Nobody is hired to be a role model. It is not a position that can be marketed, as the qualifications for it, and the benefits of it, are entirely subjective, personal, and nonmaterial.

The notion that part of your job is to be a role model, be you a teacher, a file clerk, or a professional athlete, is a major over reach on the part of the employer. It essentially makes you the possession of your employer, giving them power to dictate every aspect of your life and denying you space for personal freedom to be yourself. It high time that employees stop tolerating this, and stand up for the right to live their own life on their own time.

...that in this age of digital media, and cheap online distribution, television show productions will somehow find a way to become more autonomous and less dependent on the big media conglomerates. Perhaps if something like this someday emerges, where independent TV productions are able to soldier on on their own and come up with their own distribution scheme, some of these woefully underappreciated cancelled shows (Carnivale was my personal heartbreaker) can be reborn and revived.

That, anyway, is my wish for the future of televised entertainment.

Surprisingly, on this issue, it is not the party that needs to learn something, but rather the base that needs a political education. The party already understands the hard realities of this unfortunate situation: that, without the votes to override the inevitable veto, they simply cannot end the war; that Bush will keep the troops in Iraq as long as he can, regardless of either their welfare or the popularity of the war; that the Republicans will enable George Bush to do just that as long as they can; and, thus, that not allocating funds for the war will not bring the troops home, but rather simply make George Bush directly responsible for their care, thus placing them further under his thumb.

The netroots and the base need to accept these realities as the hard facts that they are, and stop attacking their own leaders for simply submitting an unfortunate to political reality. We can't always get what we want, and in this situation, I think that the Democrats have performed pretty well.

Is it possible to view men and women, husbands and wives, etc., as presented in the Koran, as archetypal, idealized personality types, aspects of which are present in all of us, be we male or female, husband or wife? If so, is it possible to then view the Koran in strictly personal terms as a manual for dealing with the various aspects of ourselves in handling our own lives?

I ask these questions because I know that there are people who can, and do, interpret the Old Testament in that way, and who have found a way to embrace it, and its stark, angry, bloodthirsty depiction of God, solely because of that. My question is not rhetorical. I am curious what you, as a disillusioned former insider, think of such a notion regarding Islam.

Marriage itself is an archetype, of sorts. Viewing the male and female as idealized personas, of whom all of us contain elements, marriage can be seen as an allegory for self integration. Do you think that it is possible for the verses you have in mind, and the instructions that they offer the reader, to be interpreted accordingly?

The discussion laid out in the Republic seeks to answer a specific question: what is justice.

The ideal state that Socrates then constructs is meant to illustrate the answer to that question. It is not meant to be followed as an ideal form of government, and in fact any kind of contingent notion of Justice is discounted very early by Socrates.

The answer that Socrates and friends ultimately come to is that justice exists when reason reigns supreme. I don't think that either Liberals or Conservatives have a lock on that sentiment, nor do I think that either would disavow it.

Along the way, they also say some deep and wonderful things about reason, perception, and the true nature of reality.

The first shots in the Democrats current round of circular shooting were not fired by Sheehan. They were fired by everyone - yourself included - who jumped at first opportunity to attack our elected representatives for not being able to somehow end the war in the face of an insurmountable veto and a recklessly obstinate commander in chief. Their decision to allocate money to the troops was not, as you so carelessly and counterproductively describe it, a "cave in." It was a recognition of cold hard reality: (1) Bush will keep the troops in Iraq as long as he is Commander in Chief; (2) cutting off funding for the war will NOT stop him from doing this; and (3) anyone who thinks that the ensuing budget shortfall for military action in Iraq will not fall on the troops is DREAMING.

You helped start this civil war, Joan. Cindy Sheehan is just taking the next logical steps.