I know, not a big deal, but the little things add up. That was free money that CW was getting to use, and they don't have it anymore. Why? Because they screwed up and undercharged me, then decided to charge me so much that they would have a 100% buffer for all of my annual expenses - and I don't trust them to not go bankrupt and keep my money. I'm going to cash the overage check as soon as possible. I decided that paying my own taxes and insurance was just easier. I suspect that a lot of people are closing escrow accounts and savings accounts and moving them elsewhere. I'm a little worried about Countrywide shutting down, but our mortgage is a contract that is transferrable and it doesn't really matter who we have to pay. I don't think that Countrywide is going to make it through this. Once the CEO's start to panic sell and people start closing accounts, it's hard to regain positive momentum.

I know... the government can't do anything right, and competition has brought us very low prices. But when does the emotional cost of flying get so low that we lose the value? The entire airline system is driven right now by profits. Airlines make so little that they have to save every penny. What if we standardized fares? Suddenly, quality would be the issue. Airlines would be competing on not losing luggage, landing on time, having edible (and free) food, maybe ... it's a dream... a bit more leg room?

Not gonna happen right now, but I suspect it's inevitable, and I suspect that, eventually, the airlines will welcome it. Right now they are barely making a profit. Regulation could guarantee them a profit.

Since when did one or two bad movies lead studios to stop making movies with an entire group of people? Kidman and Foster have had very successful movies in the past, and will again. Maybe if Warner started making intelligent movies with femal leads instead of remakes and "empowerment" movies, they would make more money.

In all honesty, homosexual makes a lot more sense. I've been criticized for using this term, because right wingers use it, but I don't think it's the least bit derogatory and I really don't want to tailor my speech because some idiot thinks something perfectly normal is dirty. Homosexual people desire sex with people of their own gender. Heterosexual people desire sex with people of different genders. Asexual people don't want sex at all. Why on earth is it wrong to simply call people the proper term for their sexual preference.

According to the US EPA:

"A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for:

* preventing,

* destroying,

* repelling, or

* mitigating any pest.

Though often misunderstood to refer only to insecticides, the term pesticide also applies to herbicides, fungicides, and various other substances used to control pests.

Under United States law, a pesticide is also any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant."

The author used the term pesticide quite accurately.

This is really about the cheapening of American news. They don't want to spend money on real polls, so they put polls up on their web sites that cost them virtually nothing and trumpet the results as meaningful, throwing in the "unscientific" qualifier in small print. It's frightening that anybody in a respected news outfit would take these things seriously enough to be offended when the results are so obviously wrong that they can't present them as facts. They should NEVER be using these polls as anything more than meaningless entertainment.

This is a prime example of how to win through compromise. It would be better to simply fund the postpartum depression/psychosis research without political distractions, but Republicans are unwilling to put women's health above political goals, so we can't have that. Meanwhile, abortion does not negatively effect the mental health of women, and I'm looking forward to seeing additional research proving it.

I know this administration is scary, but we have no reason to believe that they intend to stage a coup. Republicans have always had a sick sense of humor. Does anybody else remember when Reagan joked about bombing Russia? Bush calls his favorite advisor "turdblossom". Why do we insist on taking him seriously?

For years, we've been seeing America move more toward a feudal system, with wealth and power concentrated among an increasingly smaller group of the elite. Our K-12 educational system is something of a joke, with wealthy students getting a minimally decent education while the poor get warehoused. If we don't start taking education seriously, we're going to find that more and more nations will be looking to America to fill low-paying call-center jobs.

"Security screeners at two of the nation's busiest airports failed to find fake bombs hidden on undercover agents posing as passengers in more than 60% of tests last year, according to a classified report obtained by USA TODAY."

What are we gaining by taking off our bra's in public and nota being allowed to take water into airports? Security? I don't think that any terrorist believes that they can get away with taking over a plane and hitting a building, and they certainly won't be able to make a bomb while sitting in a plane (if it were that simple, it would be happening all the time - it's not that easy to make explosives). I'ts quite obvious that our airline security is tragically inefficient and designed to provide visible protection for the benefit of the public while not actually stopping terrorists. When there is another terrorist attack, which there will be, someday, it will not come through the front door, but the back, where we aren't looking.