First, the article was entertaining and informative. But personally, more important was that it was enormously reassuring. I'm one of those nervous passengers, and I'm nervous while flying because--though I understand the very low odds of disaster--it is exactly those unplanned, seemingly unforeseeable surprises, exceeding the capabilities of the aircraft or the humans, that seem to pose the greatest danger. I never knew just how rigorous were the systems that test our pilots, nor how much creative paranoia went into giving them scenarios that they must beat. I will feel a lot more settled next time I board a plane--and I'll have a lot more sympathy for the cockpit crew!

I really think this "law" citation deserves--demands!!--far more attention here, and I hope you will follow up on this issue. It sounds like she's citing some kind of a hearsay rule for journalists: State officials will not answer questions about State business if the journalist heard about the business matter as a function of a federal campaign. Is that it? Since when have a journalist's original source, or even the line of sources encountered in investigating a story, been material to whether a government official will comment? This is ridiculous, but more than that, it's a transition point to the next story. So please, follow up!!

So this makes me wonder about public nudity laws. The fact that we are not allowed to be naked while walking around suggests that we are not allowed to choose to suspend our expectation of bodily privacy; that is, we can't choose to SHOW our bodies. Perhaps the assumption is that, without nudity laws, we would all be falling all over ourselves to be naked. If not, then surely it wouldn't be so legally tenuous to argue that choosing to WEAR CLOTHES is an assertion that we expect our bodies to be private while we walk around in public.

I guess my point is, if we were to banish public nudity laws, then people could choose whether to walk around naked or not. And if they did not choose to walk around naked--that is, if they chose to remain clothed--then perhaps the law would recognize that wearing clothing indicates an expectation of bodily privacy.

Really, is that what it would take?!

As soon as Vilsack was announced, I wondered how he'd be received by Pollan and the food-oriented activist constituency. This makes me sad, but I hope Vilsack will show greater breadth now that he's freed from his narrow association with the one agricultural state. (Of course, "freed" assumes he doesn't plan to run for another office later--unlikely!) Anyway, thanks for being sure to follow up.

For anyone really trying to follow along--"Boomer" is the one who shoots Adama and is then killed. Then she is with the Cylons from then on. The one who gave birth to Hera is "Sharon," who later becomes "Athena"--that is NOT the same as Boomer. I know, it can make your head spin. And when I write this it sound terminally geeky, but it's really an amazing show (I'm not usually a sci-fi'er, but rather a Wire, Friday Night Lights, Six Feet Under type) and this detail makes a difference.

We've all heard horror stories about lawsuit-happy people who file suit virtually at will, knowing that their defendants will find it cheaper to settle than to fight the suit. Could it be that, in this case, litigating the suits that will likely result from breaking contracts would just cost more than the $165 million slated for paying the bonuses? And that AIG/Obama administration decided that those litigation costs would be a worse PR debacle than just paying the bonuses?

I don't know, and I suspect this is NOT the issue, since any individual case's litigation costs seem unlikely to exceed the 6-figure-plus amount of an individual's bonus. But perhaps someone (GG?) has better knowledge than I. In any case, even if this is the logic, it's idiotic. The public would almost certainly want to spend more to punish greedy AIGers than to reward them.

Just read back into the thick of things to see that Glenn addressed this a bit on p. 16. Thanks much.

I'm pretty sure that, back when we first invaded Afghanistan, there was a lot of talk in some erudite media circles about the appropriate way to refer to the citizens of that country. And I'm pretty sure that the correct term is AFGHAN (as in, "an Afghan" or "the Afghan police") and that Afghani refers to their currency only. I trust Salon to get things right, so I hope this error won't be repeated.

Well, horror of horrors! Instead of focusing on women with extraordinary bodies, this guy wants to focus on women with extraordinary accomplishments?! Let's shoot him now.