Someone made a good point earlier that none of the Naderites have yet to address: Where has Ralph been for the past 4/8 years?

Gore went out and did something important. What has Ralph been doing? Anything better than the far-left lecture circuit? Even that? Does anyone know? I'd be curious. If he's so intent on forming a viable 3rd party, what has he been doing? Why do we only hear about him every 4 years, when it's time to pull out that old trope about how GOP and Dems are "all the same"?

Can any of you honestly, with a straight face, say that the country would be in the same place (ie shithole) right now if we had President Gore?

Ouch...that was my heart...aching...

I said exactly the same thing the other night (just with less eloquence) after seeing There Will be Blood. DDL's characters in There Will Be Blood and in Gangs of New York were scene-chewing caricatures. They were parodies of themselves! Sure, Plainview was deeper than Bill the Butcher, but he was in *nearly every scene* here (think about it - can you count the ones without him on more than one hand?).

Sure, it was a fine performance, but not his finest. Those who are giving her hell need to step back from your awe of DDL's greatness (which I am generally a fan of myself) and reassess a little.

However, I liked the movie more than Ms. Zacharek did. It had a lot to recommend itself. Except for the end, which was bewilderingly sucky. What the hell happened there anyway? Did they cut out 20 minutes of movie?

Those who argue that the women shouldn't have expected safety by going to a war zone should consider the flip side: Do the (male) contractors over there have the ability to commit crimes with impunity? Should they? Because if the argument is that this is a "war zone," that they'll do whatever they want and we're not going to try to bring them to justice in some way...well, listen to yourselves...it explains a lot of the problems over there right now...

How about this - if a male contractor was gang-raped and sodomized by 5 of his fellow male contractors, is that what he signed up for? If he was assaulted because they didn't like him, is that what he signed up for?

Furthermore, if anyone joins the armed forces and is raped/assaulted by a fellow soldier in a war zone, is that what they signed up for?

C'mon. The line between "justifiable war" and "war crime" is already thin enough. You'd think you could agree that those fighting on the same side have a certain duty not to harm each other.

The funny thing about Bush v. Gore is that the Supreme Court said specifically that the case couldn't be used as precedential value anywhere else.

For the people that only see overreaction here, it might make for sense to think of it as the straw breaking the camel's back. Check out the "Goodbye to all that 2" article. I mean, Clinton gets busted for tearing up twice while Romney cries routinely and no one says boo. She's called "ambitious" while Obama has "fire in the belly." The whole campaign season has been subtle gender digs, none of which by itself is enough to make a fuss.

But the double-standard here is so outrageous that it must be pointed out. The comment is not shocking, the double-standard is.

Wow. I've only read the starred letters. But you people are crazy. Running yourself into severe credit card debt for an animal? For god's sake, donate to charity, pay down your mortgage, take a beloved (human) family member on vacation. But get over your pet (and yourself, for that matter). Animals just do not have the same lifespan as humans. You will outlive your pet, and that might suck, but c'mon. There are too many HUMANS suffering in this world, let the pet go.

My little brother had a hamster once that had cancer. My parents agreed to pay up to $100 for treatment, and after that it was on him (he was 10). They even offered him *hamster chemo* if it came back.

Vets today seem so enthralled with being able to do innovative pet procedures, without really thinking about pet quality of life. C'mon people, get over it.

who don't know our bible, anyone care to explain the references?

You missed BC. But you're still up there :).

first, no one has a first amendment on salon or any other private website. the government's the only one that can't silence you (gotta LOVE it when people don't know what they're talking about).

second, i thought the discussion started with the point that an "ordinary citizen" couldn't get away with something like this. sandy berger is no ordinary citizen. a better point is that, no regular person who was held in contempt wouldn't get away with not going to jail...and that's probably true. those in power shouldn't get to abuse it in so many ways, but apparently both sides do...

how is a 40-year-old exception to the Clean Air Act a fad? CA has been more committed to emissions than the rest of the country for decades (again, see exception added in 1966, when CA already had standards and that fox-guarding-the-henhouse EPA was *formed*).

elephantman, how is that a fad? oh wait...someone trying to make actual *progress* on environmental problems? maybe if we call it a "fad" we can pretend it doesn't have to happen...