I'm all for dialing down the fearmongering that the government uses to exploit these terrorist plots, and I agree with Smith that we're deluding ourselves if we think we can make airport security airtight. But I don't get the logic of his criticism of confiscating liquids, or for that matter corkscrews. His argument reminds me of the old NRA canard "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." Yes, the real problem here is terrorist ingenuity. But if, at two distinct points in time, the terrorist imagination has maxed out at liquid explosives, then might it not make some sense to ban liquid carry-ons? Or does Smith think the intractability of the threat to airlines should stop us from screening for handguns too? As to his point that investigators, not screeners, figured this one out -- true enough, and a sobering thought, but if we didn't extend our investigatory insights to the screening stage, wouldn't terrorists take the sensible step of never giving up on last week's best plan? Maybe Smith's argument would have more rhetorical force if banning liquids (or corkscrews) threatened our well-being or civil liberties, but that threat comes as soon as we have any kind of screening at all -- and that plane appears to have left the gate.

Yes, SSDD, we should definitely show empathy for the incest-committing father who rapes and impregnates his daughter. He definitely deserves to have some rights in all this.

That little girl could have been the most personally responsible, sexually educated person to ever walk the Earth and this still would have happened to her. Parental notification laws don't protect people like her. People like her father deserve no empathy and no rights in a situation like this one, and she deserved safe, reliable access to an abortion that didn't require her having to tell her criminal of a father first.

Can we please fix the typo in the blurb? ("Qualities")

Just more of that hard-hitting news the creators of Broadsheet promised, right?

Our goal is to be opinionated about topics that affect women, but also a filter by which we can look at the news from a (mostly) female point of view.

Yes, Brad and Angelina having a baby affects me SO MUCH. As a woman, I thank God that you are here providing me with this oh so very important news. If I didn't have Broadsheet, I'd have to read People!

The only thing shocking, Shirley Cushing, is the blatant racism you display in your letter. I'm guessing you also cringe when a group of men in turbans walks past you. You've just got it all solved! If the black people, with their terrible work ethic (nice generalization, by the way) would just shape up and wear preppy clothes, all would be solved!

Please tell me I dreamed that you actually used the word "primate" in your description.

Go ahead and hate the movie. That's your prerogative. Criticize away. But for the love of God, if you're going to quote from song lyrics from a movie musical, please make sure you're quoting them all correctly. "You are what you are" never appears in any song. It's "You're what you own," which is the title of the song, which is, frankly, the point of the song.

Well, you've certainly made my decision about whether or not to renew my Premium subscription a little easier. Thanks!

What a worthless, insulting use of internet space this new blog is. The "Broadsheet"? Are you kidding me? Articles on makeup, the Rockettes (newsflash, Salon: many, many US companies don't offer maternity leave), and office catfighting?

Thanks, but no thanks.