The truth of an answer is not fully determined by the truth of the facts contained in the answer. It is also a function of how those facts are used to answer the question. Di Rita's facts are clearly intended to mislead. I would call it lying. (Is he implying that the interactions with Galloway were part of the program?) But you are the expert: in a court of law (as opposed to an email exchange), what would you think of a lawyer who asked a question in such a way that would allow Di Rita to answer as he did)?

A foe, but you have answered the question. I see what you are saying and understand different definitions of lying are reasonable in this case.

Thanks. (answer and complement)

(As a long-time Unclaimed Territory reader, I'm certain Glenn was excellent on cross.)

I am sure you could find few willing to bet against that. But maybe Shooter would be interested.

.. that Phillips took the trouble to compare the signing of a treaty with the signing of an accord. The modern usage is totally without content. And I suppose in another twenty years most americans would consider it a reference to the basketball player.

I am having my doubts about Jon Stewart since viewing part of his recent interview with Feith. He did not even come close to asking very tough questions or getting answers to the ones he asked. I realize a lot of people think he did; how could they if they saw the same interview? Maybe that was the price of getting him on the show, or maybe not. Feith has a book to sell and needs publicity.

First, Brooks listed a number of points and then asked if Obama agreed with them because if he did then it would place him far on the left when it comes to Hezbollah. He did not say that Obama is in the Chomsky wing of the Democratic Party.

That is not what I read. First he quotes Obama about engaging in diplomatic efforts concerning the Lebanon situation. Then he asks several rhetorical questions that do not follow from the quote, but make Obama appear to be a fanatic appeaser. Then he describes his interview with Obama and says the guy is not that bad, but rather half republican, half democrat.

So who is Brooks trying to please with this article?

not so many generations ago when only the well-off could afford unlimited amounts of fat and sugar. It took some time for lower relative prices on these nutrients that people crave (originally because of the relative scarcity) to be turned into fast food and advertised aggressively.

Do you believe that it is wrong to limit advertising on tobacco products? Then why would it be wrong to so limit other unhealthy products?

(Coke over the years: 8, 12, 16, 32 oz. Ground beef over the years: hamburger, double burger, whopper, big mac, with cheese and dressing, and so on)

Do not compare the calories in an expensive meal from a restaurant with a cheap product that is often eaten as a snack. That is dishonest.

And let's give the good doctor a break. He knows what percentage of children are overweight for reasons not related to excessive calories. He sees many more.

I would rather see Kristol fired; then no correction would be necessary. His drivel cannot be adequately corrected. Nonsense like that is not allowed in a good high school newspaper; what is it doing in the NYT? Glenn is being way too reasonable in asking for a correction. Week after week the garbage continues. The only solution is to get rid of him. And by the way, that strange Brooks thing from last Friday (which might really support Obama?) is nearly as bad. Writing like that has no place in a supposedly decent newspaper.

"But a lot of other things about kids have changed. Their health is one of them. Today, almost one in four kids is obese, putting them at risk for, among other things, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The epidemic of obesity is serious enough that we're predicting that this current generation won't live as long their parents and grandparents. That's incredible if you think about it."

I think the doctor is right. All he is asking is that some very wealthy people not contribute to the problem. There is nothing unreasonable about that, which is more than I can say about many of the comments.

wrote:My dad grew up very poor on a farm in Kentucky. Wanna gues what they ate? Biscuits made with lard. Most everything else fried in lard. Fried Fat Back (from whence comes lard).

No Poco, I am not talking about your father. Think about it: if your father had cheap animal fat available what does that say about the state of farming and live stock industry? Biscuits, lard and lots of sugar makes you fat if you eat your fill of it. If you do not have much, you stay thin and not very healthy.

Go back a few more generations and look at farming over much of the country. Sugar for canning the fruit harvest had to be purchased, and it was a significant expense. If you raised your own animals for food, you did not have that much.

Modern agricultural techniques provide food at very low relative costs. But the food industry does not maximize profits by aggressively selling good nutrition.

Junk food is more available than it was 60 years ago. Partly because it took a couple of generations for people's food habits to change. And partly because it is just easier to find now. There was no junk food for sale in my primary and secondary schools. The administration would have been horrified at the the prospect of Coke and Pepsi competing to install their vending machines and advertise on the scoreboard.