Indeed, as LS mentioned earlier in another letter, it's quite something to see that Newsom could apparently straight-faced say, "I believe people were afforded the right to protest and support the torch. They were not denied the ability to protest."

He means people were afforded the right to protest the torch much like others before them had been allowed to protest Bush? Again, they were lucky not to be fenced in.

Next time, he should "afford" people to protest something going through SF from, say, Central Park. In a globalizing world, what's 3,000 miles?

And yes, I agree - what a beautifully apt symbol of the Olympics it is to see police in all countries squashing free speech. I for one can't wait for the Putin ones in 2014!

I'm surprised at the sanguine reaction from many people on this one - and that they got Ed's Choice too. Then again, they don't appear to use the airline in question much so maybe that's why they feel quite underwhelmed.

As someone who regularly flies EasyJet (the European flavor of Southwest) I can tell you their recent introduction of the baggage-check "tax" did nothing to improve on the flying experience they offer - quite the contrary.

What's worse, they add insult to cost by requiring that customers go and print their own tags, then stick them to their bags themselves, then queue for drop-in at understaffed counters... only to be handed a low-priority boarding card. (EasyJet has four "classes" of airplane boarders. Those who pay a lot to get in first, those who pay less, and those who don't pay - split between those who checked in online and those who did not.) So if you have to check luggage (and I don't ever do it unless I really have to) you not only pay for the "privilege" but then also are sent to the back of the loading cart. Yay for "paying for perks".

Oh - and victorycabal is right on the money, so to speak: make people pay for carry-ons would help that "curbside to curbside" experience much.

And if airlines really want to make more money *and* improve the lives of a majority of their customers, making people pay to check-in kids and babies would be the smart way to go.

I don't get you people. Farhad is right, no matter how you cut it. Whether it's $17 more, or $27 more, or $40 more, the operative word is, well, "more".

And I disagree on "more features = cheaper". Jobs said 56% of people did not get the iPhone because it was too *expensive*, not because it lacked 3G. So their problem was price, not more or fewer features.

The problem remains the same today - and I don't care if it's even a measle seventeen bucks over 24 months: Jobs was treating truth lightly when he said they made it cheaper. They didn't. No matter the math.

I could read no further in Just Jake's letter than the bit that goes:

"What I took away from the article other than laughter was this: Even if tongue-in-cheek, it reflects that there is a generally growing acceptance of gay people."

Because, let's face it: the "acceptance" that the "article" (for lack of a better word) shows it the same acceptance Blacks used to enjoy years ago - as long as they kept to themselves, stereotypes, soul food and quaint expressions. The same acceptance Latinos enjoyed as long as they entertained us with their cute, big hats, margaritas and colorful family antics. The same acceptance majorities everywhere bestow minorities as long as they keep to the script. The acceptance given to king's fools.

If that's the acceptance the author is capable of, and Just Jake is happy with, I'll more than happily take their rejection and fight for something more meaningful and worthwhile instead.

I've always found Mr Kamiya's articles on this volatile subject to be well-balanced, and well-informed, giving us information hopefully less skewed that what we'd get from, say, Congress.

But I do have a bit of a puzzle regarding the bit that goes, "Intentionally massacring women and children is not the same as dropping bombs and firing shells into one of the most densely populated areas in the world, even if the resulting civilian death tolls are similar."

I mean, it can only *not* be the same if either the dropping of bombs and firing of shells either does not end in a massacre, or is not intentional.

Since we're told that the death toll is similar, then for it to be different, it must mean the dropping and firing must be unintentional. Only, those bombs and shells probably don't fire off all by themselves, so there must be someone who intentionally does it for them, right?

So, where is that elusive difference?

I mean, I don't see any other explanation.