One recent incident in particular serves to show us the arrogance and insularity that is plaguing our journalists. Recently, the Washington Post "broke" the Walter Reed story, despite the fact that Salon itself had broken the story much earlier. When asked about this, Post reporter Dana Priest said she hadn't read the Salon reports. This is amazing. Surely, when researching their story, she and her co-writer would have done secondary research. Nexis, and even Google would have turned it up. Are they lying? Or don't they believe anyone else would have written about it and they didn't bother with secondary research? (more on this at Editor & Publisher, http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003552378)

Likewise, what do American journalists think whey they read stories written on the same subjects by their counterparts in other countries? They couldn't help but notice the disparity in style and substance. Do they care that someone at, say, The Independent (www.independent.co.uk) may be contradicting them? Do they even bother to find out why?

This problem isn't confined to the period between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. It continues today, and began, to some extent, much earlier. We need to reverse this sickness before we can hope to change anything for the better.

Safety is important, to be sure. However, I oppose GM crops for the same reason I oppose many of the technologies of the "Green Revolution."

This Revolution has been hailed as the answer to our ever increasing food needs. But it has only served to concentrate agricultural power and wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

Agriculture serves two purposes: It feeds us, and it provides the foundation of most economic systems. By cutting out the vast majority of small-holders from the agricultural picture, the "Green Revolution" has destroyed this economic underpinning, rendering billions destitute and dependent.

Like most Libertarians, Mr. Bailey is blind to the dangers of more and more economic and political power accruing to vast, unaccountable corporations. He'd rather attack those vastly powerful and influential environmentalists, a much easier target.

"(5) Although it is a heated competition, I think the single dumbest and most intellectually dishonest rhetorical tactic -- wielded most prominently by Drudge but with plenty of followers doing the same -- is from those who cite cold weather conditions on a given day in order to impliedly discredit the worldwide consensus of climatologists and other scientists on global warming."

Amen. Global warming may well bring cooler weather to our friends in the UK due to possible disruption of thermohaline circulation. But then this is a tactic often used by these clowns. Argument by selective anecdote. The Surge is working because Baghdad had 11 hours without a bombing! We need to deport all illegal immigrants because one illegal immigrant killed someone while driving drunk (O'Reilly)! And of course our favorite, Global Warming is Bogus because we had a cold day in Buffalo! Of course, the counter-anecdotes are ignored: No validation for Global Warming if the Midwest swelters in drought; the Surge is still working even when the Iraqi Parliament gets bombed; O'Reilly is not calling for the immediate deportation of all young suburban white males, a demographic amply implicated in drunk driving fatalities.

Yes, you're right. It's beyond parody. I recall an interview Tom Tomorrow gave on Air America in which he recalled that he had a cartoon of Cheney hunting people and decided to table it because it went too far—just before Cheney shot Harry Whittington in the face.

I have played soccer all my life. Currently I am a soccer referee at the high school level. I didn't quite agree with the tone of the article, so allow me to present my perspective.

The rule is simple. Headgear must be of approved types. The types are listed in the Laws of the Game. If a player is wearing something not approved, he/she does not play until it is removed.

Far from being discriminatory, the rules are egalitarian: they apply to everyone equally. No one is special. This is as it should be in soccer, the most multicultural, inclusive game on the planet. It isn't my job as referee to ask players impertinent questions about their religion, ethnic background, national origin, sexual orientation, or any other personal matter that might affect their interpretations of the rules; I just apply the rules equally and impartially as written in the rule book.

As a player, when you step out onto the field you enter the community of all those who love this game, and you observe and respect its rules.

"A consumer decision doesn't have to be based on verifiable science. [...] In a free society, it is hard to see how consumers could be denied the right to make that decision."

Amen! Bravo! Absolutely right. This is why the WTO must go. It has no place in a free world. And shame on us for talking about spreading "freedom and democracy" and then berating the Greeks for freely and democratically making a decision which is in their interest rather than in Monsanto's interest.

What did the Terrorists and the dastardly Syrians do: sneak into the huge underground bunkers, put the WMDs in their pockets, and slip out the back?

The entire scheme seems physically impossible and can't even pass the laugh test.