Anyone thinking that AllTooHuman's "Quackwatch" link surely must contain a substantive rebuttal should know that it does not. It's basically a clearinghouse of vaguely negative comments that vaguely relate to spirulina, i.e. some vendors making unsubstantiated claims, non-spirulina powders having contamination problems (quite a few years ago), some vendor having shady business practices, etc. As if Enron's shenanigans debunk the science of electricity.

Where "Quackwatch" ventures into relevant specifics, they're wrong. Spirulina certainly does have high protein content; when dry, it's mostly protein. To say that's "meaningless because, taken according to their label, spirulina products provide only negligible amounts of protein" is silly. Assuming that "their label" (how sloppy can you get: whose label? this is a natural substance, not a proprietary formulation) is correct in any sense at all, the serving size that it is based on is probably quite small, rendering their challenge "meaningless".

This infant learning stuff is all a hucksterism-media phenomenon, like the "Mozart Effect" (TM) that gave birth to the genre. Read Healy's _Endangered Minds_ for much more on the subject.

> MILBANK: Petraeus --it's no accident he had a Latin name.

Reminds me of another great warrior, also with a Latin name, whose ridicule outraged so many...

"Are you making fun of my friend's name, BIGGUS DICKUS??"

Amusing enough article, but with a lot of points that don't add up (particularly the assertion in the title).

First, Oprah's 4:29 certainly was respectable, given that she was a not particularly athletic woman, let formerly obese. My first marathon was similarly respectable (4:10, male), and I later ran a sub-3:00. Her marathon was a transformative experience for her, as mine was for me. So what if we aren't elite athletes.

There are various other confused points, i.e. "sophisticated equipment". You know that's all hype, right? That salted wonder bread would work about as well as Gu, and that "shockproof" (not really) running shoes not only don't help, but are better left at home on race day in favor of a lighter weight pair.

As for why there are fewer elite marathoners in the US now than at one point in the past, I don't know, but it surely has nothing to do with the throngs of people out there doing 5- and 6-hour marathons. The slow ones aren't would-be elites, they're would-be couch potatoes: Good for them for trying to do their best!

I'd have some tiny amount of respect for "Libertarians" like Paul if they'd just acknowledge what their philosophy actually allows them to acknowledge: That most issues under the environment category, ecosystems and the effects of pollution in particular, are (in the Libby lingo) "externalities", which one cannot expect the market to manage properly without some kind of external collective action.

I agree: The Republicans are Dead Party Walking... this year. And for all the good reasons that the article mentions.

But don't worry, the Democrats will fulfill their usual role of disappointing and disgusting the electorate. If anything, the Dems' political fortunes in 2008 will serve to validate their long-term strategy:

1) Keep the lobbyists happy,

2) Don't fight the country's real power,

3) Feast on the Republicans' leftovers.

So... The Democrats will sweep in 2008, and will proceed to take ownership of everything that the country now holds the Republicans responsible for. Then the Republicans come back and resume the same agenda with renewed vigor.

But hey, we're going to get a woman president! Neato!

They don't even value credibility; power trumps it. Anyone who has been paying attention knows they're lying pretty much all time.

They don't care. Because:

1) Truth is far too constraining for the agenda that they're trying to pull off;

2) Much of their following doesn't care about dishonesty; the ends (right-wing ideology, imperialism, authoritarianism, crippling government services) justify the means; and,

3) The rest of their following doesn't notice the dishonesty; after all, it's pulled off with such bluster, and the media portrays it as a legitimate point of view.

The $800 Bugaboo doesn't bother me at all. It isn't like people are buying them because Target was all out of Gracos. Some people have enough money that "so what, it's better" is a good enough reason. If you want to buy a $30 stroller, or a $100 stroller, or a $250 stroller, you can find plenty of good options at all the obvious places. Actually, I did spend about $1000 on a "stroller", the Chariot (including numerous accessories). Totally worth it if you don't want to hire a sitter every time you feel like going for a jog (or XC skiing).

And why on earth pick on swaddle products? Swaddling is about as retro as you can possibly get; Sacajawea is swaddling her baby right there on a US dollar coin. Granted, the products mentioned aren't as simple (or nearly as good) as a proper swaddle blanket (which, incidentally, costs more if you want the most useful size, 44" or so square). And the sleepsack is great (and not expensive), if you're occasionally (or always) sleeping in cold places and don't want to wake up every time the kid squirms.

Better targets for lampooning would be all the crib accessories and other crap that they try to load you up with in a default gift registry. Oh, and shoes. Somebody gave us a whole box of their kids' infant shoes, like 10 pairs (some expensive looking), and our little guy had already outgrown them before it occurred to us that there was even a point in him trying them on.

Oh, and right on about the toys: "Passive toy, Active baby" has been our guiding principle. And also re the heinous Baby "Einstein": we got some of those DVDs as hand-me-downs and they went straight into the rejects box.