RichEmery led me to an interesting thought...the NRA folks want to allow guns on campus, but not alcohol or drugs. All three seem to be similar in that, they have useful purposes and destructive purposes. But the latter two are demonized, we have a whole War on Drugs because this pernicious substance must be irradicated. Replace "drugs" with "guns" and a whole different segemenet of the population starts screaming.

So maybe the 2nd Amendment gives us the right bear arms, and not the right to use mood altering substances. But we do have the right to persue happiness or something, right? Is it really a quesion of the Constitution (oh yeah, that document that NRA Republican types have been so happy to eviserate during this administration...but I guess the 1st Amendment is less important...) or just that some people want their vices (heh heh, shooting stuff in the woods, heh heh) but don't want other people to have theirs?

I smell hypocrisy.

I can understand both the pros and cons of this. It seems to me a little compromise is in order - name-call the behavior, not the person.

I, for one, would have been shocked if my parents had called me "stupid" or "jerk"...however...

I see nothing wrong with something along the lines of "stop acting like an idiot" or "quit behaving like a moron." It reinforces the notion that your parents don't actually think you *are* those things, while simultaneously pointing out that you don't like it when they display those traits.

If Alec had put that little spin on his voicemail, he'd probably be in a little less trouble...

Glenn Greenwald's articles get dozens, sometimes hundres, of letters. I know they aren't all good, but there must be some gems amongst them. Who has time to read all 200 to find them? Isn't anyone (presumably the editors in "editor's choice") vetting them at all? Help us get to them! (after all, that's what the starring system is for, right?).

Where to start? Speechless.

I understand why our country is in the place it is, why the War on Drugs continues, and why George W. Bush is still in office.

Because there are still so many people out there who believe that being "tough on crime" is paramount, without considering that it doesn't really work and that there are other options. Because they believe that the US model of locking up everyone who makes a dumb mistake, especially if they're a minority, is a great idea (you know, don't deal with them, educate them, give them a job or anything, just put them away so we don't have to look at them). Because they've totally bought into the "airplanes are sacred spaces" and that the security theater that inconveniences us all and steals our stuff in greater than 3 oz quantities is necessary and effective. Because the think it's ok for the government to spy on people to find the terrorists, because if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide. Because they agree with Bush, who believes the Geneva Conventions are "antiquated," without considering the severity of the punishment.

Don't you people have any sense of proportionality? The writer who said he should have gone to the drunk tank for a night and been let go with a fine was right. Yeah, sure, slap the guy on the wrist for being an asshole on a plane. To say this guy deserved what he got is one of the more cruel statements I've read this year. Next time you run a red light, or get pulled over for speeding, or your kid gets picked up for shoplifting..you know, something stupid, something you should have known better than to do, think about it. Think about how great it is that you're probably not going to get prison-raped for your dumb mistake.

What I'm sensing is a lashing out against the people in Kansas who are perceived to have put our Dear Leader into office twice in a row. Kansas went overwhelmingly for Bush both times, no? (Not sure, but I think that's the case). That those people made their beds and should now lie in it, as opposed to the ones in New Orleans who didn't vote for Bush and were perceived as being "punished" for it.

I don't know how else to say it. It's one thing to give someone crap for opting out (which is really another topic, if you ask me), but it's another to take someone who is retiring because their body doesn't work anymore and blame them for not coming to work every day. From what I read, it almost sounds like Kim should be on disability...

It first indicates a real ignorance of women's bodies in certain sports (as another writer pointed out). There are a few that let you go far into your twenties (rowing, long-distance running, and for some people, swimming, come to mind). Others, your career is over before college (gymnastics, for some, tennis). Just look at the top women - they're all young! It's not 'cuz the old ones leave the sport, it's because they're as good in comparison to the whippersnappers.

Also, I don't remember this many people griping when Pete Sampras quit to go hang with his model wife, while his counterpart Andre Agassi kept playing. Don't we make football players with multiple concussions quit? Or what about Monica Seles - would anyone have been blamed her for not coming back after she was stabbed? And was anyone surprised she just wasn't as good when she did?

Really, this whole conflating "I'm tired of making my body do this" with women killing their sport by being "selfish" and "opting out" is just too ridiculous...