I disagree with this piece almost completely. Does a father not have equal right as a mother to instill his values on his child? Sure that can create confusion in a situation such as this, but who cares. Confuse the child. Let her sort out her beliefs as she matures. Evangelical children do not need their ridiculous beliefs coddled. They need them challenged. Same goes for atheist children, for that matter.

Evangelical Christians don't want atheists attending their churches. They know quite well that atheists have the superior arguments. They tell children to stay away from them. A church that convinces a child that her father is going to hell is doing psychological violence to that child. The father shouldn't have his (much more sane and correct, imho) beliefs subordinated to the mother's just because the mother's happen to be religious in nature. Any parent should have a stake in making sure children have as accurate a view of the universe as is available to them.

Before everyone has a stroke over his smoking weed then driving, please do a little research. Studies have shown no correlation between cannabis use and driving fatalities. The usual explanation is that, while the drug is impairing, that impairment is more than compensated for by extra caution on the part of the driver, whose judgment is not affected as it is with alcohol. Probably not the best idea, but certainly nothing to blow a gasket over and ignore the rest of the piece.

A professor of mine wrote a book in which she argued that "art isn't good for us, art is us." This plea makes sense to literature-minded sort of people, people who value ambiguity and imagination, both of which played a much bigger role in a day when people weren't constantly hooked into information sources.

If our particular culture (in this case practically the world culture that connects with Harry Potter) values this particular permutation of the novel, with its meta-obsession as cataloged by the Internet, that in itself is a cultural phenomenon to be appreciated. Only time will tell whether it matters, and whether it signifies an atrophy of our analytical and imaginative skills.

The media are already trashing Clinton for not giving straight answers to questions about social security, drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, and other matters.

Is it just me, or is this more a symptom of the media's obsession with stark black/white choices in politics? Senator Clinton's answers weren't political waffling--they were nuanced. We don't need anymore "check yes or no" administrations, we need a president who understands all sides to issues and pledges to work practically to solve the various problems facing us. Clinton came across as knowledgeable and nuanced. Of course I said the same thing about John Kerry and the media decided to label him a flip-flopper.

Don't blame Clinton if we end up with another shallow-minded authoritarian in the White House. The media likes those types of people.

Obama looked genuinely pained to have to play this anti-Hillary game that he rightly noted was over-hyped in the media. Edwards was good in this regard, I will say that. The happy truth is I'd support any of these people against any of the Republicans, but I'm worried about the coming swift-boating. I think Clinton is the best prepared to deal with it.

And that's why they are going after her with such trivialities. So far the only things the media have been able to dig up on Senator Clinton have been of the absurdly petty kind and downright lies, old and new. Kind of makes me think the Hillary haters, conservative and liberal, don't have a shred of rational thought behind their mouth foaming. Wake me up when Senator Clinton actually does something wrong.

Please collectively go jump off a cliff. Ralph Nader is at the bottom and he's waiting for you.

Republican idealists are called neocons. Democratic idealists lose elections because they are unable not to buy into whatever fake media narrative surrounds the Democratic candidate. Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, and Hillary Clinton isn't evil.

Funny how Pagila criticizes the media for having supposedly given a pass to Clinton's campaign until that debate (how many weeks ago was that?), yet now she buys into the media narrative that Clinton is bruised. Gosh I wish we could talk about things that matter. Clinton's poll numbers still indicate that she'll win the nomination unless she's found eating babies at a local greasy spoon (and not leaving a tip.) If you anti-Hillary zealots stick us with President Rudy because you're too idealistic not to vote for the only Democrat on the ballot, it will show that, however stupid Republicans at large may be, they understand a little something about pragmatism and power.

Let's not insult the good name of lemmings by comparing them to Nader supporters.

...whether he thinks there are too few Mormons in the country for us to consider one for the presidency.

Maybe Obama shouldn't have been snorting cocaine. Anyone ever think of that? This is a presidential contest, and the Obama folks are practically making an artform out of playing the victim. Bill was attacked for his alleged marijuana use in his campaign. Obama wrote about his drug use in his book, then says it's off limits for anyone to talk about it. Not just that, but it's off limits to even subliminally refer to it. What exactly does he think is going to come if he wins the nomination?

I find the idea that more men play football than have sex with men highly dubious. There's a lot of crossover, too.

What's more likely? Hillary Clinton really is this nefarious, omniscient, evil entity Camille is convinced she is, or Camille is a self-loathing delusional hack?