Gasbag Limbaugh and the Fox Noise crowd doth protest WAY too much. Was every single tea bagger a racist? No. But I think Garofalo was largely correct. You can choose to defend what she said or not, Alex, but you can't deny the abundant photographic evidence of blatantly racist placards aimed squarely at Obama. Garofalo has nothing to apologize for and O'Reilly and the rest and stamp their little feet all the want.

Neither does Wanda Sykes have anything to apologize for. While I personally wouldn't go so far as to wish for someone's death even in jest, I would also not shed a tear or express a word of regret if Rush's life of excess catches up with him tomorrow. And his abuse of Oxycontin and other pills isn't slander, it's a matter of public record.

I realize that being conservative means never apologizing even when an apology is called for; I wish more liberals would realize we don't always have to empathize with the right-wing bullies over their tender feelings, when a Jeaneane Garofalo or Wanda Sykes does nothing more than speak the simple truth.

I rarely say that about a movie anymore, and even more rarely see one on opening day. But this was worth it.

I think Karl Urban as Bones was the real revelation of the film. Already being a fan of Zachary Quinto's from his portrayal of Sylar on Heroes I expected an outstanding performance and was please. Ditto with Simon Pegg and John Cho as Sulu (and I was pleased he got his moment to shine in a swordfight), and even Bruce Greenwood as Pike, once I realized who it was. But Urban I wasn't familiar with, and he channeled the essence of DeForrest Kelley without seeming like he was doing a bad impression.

In the end, I think it was the little touches that made the movie for me, from the new actors often hilariously repeating their characters' iconic catch phrases to things like Kirk getting it on with a green-skinned Orion woman.

There are nits to pick, sure, but this was a fun movie, even one I may have to see again--in IMAX this time.

It will depend on what the LW's work situation is, and what kind of employers he has. My wife's employer, a large-ish ad agency, has a referral service where employees can consult with an attorney for either no fee or a nominal one (can't remember). So that's another option.

While I wish Sen. Spector good health and many more years, the fact is that as a cancer survivor in his 80s, Arlen Spector will be beating the odds to serve out another term. And I certainly couldn't see him running again in 2016.

There would have been a good chance that Toomey would have one, but no guarantees on who Rendell and the Pennsylvania Democratic machinery would have backed against him. I guess I look at it this way: there are a lot of people I would have much rather seen in that seat than Arlen Spector, but as a Democrat I don't see Spector being much more of a pain to deal with than Evan Bayh or Ben Nelson.

But not one near a big city like San Francisco where they can freeload off the country they claim to despise. Let's talk to Sarah Palin and find one (two if we're feeling really generous) uninhabited islands in the Aleutian chain we can give to them. Undeveloped, natch, but hey they can do whatever they want, and build the Atlas Shrugged meets Handmaid's Tale kingdom of their fevered fantasies.

"Excuse me--I'm on my WHINE break."

Had I argued your interpretation of Henry VIII's divorce and how it might apply to contemporary debates in a college paper my history prof, Dr. Monod, would have been kind to give me a C- (and while he was a good guy, he was not kind in that sense).

Really, it's of a piece with the rest of your essay, the worst entry in a trio that's been pretty egregious. Henry VIII is, if anything, an argument in favor of the State saying to the Churches that whatever views they may have against gay marriage have no applicability in secular law. It was the Pope, choosing to cast his lot with Spain (Henry's wife Catherine of Aragon being a Spanish princess) rather than England, at that time still loyal to Rome. Noble divorces were granted on far flimsier grounds than what Henry was requesting; the pope's decision was arbitrary and political, and not really concerned with religious doctrine.

Just as the conservatives' argument (proved nicely by you) against gay marriage is likewise arbitrary and political, and not really concerned with religious doctrine--which in any event has no place in governance anyway.

Always has to tell people what a badass he is, and how wimpy people on the other side are. That hand his love for all things Nazi. About 10 years ago I used to listen to his show (not entirely by choice; I worked for a radio station that carried it) and he was pulling the same crap. I'm surprised, Joan, he didn't wax nostalgic for the Luftwaffe during your debate. That would have completed the picture.

Sarkozy couldn't have enough photos taken with Obama during the president's recent European trip, and now he wants to talk smack? Mercy buckets, M. Sarkozy. Why don't you call up your buddy Vladimir Putin so he can toss you around the judo ring some more?

It's less Sarkozy's opinions about Obama--though, if accurately translated don't seem to offer much more substance than American right-wing critiques of him do--than the fact that the French president is being a two-faced tool.

As for the French people? They've been staunch allies for most of our history, and have often told us things we don't want to hear as a country. If you don't hold Bush against me, I don't hold Sarko against you.