While Mean Girls was funny at times, I didn't really think of it as a "comedy" in the sense of movies like Dumb and Dumber or Something About Mary (or even Legally Blonde). At least to me, it seemed more like a social commentary with moments of humor. I suppose it fits in the "comedy" aisle at the video store better than it fits anywhere else, but I'm not sure this movie really falls into the same category as the other straight-out comedies mentioned in the NY Times article.

I haven't seen Dreamgirls yet, although I saw a local production of the show a few years back. The movie may be awful. I've learned not to get my hopes up about movie musicals, since very few directors these days know how to film musical numbers, and they replace substance with quick cuts and flash. But as a lover of musicals who can't often afford to see decent productions on stage, I still have hope for the movie musical.

But, what's wrong with "Broadway" music? It seems to be fashionable these days to put it down and call it "sentimental" or "inauthentic" but it's a genre of its own - it's not supposed to mimic rock or pop. Farmers on the Midwestern plains never sat around singing "oh what a beautiful morning" and hispanic immigrants of the 1950's never sang "I want to live in America" but I don't think that detracts from the power of Oklahoma or West Side Story - even if it's not hip to say so these days.

Would Dreamgirls be a "better" musical if it featured pseudo pop songs in the style of the Supremes? Is Mamma Mia a better musical than West Side Story because Mamma Mia has "real" songs and West Side doesn't?

I'm not sure a comparison between Padilla and Crocker is particularly useful. At least based on this article, the main reason Crocker was caught was because he confided in the wrong person, a confidential informant working for the police. That was the basis of all the "old-fashioned police work" that led to his arrest. But how many confidential informants do we have within the radical Muslim community, even here in the U.S.? How many do we have in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq, where just being suspected of working with Americans often leads to being murdered? Clearly we should be cultivating these kinds of long-term contacts, but it's not going to be easy. (Especially when we have Bush running the show, but that's another letter.)

That problem doesn't justify torture. Call me a wispy liberal, but I think our values are worth more than any information gathered by torture. But it's too easy to look at these two cases as parallel, and say that Padilla could have been caught and prosecuted using the same techniques used to catch and prosecute Crocker.

I haven't watched the pageants in many years, and the judging criteria have changed over the past few years. (Especially as the shows have tried to regain their audience by becoming "reality shows".) But traditionally, only Miss America had a talent portion. Miss USA did not.

So "this economy" only makes men earn less, but not women? How wondorous.

It's not that someone is saying "you're a man so you must earn less". But many jobs that were traditionally held by men, such as factory jobs, have been outsourced in recent years. Other jobs that were traditionally held by women, such as nursing, have boomed. So the overall result is that, overall, women are doing better than men. A female factory worker is probably earning less, while a male nurse is probably earning more.

Karen

If doctors were forcing women to take high dose pills and disallowing the sale of low dose pills, then I'd be upset. But why shouldn't there be an option for either type of pill? Different people need different options.

I needed to take the pill for a short time because of period problems, and I found it hard to find a high-dose pill, even though that's what my doctor wanted me to take. Someone heavier might also need a higher dose (since dosage usually correlates with weight). More choice seems like a good thing to me.

One other significant issue is, how will the journals be indexed and accessed in the future? Scientific journals aren't like magazines, where you read them once and then throw them out. They are used for decades. And there has to be a way find the information, among the hundreds of thousands of articles in the scientific literature.

I'm a chemist, and I can't just google to find the research I need for my work. I need a specialized search engine that allows me to search for chemical structures. A few weeks ago, I used a journal article from 1917 - the only reason I was able to find that article was because the structures of all the compounds referenced in the article were indexed and available for searching. If an article is published on someone's web site, it's unlikely that it will be indexed and made available in that way, either today or 10, 20 or 50 years from now, for future scientists.

There are some major disadvantages to the current system, but what works for the latest "press-friendly" research might not work so well for other types of scientific journals. And while it's important to have the information today, it's also crucially important that the information is available in the future - and in a format that can be searched and accessed.