While I do agree with much of what you say, I don't think early adoptors of technology are morons. It takes a bold and forward looking person to spend $600 on a new and untested piece of electronics. They understand that there is risk associated with that, and future price drops are a part of that risk.

What Apple has done is to buy additional loyalty from they early adoptors for the price of $100. It is a great move, and it will pay dividends far beyond Apple's cost on that store credit.

That was the funniest comic in these pages all year. Great work!

Pot meet kettle.

Is it real mexican food? I don't care. I'm just hungry for something good.

My question is "Is it real food?" The "beef" at taco bell is less than 50% animal product. That means that the "beef" is more than 50% "other"

Is it real cheap? Yes! Adjusted for inflation, the average fast food meal costs 1/3 of what it cost in 1987. Remember spending about $5 on a fast food meal 20 years ago? You still can.

20 years ago the Taco Bell was staffed by literate employees. 20 years ago, the beef was made of cow. 20 years ago it did taste better.

That is an awesome display of reality! GM paranoia is trumped by hunger.

Absolutely no. The mortgage companies are all RIGHTLY going out of business. The debt rating agencies are facing a huge legal liability, and will hopefully soon pay the price for their part. The con men, and paperwork cheats all deserve financial loss and/or jail.

The S&L debacle is exactly what I am against. Government bailouts only tell the remaining players that risk isn't really risky. The free market only works if the government keeps out of the risk/reward ratio.

Banks should fail, and CDO holders should lose money. Then the inside players will demand honest accounting and a reform of lending.

Typical. A call for uncle government to bail out the idiots who bought houses they couldn;t afford, and financed them with mortages they didn't understand. Of course, this will be paid for with taxes on the people who used moderation in their housing choices, and read contracts they are presented with. Is that supposed to be fair, or is it just another naked grab for cash? It sure looks like the government is going to punish people for being responsible.

Added Bonus: Next time around, even more people are going to borrow in an irresponsible way.

You are the sexist (anti-male) liberals who impose the gender neutral law on us, while constantly making excuses for why you and your situation should be exempt. It is nothing short of rank hypocracy, and it does nothing but perpetuate inequality.

That is a lot of justification for your sexist attitude. For example: It really doesn't matter why one feels more comfortable selling their house to a white than a black, it is still racism. It doesn't really matter what justification you give for outright opposing gay teachers, the act of choosing against them just for being gay makes you a homophobe. And finally... (lets repeat this together class, it will be on the exam):

It doesn't matter what justification you give, making a decision based on gender alone makes you a sexist.

Simple explination, men are trained to NOT be sexist (under penalty of career loss). Women are not similarly contstrained.

Simple explination, men are trained to NOT be sexist (under penalty of career loss). Women are not similarly contsrained.

If we could only find a way to give Bush the Royal Flush!

I see your legless vet, and raise you two US casualties and a brain damaged Iraqi child.

As a nerdy kid in the midwest, pre-internet, pre-cableTV, I read a lot of books. By summertime in junior high was 1 book per day. Today, I read fewer than 5 books per year. But I also spend 8-10 hours a day in front of a computer, mosty reading (Salon.com, Slate.com, ft.com, boingboing.com, etc.). I probably read twice as much material, but virtually none of it is in the form of a dead tree.

So LWs problem is that her husband is honoring their age old agreement on the split of household chores, despite him becomming unemployed. Her response is to threaten violence aganst him? I would have to ask LW: Is your real anger with the laundry, or is it with him not bringing home the cash?

If it is the laundry, then what the heck is her problem with honoring the agreement that they have had for years?

If it is the cash, then she is more of a pimp than a wife. "My bitch better have my money, or I will bitch slap her."

Either way, she is dishonorable. The real question is whether the spousal abuse shelter will take him in when he escapes from LW.

Corporations make their upper level employees work so hard that it makes the executives bad parents. This is true of both male and female executives. It is not related to the gender of the executive, it is the nature of high level corporate work.

Salon ignores how how this affects working executive women (as one would expect of a section of salon dedicated to women's issues), and instead chooses to write an article titled "Delinquent Dads." You are inserting anti-maleness into a gender neutral problem, and the term for that is sexism.

Shame on you Salon for lowering the level of discourse.