Logicat, yes, I am a fundementalist when it comes to free speech. There is nothing wrong with an ideological confrontation--it's how intellectual progress gets made--and there's no way to have an honest debate without letting people speak freely whatever they think.

If you put out the proposition "Islam is good", you have to allow that proposition to be debated. I believe Islam is a false religion. (If I didn't believe that, I'd be a Moslem.) Free speech means I have the right to say that and explain why. If that's blasphemous, so be it.

Patricia, I, for one, learned about the glories of early Islamic civilization back in 9th grade. The point is that Islam made such a great contribution because its thinkers weren't being repressed by religious dogma.

And I wish people would quit referring to opposition to Islam as "racist". A lot of it is hateful, ignotant and bigoted, but Islam is a religion, not a race. You can find a Muslim of any color you want. Racism isn't the only evil under the sun and we'd do better calling things by their proper names.

Alara, I don't want to jump on you since you've contributed two of the most thoughtful letters here, but aren't you concerned that your commodities--from porn movies to a head of lettuce--are based on people working miserable jobs that you wouldn't wish on a friend, let alone your child? I'm not saying we all have to renounce material culture, but a little guilt can be a good thing--if it makes you aware and willing to look for ways to improve life for the people we depend on to provide for us.

Adam, I see what you mean about "most rights are muddled." The people at McCormick who conducted this poll think that there are five rights guaranteed in the 1st Amendment and I count four. (I read the right to assembe and petition the government as one right and they read it as two.)

But rights are always in conflict with someone else's rights and people ought to have a clearer idea of what's guarranteed and what isn't. When 17% of Americans think that the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to drive a car, we've got a serious education problem. Not to mention the 21% who think it protects the right to own pets. Maybe they're confusing it with the right to arm bears?

This country really might not be able to survive another Republican president. I have more respect for McCain than for any other Republican in high office (and nearly every Democrat) but at this point, I'd vote against a reincarnated Abe Lincoln. Four more years of putting America into hock to the Chinese, putting right-wing fanatics on the Supreme Court and putting the cops into your bedroom? Sorry, John.

BTW, no one is mentioning that McCain will be 72 in 2006. Maybe he'll decide he's not up to four years of presidenting?

Maybe he just wants to catch up with an old friend.

As the LW admitted, the guy had other options--and found them. You don't have to say yes to someone asking a favor just because you're first on their speed-dial.

It's not like this was a matter of life and death--this was a matter of his comfort and convenience versus hers. To hold a grudge against someone because they don't do you a favor is the mark of an emotional manipulator.

(Although, if the friend had called back in a few hours and said "hey, look, I have no one else to call, and it's getting down below fifty in here--can I crash on your couch?" well, then, it's become an emergency and you should have him over. But at the point when he asked, it sounded like he just wanted a warm place to watch TV. )

First, I have to admit that the study's description of boy science pretty well had my 15-year old self pegged. I like to think that I was full of intellectual curiosity at that age but truth is, I was a lot more interested in trying to make gunpowder with a Gilbert chemistry set than in keeping myself healthy.

That's beside the point, though. There's a reason they call fields of study "disciplines". School is for learning about things that you didn't know you might be interested in, or might never be interested in but might need to know someday. If they make education gender-specific, everyone will have gaping holes in their knowledge. (Besides, in a gender-specific English class, I probably never would have read Emily Bronte, and she kicks Hemingway's butt.)

you weren't talking about a sworn deposition before--you were talking about tape recordings of 911 calls and written statements made to police officers. One big difference there is that you can't cross-examine a 911 call or a written statement. And are you saying that cops and DA's have never encouraged a witness to say the things that will help the prosecution's case?

The two reasons usually given for the confrontation rule are first that it's important for the jury to be able to see and hear a witness first hand to judge if they're telling the truth. The second, as I explained above, is that you need cross-examination to bring out the whole truth.

Do you disagree with either of these reasons?

The LW says that she has used alcohol and marijuana to excess in the past. She also says that she's cut way back and now has an occasional glass of wine at dinner and sometimes gets high. Big deal. Sounds to me like she's turned into a responsible drinker and, if there is such a thing, a responsible pothead. WHY is anyone saying she has a problem? Because she hasn't gone through recovery in the approved manner? Because they believe every drinker/drugger is an addict ipso facto? I don't understand.