While I appreciate Richards's concern for the limitations of a "one-size-fits-all" approach to dating, I was distrubed by the uncritical inclusion of the sentence: "critics charge that these programs, which were created using research with middle-class couples, aren't easily translatable to lower-income populations, who may be dealing with substance abuse or domestic violence problems."

Would that be because middle-class populations don't have substance abuse or domestic violence problems? Clearly this isn't the case.

Domestic violence shelters are full of women who left nice, solid middle class husbands who beat the shit out of them after they've put down their briefcases.

Those residential addiction clinics in Minnesota (why are they always in Minnesota?) aren't full because welfare recipients are shelling out thousands of dollars to dry out and sober up.

One size doesn't fit all because we're all individuals, not because we need class-based approaches to human relationships based on false assumptions (or more precisely normative projections) of class difference. To quote the maligned Depeche Mode: 'people are people.'

Here's a different question which is perhaps less emotionally charged:

If the pro-life side actually believes that a fetus is a life the same as a living child, then why has the SD lawstipulated only a five year prison sentence for doctors who perform abortions and nothing for the mother or other accomplices (like who ever drove her to the clinic)?

Does the pre-meditated "murder" of a "child" warrant only a five year sentence?

If a mother and father hired a hitman to smother their week old baby, would the only criminal sanction be a five year jail sentence for the hitman and nothing for the parents?

Thank God Oh was the manager or the Japanese team might not have taken the field for the bottom of the 8th.

That call was so bad, I began rooting for Japan. I only came around when it was A-rod up in a clutch situation because I can't stand all those A-rod haters having something to hoot about if he didn't deliver.

On a related note, it just dawned on me that I feel about A-rod the same way I feel about Hillary Clinton: I don't really feel that strongly one way or the other, but I certainly enjoy how much they upset people I dislike.

Of course we are. Although it would be nice if salon.com might turn its back on the incessant reporting of the race in terms of political gamesmanship and instead spent the next 20 months analyzing the candidates' records and platforms.

One reader accused Clinton of being an Eisenhower Republican. I, for one, would be fascinated by an article which actually set out to get beyond the bloviators' reckless use of 'left' and 'right' and read some analysis. Is Clinton to the left of Eisenhower or not? What does it mean that Dean, who was tarred as the darling of the left, actually held very few positions that were traditionally ''lefty" unless you count universal health care, in which case you have to call Margaret Thatcher a lefty too. And I would not do that to her face.

Jay Rosen, a NYU journalism professor, runs an interesting blog called Press Think which is more insider-journalism-wonky than I really need on a daily basis, but he has done a tremendous and enlightening job of analysing why and how the media is sucked into the horse race mentality.

So, c'mon salon.com, stand up and lead the way with journalismm dedicated to the civic function of letting us know about the candidates' ideas and not just their chances.

"I deserve to see the Yankees not win their division at least once before my grandchildren swindle me out of my pension."

NO. YOU. DON'T.

(Sorry I think messed up trying to get fancy with html tags).

Anyone who has seen Paul Greengrass's amazingly evocative and sensitive earlier films, Bloody Sunday and Omagh (the latter of which I believe he only produced and wrote, but did not direct), is probably confident that this film will not be sensationalist. It will not be a flag-waving Bruckheimer-esque popcorn movie.

I suspect that it will be infinitely more about how individuals are caught up -- tragically -- in events much larger than themselves and how frequently ordinary people find wells of extraordinary courage in desperate times. I'd bet money it will be more "Hotel Rwanda" and less "Executive Decision".

The Omagh bombing -- which was an incredibly horrifc and senseless slaughter which occurred shortly after everyone thought peace had finally been achieved -- was in 1998 and the movie was released in 2004. It is tough to take, but also remarkably insightful.

Finally, maybe I am reading too much into this, but the Video Dog blurb almost seemed to be setting the scene to spin this as somehow wrong because it would play to Bush's supposed strength and obvious game plan of "all 9/11, all the time." This would seem to be a bit kneejerk, especially without seeing the movie.

Rove/Bush have worked hard to make 9/11 be about Bush as War Leader. Perhaps a movie which shows truly heroic people sacrificing themselves for others will remind people what unselfish and decisive action is and what our chickenhawk-in-chief did after he finally finished reading "My Pet Goat".

While there is a certain satisfaction in being in the "we told you so" camp, I would much prefer if these born again critics of the war -- Newbold, Eaton, Powell -- had maybe came forward with all of this before the last election.

If Newbold was so upset about this, maybe he should have been stumping for Kerry or Clark rather than keeping mum until the chicken hawks had been granted another four years in charge of the hen house.