I have to agree with estherhart - there's a rather annoying tendency at Broadsheet to immediately brand any mention of gender differences as "sexist". This makes discussion of such differences and ideas about them very difficult, if not impossible in some instances. How can we decide what ideas have or don't have merit if some of them are dismissed outright with no debate allowed? To brand an idea "sexist" without taking any time to consider whatever evidence there might be is pretty sophomoric, not to mention, dare I say it, discriminatory.

Take this post. The writer of the article in question starts out with an idea - women cook more comforting, nurturing meals than men - spends the article disproving it, and Price calls it "sexist"? What the hell? How exactly do you know it's "sexist", Catherine? What evidence do you have that the idea has no merit at all, other than your knee-jerk reaction? How do you know that it isn't right? Are there studies on this that you've read? Would you care to cite them, just as you would doubtlessly require from someone arguing that men are better? No? Than perhaps you ought to give the writer a little more leeway, especially when his conclusions end up agreeing with your unimpeachable viewpoint.

By the way, as long as we're contributing anecdotes, I've found the idea of food cooked by women being more satisfying to be true also. Whenever my dad decides to cook, I have to give an internal groan, because all he wants to do is show off, inventing weird dishes that never quite make it. More interested in his own ingenuity, he can't compare with my mother's desire to cook something that actually tastes good, as opposed to being "inventive". And I would maintain that cooking in the home is a much better test of this than comparing the cooking of chefs, either male or female, because in the home the whole subject of livelihood and public image is erased. People who cook in the home are dealing almost exclusively with hungry mouths, while cooking in restaurants also entails opening people's wallets.

Torture, coercion, confessions extracted under duress, then the use of those documents to justify the atrocity...

This is the Inquisition, plain and simple. It's this type of behavior that eventually led to the great uprisings of the eighteenth century, including the French and American revolutions. Horrifying is not a strong enough word. This administration is behaving like the worst of the Renaissance tyrants, pretending to be great and compassionate while actually engaging in the vilest of human vices - the lust to control others at any cost, the lust to gain wealth, and the disregard for any sanctity other than that which will benefit them. These people are a blight on humanity, and they are covering the rest of the nation in their filth by association. It's no wonder we're no longer seen as the heroes of the world, with despicable behavior like this.

When I was a kid, I used to be proud of being an American. It's been so many years since I felt that.

I miss that feeling.

One possible configuration would be giving readers two options: post with your username (in which case your letter goes right through) or post anonymously (in which case your letter is moderated and must be approved by the editors). I think this option would cut down on the vitriol.

Actually, this is boring only if you think the conflict between the MSM and the burgeoning internet news movement is irrelevant. It most certainly is not. We're seeing the rise and empowerment of an entirely new paradigm, not only in news, but in the way ordinary people engage in public discourse.

Over the last few decades, the people have slowly lost any voice we may have had in public matters. Until the internet came along, we were being turned into passive receivers of news, with no way to contribute either information or opinion, our brains being encouraged to dissolve into mush. Luckily, human brains are not quite that weak, and when the opportunity to get on the internet and say what we think and are interested in, many people jumped on with a passion, and are still joining in. It isn't going away anytime soon (unless those that feel threatened succeed in pushing regulations through that will make difficult or cut off access for ordinary folks), and this makes the MSM distinctly nervous, paranoid and defensive.

You may not be particularly interested in this conflict (which is changing the public sphere profoundly, and with it, eventually the world), but then, as they say around the internet, that's what the "back" button is for. Those of us who are interested will continue to follow this conflict, because we think it matters who defines reality, who reports it, and what it means to the rest of us.

Heehee on the Fed Ex guy. I would called up Fed Ex and asked them if it's allowed by policy for their workers to be displaying political messages like that on company property. Most companies I've worked for would have frowned on such a practice.

(I don't see any trolls either.)

I take it you haven't encountered tiberius before.

What an excellent idea! I'll implement that myself immediately, except that I'm going to count tiberius and shooter242 together. That way, the money will go out faster. Considering how merrily these guys keep coming back, I should rack up my first donation by the end of business today.