as a constitutional matter - it seems to me a clear violation of the "cruel and unusual" provision. It appears that society, or more likely, pandering politicians, want to protect children. Fine, if that's indeed what these measures do, but I'm doubtful, and if in the process the sex offenders' rights are egregiously restricted, then that should concern all of us. We may say these scumbags should have no rights; they've lost that - okay, but let's be open and honest about it, and be aware of what that might mean about our own rights. A further consideration is the violence often inflicted upon certain types of sex offenders once they are imprisoned. Often being sent to jail is a death sentence, and while none of us may mourn some of these criminals, if what we want to do is kill them we should be more honest and not turn a conveniently blind eye.

a long period of time spent behind bars? Because you should be aware that in our current system, where sex offenders are housed with other criminals, life in prison is often very short, and judges are aware that they are passing a death sentence on sex offenders by sending them to prison. If you think death -usually within a year or so - is appropriate, then say so. If you have a way to make it truly a long time behind bars, and that's your preference, then say so, and suggest how that might realistically happen.

I hold dual citizenship, US/Korean by virtue of my wife's family having entered me in the family register. Korea went through a couple of classic tin-pot dictators in the 80s but has since elected(!) a man from the shunned south-western provinces, the city of Mokpo no less, who limped as a result of the torture he suffered under the military dictatorships. That man was followed by his protege, who has been working hard on north-south reconciliation, and who appointed as prime minister a woman who is a Quaker, follower of Hahm Sukhun (the great Korean philosopher and peace worker), and who also spent years in prison under the dictators. My adopted country is, ironically, now considerably more progressive than my country of birth. There will likely be a swing back to more conservative leadership in the next elections, but I would bet they'll still be to the left of the bushites. Who would've thought it 20 years ago?

Observing an election in Nicaragua? But, ummm, we need him to observe this one!

the incredible disparity hasn't resulted in revolution. In ordinary times and places violent overthrow would've happened long ago. Part of the reason may be the growth in gambling - it engenders a hope that you, too, can become filthy rich. Even winning the biggest lottery, though, wouldn't put you on the same planet with the major wealth on this planet. A couple of years ago Stan Cox wrote a very good article graphically describing just how huge that gap is. Take a look, please; it's truly horrifying.

http://www.alternet.org/story/16515/

remember who originated that phrase of "kick around anymore" and what happened to him - and us - subsequently .....

on the democratic side of the aisle, given his bush-acquiescent voting record.

is this guy's cultural isolation. He's making pronouncements about people and groups of people whom he clearly knows very little about and with whom he clearly has very little contact. My late mother-in-law, a Korean woman born 1913 who fought to get a college education in a family with three boys, used to proclaim almost as her mantra that "Ignorance is the most frightening thing."

and would like to add something Andrew might find of interest - the strong connection between propostion 13 and the persence of the Cerritos Auto Square. Andrew, I'll leave it to you to flesh that out if you're interested.

going with these cohorts of people that they track. The study subjects are all licensed medical professionals of one sort or another, and this group, you'll notice, is the nurses. A lot of the information gathered is by mailed questionnaires, and diseases are tracked through self-report and things like cancer registries and death certificates. The dietary information is obtained through a food frequency questionnaire designed by long-time Harvard researcher Walt Willett, and asks about how often the respondent ate/drank a huge variety of items on the average over the last X period of time - typically 6 months or a year. A lot of the questions around the conclusions the Channing Lab folks publish centers around two issues - the representativeness of their study groups, especially as time goes on and people drop out of the groups, leaving the more cooperative or health-interested people - and the validity of the Willett food frequency instrument in assessing diet. The Channing Lab people will defend both questions strongly, but there are opposing viewpoints in the mainstream.

I don't know the specifics of the current versions of the Willett questionnaire, but given that it covers the entire diet, it seems unlikely that they would get into varieties of red meat, ie organic, etc. I know the older versions with which I am familiar did not.

Finally, there's so much material in these studies that frequently even junior faculty like Dr. Cho will get to be first author on studies that turn up important findings, something that should be applauded. It does mean, however, that with all that material and testing being done, that the positive findings could've occurred by chance.