Clark-Flory writes, But, oddly enough, the retouched photos I've seen (included in the PDN slide show) don't entirely erase the object in question -- they simply manipulate it so that it looks more bandage-like.

This is the heart of the problem. Graphic manipulation that doesn't make its presence obvious is extremely deceptive, and wholly inappropriate for a news service. Here are the ethically acceptable options:

• Ignore it because of the context of the situation. Even if it were a penis (which it obviously is not), the horror of the violence should make the presence of genitalia immaterial. This is probably too idealistic for this society.
• Block it out. Put a black box over the groin and adjacent area. Say it's because of the repugnant bloodiness of the injury, if you're afraid you'll get caught out for blacking out a bandage.
• Don't run the photo.

To run the photo and change reality to look more like "reality" is ridiculous. And it highlights one of the bizarre inconsistencies of our society: that violence and blood is much more socially acceptable than basic biology.

Whether Hitler was a vegetarian or not makes no difference. People who argue vegetarianism is flawed because of Hitler are flawed in their logic. That's like saying, Hitler was a painter, therefore Van Gogh might be anti-Semitic or fascist. Or, Hitler was white, therefore all white people are charismatic cult leaders.

I've heard similar arguments from atheists, that they are more ethically evolved and "there are no atheist serial killers." Really? Stalin was an atheist, and much, much worse than Hitler. And yet I know many ethical, kind atheists with strong morals, who would most certainly not slaughter millions if placed in Stalin's position.

No single characteristic or preference of a given human can predict an associated one. Stop trying fit differently made humans into identical molds, people!

mickisue wrote, You can call your cat your best friend, but the cat will not call YOU its best friend--cats are not humans and they don't have the spaces in the brain where HUMANS process the idea of "friend."

First, comparative psychology is ever reducing the gap between humans and the rest of the animal world. So we cannot make assumptions about the feelings of animals, at least at the level of mammals. Since we know that cats must imprint on humans at a very early age in order to interact with us (rather than be feral), we can assume there is some neurological sense of "them" and "us" which cats have.

Second, emotions are a useful evolutional development, and it's improbable that animals which share many characteristics of human brains (serotonin receptors, for example), do not experience emotions.

Birds are also turning out to be quite interesting from a cognitive perspective. I suggest a little more reading on comparative psychology before making sweeping comments.

That said, while cats appear to have a sense of inclusion and emotion (including affection), it's unlikely that the linguistic, abstract concept of friendship is something a cat experiences. But my ability to feel compassion for another living creature has never been limited to my evaluation of their abstract thinking skills. Otherwise, quite a humans might not make the cut, let alone other animals ;-)

And we get along just fine, even though in most of S's relationships, veganism is a prerequisite for long-term, close friendship. Yet we've been friends since 1998, and I'm her emergency contact at work. (My husband is mine, otherwise the reverse would be true as well.)

S has worked at PETA and done a lot of activism in animal rights and other areas. She's a militant atheist and vegan, and would probably offend most Christians and meat-eaters, and even some lacto-ovo vegetarians like myself, just as they offend her sensibilities. But S doesn't find me offensive, and I don't find her so, because we don't judge each other.

Regarding my theism, I don't tell her I know the truth. Instead, I tell her I'm seeking it, and this the closest answer I have so far, for me personally (it may help that I was an atheist for many years). I tell her I think the important thing is to think about the Big Questions honestly, not claim to know the Big Answers. S doesn't tell me I'm a moron. She tells me she doesn't understand theism, but she appreciates it's what's authentic for me, and she appreciates my understanding her atheism is authentic for her.

Regarding my vegetarianism, I share my views and standards (eggs from cage-free, beak-intact hens/dairy from free-range cows) and she shares hers (not taking any kind of advantage of any other animal life if at all possible). Neither of us is upset by this.

Both of us feel great talking to each other because we both know we've made mistakes, we both know we're who we are largely through chance, and we both feel we aren't arrogant enough to claim to know better than someone else who's putting in a good faith effort to be a good person. And we're both unafraid of facing facts and occasionally changing our minds, when the facts call for it.

(A note: S might—might—be persuading me towards veganism, slowly but surely.)