Overpopulation is a red herring? Really?

So there's some way to use up our natural resources "wisely" without cutting down on the reason they're being used up? How exactly are you going to achieve that, pray?

Take a look at that letter about the NIMBY attitudes that cause sprawl. Would you care to elaborate on how you can change that? And please tell me how that sprawl could even occur if there weren't too many people for the metropolitan areas they surround.

Overpopulation is hardly a red herring. It's at the root of almost every problem the world faces today. And it's exactly that pooh-poohing attitude you espouse that keeps the problem growing and growing and growing and growing, with no end in sight.

It's not going away. And no matter how smart we get about using resources, it's inevitable that the numbers will catch up and drown us all. Because you know, when you keep adding to a total, the total just keeps getting bigger. Numbers are funny that way.

Music works in our ears and brains in an idiosyncratic way that is different for every person. You like this but can't stand that, while I adore that but think this is shit. Everyone has his own standard, and that's as it should be.

It's ridiculous to say one kind of music is "bad" and another is "good", especially since the vast majority of people who say so use "good" to mean "what I like and understand, whether I had to learn to do so or not" and "bad" to mean "crap I could never like". That's elitism, no matter what kind of music you're talking about. The idea that there's "good" art and "bad" art mainly goes towards giving critics a way to make a living, and viewers and audiences a way to feel good about themselves and look down on people who don't agree with them.

I've never liked atonal music, but I can't say that it's "bad". I just know I don't like it. Likewise, I think Brahms and Chopin are beautiful (just as I think the music of Paul Simon and the Beatles are beautiful), but that's my own taste. I'm sure there people who think they suck, and they're perfectly right. For them.

The bottom line is, if you like it, it's good music for you, and the opposite as well. Sweeping pronouncements about what constitutes quality in music (other than knowing how to play your instrument) only serves to separate people, and can alienate some from appreciating the music under discussion.

Has all of Salon turned into a shill site for Hillary? Really, this is getting embarrassing. Does no one at Salon have an interest in the other candidates, or are you all kowtowing to Joan and her Hillary fetish?

There've been some irritating things about this site since I first started coming here, but this is one of the worst. How about a nice, flattering, sycophantic bout of licking somebody else's boots for a change? You know, just for variety?

WHEN will "journalists" learn to stop writing in the second person?

By "you", I mean me

Then frigging WRITE IN THE FIRST PERSON. Rebecca, have you any idea how condescending you sound when you write these essays that ASSUME everyone else has the same asshat reactions to things that you have?

Repulsed? Off-putting? Naive? In whose universe, exactly? I don't have any of those reactions to Kucinich, and to hear you so blithely toss these insults around as if OF COURSE anyone calling herself a Democrat MUST think the guy's a nut...bitch, please.

If you have EW ICKY reactions to personal details about a candidate that have NOTHING TO DO with whether he'd be good for the job, then I (continue to) feel sorry for you. But that's not excuse for shitty writing. I can only assume that you're not getting paid money to insult the readers, so next time, speak for yourself or STFU.

Thank you.

The posting of this article on Salon disturbs me somewhat. So okay, Mormonism is based on a different book and their story isn't the same and all the rest. But given that most of us here believe in the separation of church and state (we do, right?), then I must ask, how is this relevant?

So Romney's a member of some weird cult (according to Christians), or a member of an offshoot of Christianity (according to Romney and other Mormons), so what? Since ours is a political system that presumably runs on laws, what group he dances around the fire with is immaterial. What counts are his ideas about current events and the issues facing this country. And in that respect, he and the other Christian Republicans are virtually indistinguishable. On practically every note, he and evangelicals are in lock step. So why does it matter what religion he is, when it all comes out the same in the wash?

The difference between Romney and the other candidates may be religiously significant, but as a candidate for President of the United States, it should be functionally trivial. That's the way the job was designed and set out in the Constitution, right? So why are we talking about this again?

Yeah, well, sometimes I'm late to the party.

If by "gendered expectations" you mean the good sense to realize that working while sick endangers the health of co-workers and cuts down on productivity, and thus act on that realization and stay home where I won't infect the whole office, then yes, the premise is sound.

It's all one to me if male workers sneer at something like that. More fool them for falling for the "traditional" standard, and not doing what's necessary to keep the workplace functioning productively.