He sounds like a petulant child: "You're not the boss of me."

Nothing to worry about here. Move along...move along.

I think it has long been established and acknowledged that this woman is hardly a Class Act.

Anonymous...

Things don't get lost in the mail.

"I sent an invitation to a close friend for my own wedding several decades ago, and unwittingly transposed two numbers in the address."

Your fault, not the Postal Service's. They even were kind enough to return it to you.

Thank you erithtotl...I agree completely.

This article is crap. Crap crap crap. But not just the administration was second-guessed today. During the ~4pm news conference one reporter asked why no one confronted and tackled the shooter. He graciously volunteered that if he were in such a situation he would have lunged for the shooter. I am sure he would have...as soon as he was done crapping his pants. What an asshole.

Talk to the landlord. This is one reason why there is usually a "no subletting" clause in leases.

Xanadu....I agree; your first letter was fine. Perhaps Salon is only accepting letters of rousing endorsement from readers of its headline stories.

Salon...where did it go?

I think the most compelling reason for the illegality of prostitution is that, even when legal, it is an activity that seems to attract some unpleasant ancillary ills. Not two weeks ago, the nytimes had an article on Amsterdam's efforts to reduce the size of its red light district through the purchase of whore houses ( I am not sure what else to call them ) and letting them out to other businesses. An increase in drug use, human trafficking, and general crime had turned what was once a family-oriented, legal red light district into something more akin to a rambling Bangkok brothel.

Advocates of drug or prostitution legalization often qualify their position by stating that these activities should be regulated, thus presumably made safe. I wonder how many people would want to live or raise children in a neighborhood where drugs and prostitutes, however legal and regulated or high-class, were freely available. From the periodic articles I have read on the availability of medical marijuana in San Francisco, it appears that many folks who advocated legalization were none-too-pleased when pot shops opened in their neighborhoods or on the touristy Wharf. NIMBY. Marijuana is innocuous; others pack a bit more of a punch.

On Spitzer...the fury around him isn't just because of his hypocrisy, which is damning enough, but generally forgiven in time. Being a scumbag, though, leaves a bad long-lasting taste in everyone's mouth.

Finally, I agree with other posters who argue against the idea that Spitzer's situation should be overlooked or is any way mitigated because the Current Occupant is waging a war leading to countless deaths and untold treasure lost. That is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. I learned at the age of 8 that pointing out others' failings was not an acceptable defense when I was called to task for my own misdeeds.

I absolutely agree. When I was writing my post, I thought to myself, "do I mention alcohol or just leave well-enough alone, bang out my point, and be done with it?"

Thank you for responding to what I wrote.

Christ...another letter from a budding writer unsure of what direction to head in. Didn't we go through a rash of these last year?

Can we get more letters like the one last fall from the woman who was tempted to Do It with her hot stepson? That was titillating.

From ahoyhoy...

"It seems as though Charlie thinks he the smartest guy in any room and anything to the contrary is smoke and mirrors. His world view is perfect and needs no review."

I agree. My problem with Charlie Rose ( and I have been watching him for years ), is that he talks when he should listen. I don't care what Charlie thinks; I want to know what his guests think.

I knew this debate was going to thoroughly suck from the moment Charlie called started calling the venue the "National Constitutional Center." Ugh. From there it went downhill...lots of stupid-ass questions from stupid-ass people. [ If the issue of greatest import to you is how a candidate treats/revers the flag, then you deserve to be labeled a gun-loving, Bible-toting hick. ] Finally, I rolled my eyes and lost interest when Stephanopoulousoisousouos ( whose name I can't stop spelling once I start ), pressed the candidates to fall all over themselves in support of Israel. Would it be possible to have one debate where half the questions on foreign policy don't focus on Israel and its' security?