Am I the only one here who agrees with Thompson's response? He's absolutely right--answering that question intelligently would be almost impossible. Do you really want to hear him spout the usual nonsense: "Diane, I would have our special forces teams scouring the tribal regions and blah blah blah."

It's frustrating to see Americans on the one hand complaining that our presidential election process seems geared only toward finding out if candidate X has been prepped adequately to glibly answer questions, and on the other, lambasting candidates when they don't have glib responses to questions. And this is a stupid question. Aside from allocating more or less money/manpower to the hunt for bin Laden, how much do you really think the president has to do with catching him? It's operational level stuff.

(For the record, no, I'm not a Republican, and I don't like Thompson. But picking on him for answering that question the way he did is just juvenile and counterproductive.)

Major news outlets like Time are supposed to act in the public interest. That may be a naive expectation, but the majority of Americans believe it, in large part because the news media represents itself in that light. That's the reason it's worthwhile for GG to address stories like this one. Doubly so if, given their public image, news organizations' true motivations really are as plainly, knowingly mercenary as you say. The fact of the matter is, most of Time's readers don't assume the magazine is slanted. They, and most Americans, don't think about news in terms of advertising dollars and boards of directors of parent companies. Again, that may make them naive and easy to manipulate, but wouldn't you say that's a topic worth covering?

I'm not a lawyer, but as someone conversant in the English language, I'm confident that the provision you cited (subsection (b)) doesn't support Klein's point (that the bill "would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target's calls to be approved by the FISA court"). Subsection (b)'s provisions are "notwithstanding any other provision of this Act other than subsection (a)" [emphasis mine]. That means that subsection (b) is superceded by subsection (a).

Let's take a look at subsection (a):

"Sec. 105A. (a) Foreign to Foreign Communications- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a court order is not required for the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not United States persons and are not located within the United States for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the United States or the surveillance device is located within the United States."

Note that subsection (a) is "notwithstanding any other provision of this Act." In other words, its provisions supercede any other language in the bill. Note too that subsection (a) concerns itself with "foreign to foreign communications." In other words, tapping communications between non-citizens outside the United States requires no warrant.

Just read the language carefully, buddy. You can do it! If you don't know the meaning of big words like notwithstanding, here's a helpful link: www.merriam-webster.com. It's free!

Well, it would have to be that subsection (b) deals with situations not addressed by subsection (a). Subsection (a) is concerned with "foreign to foreign communications" (in other words, calls where both participants are outside the United States). Hmm... what kinds of situations might not be covered by that language? (Cue Jeopardy music...)

Listen: there are a lot of terrific rape jokes out there. Let's not malign the entire rape joke industry because of one misfire. I come from a long line of rape jokers. I was the first in my family to go to college, but I still came back to work in the rape joke mill when I graduated. And I'm proud to report that our facility has had zero rapes in 2007, a first in its entire history of operations. Thank you, and God bless America.

1) Monty Python's Life of Brian:

Brian: [asking his mother about the Roman Legionnaire who fathered him] You mean he raped you?!

Brian's Mother: Well, only at first...

2) National Lampoon's Animal House:

Where-are-they-now caption over the villainous Greg Marmalard's face at the end of the movie: “Greg Marmalard ‘63, Nixon White House Aide [long pause] Raped in Prison ‘74."

3) Blazing Saddles

Wishing to deal a death blow to the town of Rock Ridge, the evil Hedley Lamarr (played by Harvey Korman) is conducting interviews with criminals who want to join his gang.

Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?

Applicant: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.

Hedley Lamarr: You said rape twice. Why?

Applicant: I like rape.

Hedley Lamarr [to his lackeys]: Ha ha ha. He'll do.

So there you have it. Monty Python, Mel Brooks, and John Landis/Harold Ramis all say rape is fair game.

Whether or not you think these decades-old jokes are funny is beside the point. For all we know, you're a humorless prig. The question raised by this column was, is the subject off-limits? And personally, I find that question offensive. Although, for all you know, I'm one of the many wingnut trolls who haunt Salon's message boards.

Us? Are you using the royal we again? Oh, I get it, you're speaking for the community in response to a comment I directed at you. That's a really neat trick. Now that I've dispensed with the quid pro quo sarcasm, let me ask you: do you really think this skit is "destructive?" Destructive?! This is a madcap skit. People are beaten up and run over for little or no reason. Is that joke destructive towards victims of hit-and-run drivers? And does their offense give them moral authority over the entire topic?

I agree that the skit isn't funny, but that's mainly a function of its execution, not its subject matter. To ask what's off-limits in comedy is to not understand the whole damned genre. Comedy explores uncomfortable subjects. That's what makes it, like, funny.