You obviously must have missed the part where I cited just over $30,000 as the AVERAGE NATIONWIDE STARTING SALARY for teachers.

Of course, there are going to be variations from that average in different parts of the country and, of course, teachers do receive salary increases throughout their careers. (I would guess you're against that too.)

Could it be possible that that $78,000 figure you cite is for a teacher with an advanced degree with 20 or 30 years of experience? Could it also be possible that the cost of living in Massachusetts in general, and in Boston in particular, is a lot higher than it is elsewhere in the country?

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

I hope that you will write to Representative Ruby and tell him that he is citing the wrong historical document in his argument! In fact, I wonder if the bill itself references the so-called "Constitutional rights" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If it does, couldn't it automatically be declared unconstitutional on the grounds of abject stupidity?

I understand that this is all about abortion. But, it opens up so many other cans of worms, especially with the number of frozen embryos stored in IVF clinics (although maybe there aren't that many of those in North Dakota). And thanks to zizou#5 for pointing out that Ruby has ten children. That speaks volumes about where he's coming from.

I say again making an average of over $100,000 for people (500,000 of them) with a high school education is pretty good especially when they are now crying and asking the government to bail them out unlike most of those getting along at or below the average.

It is not the UAW crying and asking the government to bail them out. It is the auto companies. The UAW is having to make sizable concessions to keep its members employed.

Please stop making things up.

You've probably seen this, but here is the link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

This was a remarkable piece of journalism for a major network. I don't what the fall-out has been, but I assume that it must have made a lot of the usual suspects pretty angry.

I see you wrote about the 60 Minutes segment in January. (If any of you haven't seen it, though, please do watch it.)

A pretty damn good pizza place in Nashville, run by two brothers who immigrated from Iran, named Ali and Amir Arab. It doesn't get more "international" than that.

We've been getting a pie every Friday night for I don't know how long, and no matter how bad the economy gets, I think we'll still be able to afford that $13 a week.

Let's just find out. What are people like Elephantman so afraid of that they have to resort to vicious personal attacks?

If this Commission does what it's supposed to do, I'll accept its conclusions either way.

And, good grief, if I ever need an attorney, I'll be sure and not call Walter Dellinger. He seems to be living in Opposite-World.

Thanks for that (I think).

I know it's wrong to get personal, but I'm sure that fig leaf is way bigger than it needs to be.

I don't know if we'll ever have a satisfactory answer to the question asked here. Is it narcissism? Is it projection? Is it overcompensation for low self-esteem? Is it delusion? Is it sociopathy? Whatever it is, though, the contradictions and outright lies need to be exposed as often as possible.

Where "hospitable" means that there is no disagreement and "inhospitable" means that you may face a challenge. When did that happen?

I realize that there have always been "left-leaning" and "right-leaning" venues, but when and why did politicians, pundits and journalists start feeling that any form of disagreement was an attack to be avoided at all costs? That has only led to both "sides" digging in even further, with more polarization and less communication, ad infinitum.

And while I love the idea of said politicians, pundits and journalists suffering a loss of credibility for speaking only in hospitable venues, I'm wondering what that would look like. How do you break that cycle? (I give you, and people like Bill Moyers and Rachel Maddow, a lot of credit for making a good-faith effort in trying to get it started, but I'm not hopeful that it will catch on.) The audience has to decide that it's in their best interest to hear these kinds of debates, and it doesn't seem like either the right or the left (mostly the right) is interested in doing so.

While I share your desire to see someone like Karl Rove taken down in a nationally-televised debate with the likes of Greenwald or Maddow, I think that that mindset may be contributing to the problem.

We shouldn't want to see someone humiliated in front of a national audience. The whole point of the discussion should be to vigorously debate the issues and to find the truth. I love a good "gotcha" as much as anyone else, but perhaps that is why people are avoiding anything adversarial. Like everything else these days, it seems that we are only satisfied with the most extreme spectacle.

...than a "capitalist" who says, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you."

But, the fact is, I'm not a leech. I'm educated, I go to work every day, and I pay my taxes. My husband is not a leech either. He is educated, he created his own business, he goes to work every day, and he pays his taxes.

And we're both liberals. And we hope that Obama succeeds, because if he succeeds, then the rest of us do too.

Do you really think that, if John McCain and Sarah Palin had won, the stock market would be doing any better right now?

...and it stinks too.

Go back to your Ayn Rand circle jerk, then, and let the rest of us try to deal with this.