...that calling in sick is bad. What is so damn sacrosanct about perfect attendance anyway? Does it make someone a better person?

Besides, I don't know how you can be an hourly person and not use ANY sick time during a year. Two dental appointments, a mammogram and a pelvic exam (which is pretty much the bare minimum, as far as health care is concerned if you're a woman) are going to use up about 1 or 2 days worth of sick time, when you factor in travel to and from, and waiting room time. I guess you could try to squeeze in this stuff on your lunch hour, but what the hell for?

I don't think the problem is the behavior being documented. It's that the behavior is being documented. This is a generation of people who seem to think that everything they do is worthy of being preserved for posterity and broadcast to the rest of the world.

The terrorists have definitely attacked his imagination, and it's running wild. (Thanks to South Park for such an excellent trilogy.)

I can't believe anyone actually pays serious attention to Podhoretz.

Yes, it is hard to believe. But the man is Giuliani's foreign policy advisor. This is why Giuliani must not be the Republican nominee. And, if he is, then he must not be President.

If we aren't past the point of no return now, then a Giuliani presidency would surely take us there.

to stupid and/or lazy people. Very easy.

These "writers" know that no one who "reads" them will check out any facts on their own. They simply want to be spoon-fed propaganda that won't do anything to challenge their worldview.

I certainly don't want you (and us) to stop fighting the battle. But, I don't think you (or us) will ever win.

...but why do we need a law that would allow taxpayers to have access to the research that they funded? Shouldn't it be a given?

Did anyone happen to see "The Daily Show" the night they had an animated clip of Giuliani's "dream"?

It was the numbers "9" and "11", on a bed decorated with stars and stripes, with the "9" literally f***ing the "11", with bad porno soundtrack music playing.

I thought that summed up Rudy's "wet dream" very nicely. (The video is available on Crooks and Liars.)

But it presented you an opportunity to try to ignore the great questions and answers and concentrate on a Muslim president wannabe not wanting to have the flag on his lapel.

You make a statement like that, and then you have the nerve to call other people "druggies"? What are you on?

And, please, tell me more about this Muslim presidential candidate.

As for druggies occupying the white house...well, the alcoholic cocaine fiend hasn't been there for eight years yet, has he?

it'll be really interesting to hear from these kids in 20-30 years, as to what impact being raised in this environment has had on their own ability to form lasting interpersonal relationships, and on their relationships with their own children.

I'm not necessarily predicting that it will be all gloom and doom, but let's not pretend that this isn't a great big social experiment, and we really don't know what the consequences will be.

Gee, I had forgotten all about the shoe bomber! Silly me!

No, actually, I haven't forgotten about that. So, your lecture is a bit wasted, although I'm sure it felt good at the time.

You seem to be missing my point. Which is that, because ONE GUY had a bomb in his shoe, the rest of us having to take our shoes off isn't necessarily making us any safer. (You should read the last "Ask the Pilot" column in Salon. It summarizes very nicely the absurdity of the

so-called "security" regluations in airports.)

You also seem to be saying that questioning any of this means one is whining. I'm not sure why you would assume this, unless you just want an excuse to say things like "boo hoo" and "jeebus".

You seem to be under the impression that taking shoes off and sequestering tiny bottles of liquid in plastic baggies is making us safer. This is totally missing the point.

I am more than willing to put up with security measures that actually protect us. The current system does nothing of the sort.

You don't think there's any difference between a bra being exposed in your luggage during a security search, and having to take off your bra with no privacy while being ogled by male security guards?

If they're going to force people to remove clothing, especially undergarments, then they're going to have to provide a private area, one that is staffed by a guard of the same gender.

I find it somewhat doubtful that legislators who have basically been bought by the large telecom companies would allow a bill with such a large loophole in it. I am hopeful that your analysis is correct, but I'm not counting on it.

for turning me into a paranoid lunatic. Because every one of these scenarios has occurred to me as a real probability. I never used to be like this, and I have to say that it really sucks to be thinking this way.

No, you're not going far enough.

The Dara Wilkersons of the world should just stop having sex if they don't have jobs with health insurance.

If their husbands need sex, then there will surely be a Republican Congressman waiting in a restroom stall to service them.

It's a win-win situation.

that a religious denomination that says all women are good for is bearing children, cooking and cleaning house would call on these same women to educate the next generation of men.

How do they explain this? If it's not to create an army of mindless religious zealots, then what's the reason?