Dear Rebecca,

Leaving aside for the moment Palin's cultivated folksy affectations, I'm writing to point out an error I see more and more in print and on-air journalism, noted below:

'...a woman's voice could be heard picking up her phone and telling whomever was on the other line, "I'm at Sarah Palin!..."' Whomever should be whoever. It's WHO was on the line, not WHOM was on the line. The pronoun whom is not the indirect object of the verb "telling." Rather, the entire dependent clause "whoever was on the line" is the object. Thus the case of the pronoun has to be correct within its own clause - of which it is the subject, not the object. Hope that makes sense.

Also, "alright" - though common in print, especially in email, instant messaging, and chat rooms, is not a word. "All right" is two words.

Best, Madolin

Though I have always considered myself liberal, I've generally preferred the term "progressive" to describe myself because of its more definitive connotation of left politics and activist stance. Progressivism describes a worldview seeking to address the needs of the whole, especially the poorest and most vulnerable: e.g., a progressive tax code is necessary to ease the burden on the working poor. This worldview is more hopeful than the Hobbesian cruel and brutish one, seeing over the course of history a general progression of human evolution toward the wiser, more humane, and more evolved.

Liberalism, on the other hand, has been associated as often with lax government regulation, spending without accountability, and laissez-faire capitalism as in promoting the common good. Depending on the context, it can mean the very opposite of ‘disciplined.’ “Liberty” (from the Latin ‘libertas’) means freedom; “liberal” (sort of ‘libertas’–ish) means open-minded, free-thinking, tolerant, noninterventionist, generous, laissez-faire. Whether good or bad, enlightened or not, depends on the context.

While libertarians can certainly identify with the term “liberal,” so could the robber barons of the late nineteenth century. They could freely help themselves to untold riches through corporate schemes without a pesky interventionist government standing in the way. The term liberal more accurately describes the de-regulators of the Reagan era than those on the left seeking social justice and genuine reform. And while the centrist DLC might have used the term “progressive,” it wasn’t to hide from liberalism, it was to reassure those on the left that their agenda could somehow satisfy true progressives while simultaneously appeasing a center-right coalition.

One of the reasons I’m more inclined to use progressive as a descriptor than liberal is that it is only the mildest, most moderate policies of liberalism that have been demonized by the right. The norm in the 60’s and 70’s was so far to the left of where it is now that “liberal” has lost all meaning. The term does not do justice to what I consider truly left-progressive. To me liberal sounds too wimpy when what is needed is real change.

As someone else pointed out, liberalism is not much of a philosophy and certainly not a movement. Progressivism speaks truth to power.

The Philanthropist does not seem altruistic. He operates like the pampered, demanding, entitled, narcissistic, undisciplined, oversexed, alcoholic, rich honcho he is - with lip service humanitarian tokenism thrown in. He gallivants to exotic adventures for testosterone-driven melodramatic heroics. There's no credible motivation to fuel these exploits. The fabricated narrative of the deceased child, without it actually informing Rist's personality, doesn't work. He looks, talks, and acts like James Bond - charming, but not believable. And certainly not an altruist.

Skin cancer has risen significantly since the use of sunscreen became widespread. During the same time period, Vitamin D deficiency has skyrocketed. Life on earth, in every form, depends on the sun. And yet people view it as the enemy. Of course it's damaging to get sunburned. But inadequate sunlight and consequent Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to - guess what? - CANCER! At least several types of cancer, but especially those of the reproductive system. Vitamin D deficiency is also associated with osteoporosis, mental health disorders including depression, compromised immune function, and obesity. Because dark-skinned people require greater sun exposure to achieve the same Vitamin D benefits, these deficiencies are a particular problem for those living in temperature zones whose ancestral origins are in the tropics or equatorial regions. Because it's not possible for most people to get enough sunlight to prevent deficiencies, according to Dr Mercola (see mercola.com), tanning beds or Vitamin D3 supplements are the best options. Many people who use tanning beds, especially in the winter, report relief from symptoms of Seasonal Affective Disorder. I've heard and read these same arguments from dermatologists and have yet to see evidence-based opinions recommending avoidance of sunlight or tanning. Melanoma is the dangerous cancer, and no evidence has yet come to light (pun intended) despite decades of futile attempts to link it to sun or tanning bed exposure. Melanoma often starts with a mole on a part of the body that has not been exposed to the sun, such as the inner thigh or low back. The much more common and less dangerous type of squamous skin cancer is usually seen in skin that has been repeatedly sunburned and thus may be more associated with actual skin damage than with sun exposure per se. Further, the burning and damaging rays are UVAs, not the tanning rays, UVBs. Sunscreen does a poor job of selecting out the UVAs and allowing the more protective UVBs, so it's at least theoretically feasible that sunscreen is dangerous. In addition, there are many harmful chemicals in typical sunscreen formulations that are very effectively systemically absorbed through the skin. I know this point of view may sound crazy but it's only because we've all been so brainwashed by conventional wisdom based on very poor science and selective ignoring of the facts that contradict it.