Bagdadis then to what we read here is gut-wrenching.

At the risk of sounding freaky to some readers, I just want to share one of my reasons for having my son without using anesthesia -- because I felt like it would connect me with the experience of billions of other women, including those long dead. My grandmother had her children without drugs, at home, because that was her only real option. She survived it (9 times). As did her mother, and thousands of our ancestors before her. I perhaps would have used drugs if the pain was unbearable, but in my experience, it wasn't. And I did feel empowered. There is so much my grandmother could do that I can't -- raise and butcher chickens, bake bread from scratch, sew clothing, raise 9 kids(!). I don't know, in some way, I guess I wanted to know that I had some of her strength. I don't think it's that different from someone who trains to run a marathon or an Ironman.