"Isolated shootings in general are not unusual." Well, since when? I'd love for someone to pull the numbers on that.

I understand that you don't want to alarm people unnecessarily. And perhaps once we have more facts, we'll find that the university really did all it could to prevent this.

However, it's a poor argument to make that a single shooting in a dormitory is an event common enough to not warrant some kind of campus-wide action beyond sending out a mass e-mail. This doesn't happen every day at Va. Tech -- or even every year, as just a cursory look at the stats reveals.

This interview is even more proof that the problem with Cox (and much of her cohort) is that she can't make the distinction between a professional relationship and a personal relationship. Her eye-rolling, "what's the big deal?" attitude in response to Glenn's accusations of press bias showed that clearly.

Plus it was more than ironic that Ms. Cox's sole criticism of the press was that too many times it makes itself the story, and then she goes on to talk about how mean bloggers can be and how they've made her job a chore.

It's not all about you, Ms. Cox. And it's about more than just getting the facts right. Being a journalist means letting the facts guide your work, not your feelings or your relationships. It's a hard job that, when done right, doesn't earn you many friends. That may not sound like much fun, but that's the gig.

It's also a job that, to be effective, requires credibility, a quality Ms. Cox didn't seem too concerned about. In fact, she seemed confused that it was even an issue.

I can see how terms like "truth" and "credibility" might confuse someone like Ms. Cox, who seems to believe everything is relative and there is no such thing as "truth" . . . but then such people should not be journalists.

But I also believe that this man has his heart in the right place.

Based on what? His speeches? His slogan? His branding?

Buy it if you like, but I'm not so sure. Actions are what matter. Talk is cheap. This guy has done nothing. Period.

I won't argue with you that he's a better option than McCain if only because you know what you'll get with McCain. But don't expect me to "suck it up." That's just juvenile. He broke his word on this and that makes me nervous. it should make YOU nervous.

If you really believe in this guy, you should be pushing him HARD to do exactly what it is you want him to do. And you should support the efforts of others to do the same rather than telling them to just roll over and suck it up.

... the Pats' VERY weak schedule. And it's all the more weaker if this week was any real indication.

I don't care when he was born. Obama can't be a Boomer because he's not hopelessly self-absorbed.

That said, I'm not letting Boomers off the hook for anything. It's Boomers and their "me-first" ideology that got us into this mess, and it's post-Boomers that will need to fix it. Idealism alone does not get it done; it takes hard work to change a country. That's a lesson the Boomers never learned.

Thank you, Curt, for your perspicacious comment about Gen X.

While Gen Xers may not have set the country alight in a blaze of glory, at least we didn't nearly destroy it.

Let's not forget what the defining ideology of the Boomer era is. It isn't liberalism. It's not progressive; has nothing to do with peace, love and understanding.

It's neo-conservatism. Bush, Cheney and crew. All Boomers.

Own it.

Did it ever OCCUR to you that perhaps the reason your parents "sold out" in the 80s was they were trying to give YOU things that they couldn't have -- like an automatic college education, your own first car (which of course, HAD to be NEW and not, God Forbid, "used").

No that didn't occur to us. Probably because it's not true.

Clearly you are a Boomer because you certainly weren't raised by one. This is a generation that hates their children. That's why we are even having this discussion -- the whole "Boomer vs. Gen Xer" is a Boomer construct created for the purpose of heaping the blame for their poor child-raising skills on their kids.

Let's face it. Boomers were lousy parents. They were lousy spouses. And they are lousy leaders. So go ahead and argue about how much better you Boomers are than everyone else. As Obama would say, that's a argument I'd be happy to have.

Worst. Generation. Ever.

After all he didn't torture anyone . . .

The Obama WH likes to show how open they are to listening to critics and comments like that are, in my view, just an advancement of that tactic. It might be genuine -- smart people will purposely seek out critics to test their views -- but there was a slight tone of condescension to it.

Slight? Ya think?

This isn't FDR telling agitators that he agrees with their cause but needs them to put enough political pressure on others to help him get it done. This is someone who has the authority to stop this atrocity, has decided he doesn't want to, but wants to go ahead and have a constructive discussion about it anyway as if that would change anything. That's condescending to the extreme.

Barack Obama has made a career out of pretending to have sincere respect for opposing viewpoints. In the end, he always does the politically expedient thing. I don't think he truly respects anything but the ability to inflict political pain. If he thinks you can hurt him, he will respect your opinion. Otherwise, you're wasting your breath even talking to him.

You get that feeling, too, huh?