...Shooter, who I don't know from Adam, and who says that this is no big deal -- like Amazon keeping track of your purchases -- or Senator Russ Feingold, who says that we will regret passing this law?

Gosh, it's so difficult to decide, but I think I'll have to go with Feingold, who has absolutely nothing to gain by taking this stand (which is nothing short of courageous in this political climate), and who I'm pretty sure knows a lot more than Shooter does about the reality of the wiretapping program.

And, as for "situational awareness", this argument would be akin to saying that a woman should have "situational awareness" and expect to be raped if she walks down a deserted street late at night, and that's just too bad then.

So, people are saying that this cartoon image has convinced them that Obama is a Muslim? Even if this was not satire, how could any rational person say that the act of drawing this image proves anything?

This only shows that there are some troglodytes out there who can never be reached, and will use anything and everything to reinforce their particular bigotry.

Thanks for proving my point.

Those who use this cartoon to prove that Obama is a Muslim are not rational. Therefore, there is nothing that can be done to change their minds.

So, this cartoon is not doing anything further to damage Obama's reputation among those who are forwarding the image via e-mail.

Who says I'm not scared of those people?

But, they existed before the New Yorker cover, and they'll exist after it.

That's all I'm saying. They're there all the time. I doubt that this cover will make more of them. Do you honestly think that it will?

We assign blame where it belongs, and this time, it falls squarely on America. It's not as if we're making this stuff up. And it's hardly anything to be joyful about.

If they're going to accuse us of blaming America first, then I accuse them of never blaming America at all, even when the facts clearly warrant it. Why is that considered some kind of honorable position?

Anyway, I think we need to send Thomas Friedman out on the road. An "American Goodwill Tour", if you will. He can take his show to the Iraq and Iran, where I am sure he will be very warmly received.

I did not mean to say "the Iraq". Good grief.

I make things up. Constantly.

Pay no attention to me.

My husband and I were watching this, and when I heard that comment, I started yelling at the TV, something I rarely do. I was wondering if anyone else was going to pick up on that, and was disappointed that Abrams didn't say anything.

Thank you!

Hi Monkey!

http://www.himonkey.net/index2.html

And

http://www.icanhascheezburger.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ky5ClIjL8

I was getting ready to write a letter, and then I saw yours. I think we're close to being on the same page.

I will start out by saying that I have only watched one episode of Mad Men, the very first episode, on DVD. And, yes, it felt a bit "heavy-handed" to me as well.

It's 1960! If a white customer strikes up a conversation with a black waiter, the black waiter will be berated! A gay guy is in the closet! We don't have any Jews! The Xerox machine hasn't been invented yet! Everbody smokes - even doctors! Single girls who want the pill are warned not to become the "town pump" in order to get their money's worth! Bosses call their secretaries "honey"! Oh, and did we mention that it's 1960?

It just felt like they had to cram in every social/political anachronism, which leads to characters mouthing lines that don't seem very natural, in order to get this point (It's 1960!) across.

That being said, I enjoyed the first episode quite a bit, and I'll probably watch the whole first season, then wait for the second season to come out on DVD. The art direction,costumes, and photography are stunning enough to occupy me as the characters (hopefully) become more fleshed out.

But, I do wonder what's going to come of this series when the 60's actually begin in 1964.

In which Ms. Anderson turns in a terrific performance, opposite Robert Carlyle, with a pretty dead-on Irish accent to boot!

I'm not saying there has to be a law to keep you from being an oblivious danger to yourself and others.

It should, however, be common sense.

(To the guy who says he always drives with one hand no matter what: I guess you're a superior being. Most of us, though, need to use two hands when turning corners, if nothing else.)

Why is that no one can ever, ever admit to being a less than perfect driver?