Over and over the author contends that reporters and editors at newspapers are objective and fair. Considering that journalism schools incorporate public relations into their curriculum, and that most employees in any corporate setting know who the piper is, I would like to see some better evidence for an assertion that reporters both strive to be and are trained to be objective.

My own personal opinion on the matter is that most newspapers are currently suffering rather predictable marketplace declines that are caused by the fact that they are mostly corporate toadies. Educated people have had enough B.S. I further suspect (without any real evidence) that this process started in response to a certain Republican President being brought down by a couple of Wash. Post reporters. Corporate America paid good money for Nixon and it just did not seem right that people on their payroll should be able to prevent them from maximizing their return on that investment.

Justice Scalia wrote a majority opinion in a privacy case (okay, it was a drug case with privacy issues) wherein he laid down the law on privacy: If access to a certain data type is reasonably available, then no one can expect any privacy regarding such data. In the case mentioned above, it dealt with peering into people's homes with infrared detection devices, but accessing genetic data could apply as well. Thus, the more people make their genetic profiles available to corporate interests, the less privacy the rest of us have with respect to our genetic makeup.

The author makes a good point about genetics being only a small part of who and what we become. A report was recently published showing that much of the increase in asthma over the past several decades is the result of epigenetic changes in utero as a result of exposure to car exhaust fumes. So, two children with identical genetic profiles would have vastly different risks of asthma depending on how much auto exhaust their mother breathed during gestation.

This little guy represents oh so many of us who worked tirelessly for Obama. In fairness, most of us knew going in that he is not a liberal, we were just counting on the fact that he is so damned smart that he will come around, eventually and in his own beautiful way.

Well, since everyone is taking this woman's story at face value and panning the spouse, I suppose someone should take the other side.

Since when is hanging clothes out to dry an extreme act? And complaining about the time it takes? Goodness me, I guess every five minutes is precious. I suspect something else is afoot. I will (perhaps unfairly) disregard the whiner's estimate of her relative work contributions to the household based on the fact that all of us who are honest know that we generally overvalue our own contributions and undervalue those of everyone else.

So, with that little caveat, I suspect that the whiner is finding out that living up to her environmental ideals is a lot harder than she imagined. Further, I think she is frustrated that hubby is not finding it as difficult as she is and she resents it. She seems to be looking for support for rationalizing a return to "normal" suburban living, but she doesn't want to lose the "environmentalist" label.

It is always so painful to learn that our personal stories of ourselves don't always jive with reality.

Or, maybe she is telling it like it is and she should DTMFA.

Oh boy. What a great idea. Let's take some of the worst technologies of the mid 20th century and subsidize them to try to ameliorate the negative consequences of our widespread application of 20th century technology. Free lunches all around.

I wonder if anyone would seriously consider building a fission reactor if they (and their offspring and their offspring ...) had to store the waste on their property forever instead of dumping into the commons.

Maybe the problem with our sex-related laws is that they are written by old sedentary people. Sedentary people have a much more difficult time achieving arousal and may be (unconsciously) angry at those who don't have their impotence/frigidity issues. I know that I surely won't ever touch a teenager's cell phone for fear of being accused of possessing kiddie porn.

I just have to take exception to, "It's the classic Western mentality toward the federal government: Give us all your money, and then leave us alone, and don't regulate us," California is a pretty far West; traditionally, for every $1.00 a Californian pays in Federal taxes the Golden State gets back less than $0.90. Furthermore, CA has a grandfathered in exception to the clean air act that allows it to continue to have more stringent regulations than the Feds.

I don't know what the term should be, but we need a term to describe the backwards states that happen to be in the West like Alaska, Idaho and Oregon without denigrating the civilized areas.

Sure, let's try to keep the bankrupt empire by instituting a draft. In the interests of fairness, how about we start with the wealthiest 5% of the population since they have received the most benefits from our wars. This has the added benefits of using the very people who are generally the most pro-war as cannon fodder.

I would love to see the trial if Bunning sues the NRSC. Inconsequential Theater of Irrelevant People

Didn't they make a movie about these zombie banks back in the '70s? Let's kill them already.

I just can't get over this hypothesis. I am watching more and more children of both (all?) genders living with nearly no input from either parent. Where are all of these super dads?