I think the point King danced around, but didn't explicitly say, is that the vast majority of these cliches are applied *after-the-fact* to explain something that has already happened.

For example, the Yankees play the Florida Marlins in the World Series. If the Yankees win, it's because of their experience; but if the Marlins win, it's because they're "hungry," "playing loose" and "have nothing to lose" while the Yankees are "jaded."

For every person that succeeds because of his intelligence, there are others who fail because they "overthink"; for every person that succeeds because he "had a game plan" there are others who fail because they "stuck to the game plan" when it wasn't working. Etc.

It's easy to come up with a cliche to explain something that's already happened, which is why pundits are so fond of them: they prove them right 100 percent of the time!

I find it beyond hypocritical that the people who think Muslim countries shouldn't impose a rules for dress and behavior on visitors are some of the same people who think that Muslims who live in Western countries should be prohibited from dressing as they wish, justifying their position with the argument that when someone chooses to live in a country they should be required to conform with its cultural norms. Will the people arguing for Beyonce's right to bare her midriff also stand up for the right of Muslim women in France, Britain and Canada (to name off the top of my head three places I know of where this has been an issue) to wear veils? Or is a performer's right to bare her body for "art" somehow more important than a woman's right to cover hers for her religious beliefs?

... to the list of people whose main reaction was, "Dude, don't drive your kid stoned ... especially when he *knows* you're stoned."

Apparently, getting a dog is the answer to single woes -- not that you'd know it from my long history as a single dog owner.

Please don't get a dog unless you want a dog! A dog is great -- it will take the edge off your loneliness, give you something to cuddle and practice telling your innermost feelings to -- but it's also a living, feeling being that deserves more than to be a prop for meeting women. And a puppy, I'll point out, won't stay a puppy!

If you do take the advice to volunteer at an animal shelter, you'll find it crowded with dogs that people abandoned because whatever role their owner had for them, including meeting potential romantic partners, was no longer required. Personally, I would never date a man who got a dog just to meet women: a man who can't commit to the unconditional love of a dog certainly won't commit to the more complicated emotional demands of a relationship with a women!

Women are really not flying on their vacations because of a couple of minutes of "embarrassment" at the airport? Talk about being overly sensitive! And yes, of course other countries have security -- the EU countries have exactly the same security standards we do. I've been to countries where the security was a lot more strict -- once many years ago security not only physically patted me down but ran their hands through my then-long, thick hair!

I think the whole underwire "crisis" is being overblown. I always wear underwires and my underwires are (ahem) fairly large, and I think they set off a metal detector once. The female officer did the follow-up search -- no big deal, I'd forgotten about it until just now. Furthermore, while I'm standing in security lines at the airport I don't see huge numbers of women being taken off for extra searches because their underwires are setting off the machines, so clearly it's something that happens in a very low percentage of cases.

That said, there's no excuse -- none -- for not handling the situation appropriately and professionally when it arises. Those cretins in Idaho were clearly over the line when they insisted that woman remove her bra, especially when they didn't have the appropriate measures in place to do it properly (a screen and/or a female officer to conduct the search). I probably would have made a "case" out of it, too, if only to make sure that it never happened to someone else!

Everyone is talking about the stupidity of thinking underwires are "a lethal weapon" (to quote the subhead on this article). Isn't that missing the point? If I'm wearing a bulky knit top, I could put an arsenal in my bra -- in just a cotton shirt I could easily carry a knife. As a matter of fact, the dress I'm wearing right now doesn't have a waistband or pockets, so sometimes I tuck my cellphone in my bra when I'm going to be away from my desk for a while; it doesn't show, and it's not even a Razor!

Hey, I set off the metal detector, but no need to check me, it's just my underwire! Really, officer!

Either we take security seriously or we don't. Either we take women seriously or we don't. Or is Broadsheet arguing that women as a class should be exempt from security concerns because they're obviously harmless?!