As I read Ms Havrilesky's comments, she effectively convinces me that 90% of offerings on TV are absolute garbage. Even worse, the garbage isn't even heartfelt garbage created by genuine people, but market-researched dreck assembled by corporate committees. The only challenge presented is whether the cynicism of the creators can be bested by an even more cynical audience reaction.

So I'm sitting here watching baseball, and I'm thinking that at least this game is genuine -- until I remember steroids...

Is there any aspect of life today that is as geniune as Woody Guthrie -- other than the geniune desire of us all to pile up as much cash and stuff as possible?

No one should be surprised at the security reaction to this event. However, I don't think it is driven by any analysis of whether banning liquids etc. really will reduce overall threat.

Imagine you are an airline employee, or a government official, or a security "expert" and this issue is splayed all over the news. What if you don't make the obvious step of banning stuff like these terrorists were going to use -- and then an incident using these materials actually happens? Talk about a career-limiting event.

The people in charge at airports have to do this now -- they'd be risking their jobs and maybe even risking jail if they didn't.

When I heard Cheney's comments about the British withdrawal I immediately wondered -- if their reason for leaving is really success at Basra -- why they couldn't be redeployed around Baghdad to help with our surge. Wouldn't that be logical?

I have to believe that the true reason for the British departure is their acknowledgement of a hopeless situation.

Reading that 150 graduates of Regent have been hired by the current administration made me think of the EEOC posters that are posted in every work-place -- here is a portion of the poster's text:

RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Could preferentially hiring from Regent, Liberty, and other such colleges be interpreted as discrimination in favor of evangelical Christian religion? The wording does not specify discrimination against a religion, it simply prohibits discrimination ... on the basis of ... religion.

I'm not a lawyer, so I hope to see comments from people more knowledgeable in this area.

I believe that the guy's name was James Buchanan (not John)

Excuse me, but I like the stuff. Not the extreme sugary ones, but I don't what I'd do at 5:13 AM when I have 7 minutes for breakfast if you took away my Frosted Mini-Wheats (some sugar, but very low in sodium).

Sardines definitely aren't the answer....

It is useful to point out how high in sodium some of the cereals are. Check out the amount in Grape-Nuts (I've not touched them since I read the label).

Has anyone else noticed that Mike Huckabee resembles that Nixon-like president on "24" from two years ago?

Articles dealing with religion in politics seem to attract dozens of passionate letters. For me they make for addictive reading, but I'd like to bring up Huckabee's flat tax proposal -- admittedly a much drier subject...

If this proposal is enacted, this would be a huge change for all of us, and I'm concerned that Huckabee and his supporters have not thought the thing through. Also I've run into very few comments about it.

Very simple-mindedly he sells this as abolishing the IRS. Who wouldn't like that --- but what would be the consequences? While it takes the IRS off individuals' backs, won't it increase the burden on small businesses (core Republicans)?

The concept of taxing consumption vs. income is appealing to me because it could curb over-consumption and encourage work and savings. But how would this affect the current consumer-driven economy?

The flat tax would also do away with the tax advantages of home mortgages and charitable giving -- correct? Have Huckabee's religious supporters thought of this?

I have read that Huckabee's proposal would generate substantially less revenue than the current system. How can someone who calls himself "conservative" propose a plan that likely leads to even larger deficits? I think it is reckless to advocate such radical change.

I am sure there are many details about this flat tax proposal that I have not learned -- and I guess that is the point of this letter. Maybe the media (and all of us) should be paying more attention to concrete issues like this, and devoting less time to fun arguments about religion.

Apparently someone is trying to "smear" Huckabee by planting the seed that his "FairTax" plan could negatively impact finances of religious organizations by removing the tax advantage of charitable donations. I have been curious about this, and have been wondering why the religious right does not seem concerned.

As described on Huckabee's website, he advocates completely doing away with the IRS and the current income tax, replacing it with a "FairTax" on consumption. Part of this system would be rebates to low-income people, to make it a little "progressive". However, no mention is made of the impact this would likely have on charitable giving (no longer a tax deduction) -- or on home ownership (mortgage interest also no longer a deduction).

Some of the aspects of the FairTax seem attractive, but I doubt that it would be revenue-neutral, as claimed by Huckabee.

I'd appreciate comments from anyone that has insights about this issue.