There's a circular argument here, I think. No matter what you buy, even if it's nothing, it reflects either a choice or a deliberate decision not to care. So in that sense, any choice, no matter how trivial, defines you. But so what? You can't *not* make choices (and if you didn't, that would be a choice, right?). So where does that get us?

I'm sure there are lots of consumer decisions I make that are irrational and reflect a successful marketing campaign that I'm not aware of. But if I deliberately resisted this, then that would presumably be attributable to some other marketing campaign. For example, if I choose not to buy brand name groceries or clothes and instead to shop at farmer's and crafts markets, that's just another "brand," just another consumer choice, right? Where does it end? It's like any totalizing ideology -- sure, you can look at everything through the lens of marketing. It doesn't get you anywhere interesting.

One of the great fallacies of marketing is to take consumer research and come up with a profile (or several) of the typical consumer(s) of your product, and then to treat that profile as though it were a description of a particular individual, or type of individual. It isn't.

Well gosh, Christopher, weren't you the one who made grand claims about a whole generation's imperviousness to advertising?

In the sense you probably mean, the answer is no. Down syndrome is usually due to a developmental error in one of the gametes, which results in an extra copy of chromosome 21 being inserted into the nucleus of the cell that then develops into an embryo. Any fertile couple have the potential to produce a Down syndrome child, though it becomes more likely as the mother's age increases. In a small minority of cases, the extra chromosome is due to a condition specific to one or both parents, genetic translocation.

This has been a public service announcement. We now return to our regularly scheduled mockery.

I don't usually react much to news about celebrities (after all, I don't know them personally, though the gossip media encourage me to think I do), but when I read about Paul Newman's death this morning, I got a lump in my throat.

I've heard pundits talking about how Palin could "legitimately" bow out by citing family responsibilities, but if she did, would anybody buy it? Nobody but the faithful wingnuts who swallow their talking points whole. If she leaves the ticket, for any reason, everyone will know it was the campaign's decision, not hers, and McCain, having second-guessed himself, would look weak an indecisive. He might not look any worse than he looks with her on the ticket, but not any better, either.

@Thoughts -- Since Gore won the popular vote in that election, and probably (had the votes been counted properly) the electoral college, that's not a very good example of the negative consequences of the strategy. I find it interesting that virtually everyone talks about Gore's loss in 2000 without acknowledging that it was a loss because of factors that had little or nothing to do with actual votes.

This is the kind of statement that just sticks in my craw. So one or more of these consultant/hacks likes her (or finds it necessary to say so), fine. But it's not a statement of fact. The polls show that the American people are finding her less and less likeable as they find out more about her.

George W. Bush was always described as "likeable," but as someone commented to me back in 2000, that isn't even a matter of opinion, it's a matter of taste. Aside from any judgements I might have about Palin's politics or her readiness to be president, she reminds me of the girls knew in junior high school who used all of their energy and intellect to figure out how to get to the top of the pecking order and stay there. Their main expertise was in being mean and being able to brazen out almost any situation by refusing to admit that they were ignorant or wrong -- or, if necessary, by asserting that their ignorance made them superior. (Sound familiar?) They were always described as "popular," but most people didn't like them -- we just knew that we had to acknowledge their popularity if we wanted our lives to be bearable. But I'm old enough now to be honest: I don't like Palin.

The ads I've seen during the Daily Show make it look dreadful -- racist and unfunny. I'm not even tempted to watch it.

"I'm not saying he's a child molester. I'm just saying the media should investigate to see if he is one."

...but it's a variation on a theme I see all the time online: when criticized, assert "I have a right to voice my opinion," or "you can't stop me from saying what I think!"

In other words, cry censorship. God, it's annoying. And it's what people do when they don't know how to respond to criticism.

I want to echo what novoteindc said above: there is no reason, NONE, to believe these anonymously-sourced stories about Palin. I realize that it's tempting to believe dirt about someone you loathe, but get real -- it's being dished by members of a campaign that has taken pathological lying to a new level.

I really don't care what anybody says about Palin. Let's hope she goes back to Alaska and never ventures forth again. But if you're going to analyze what people are saying about her, please consider the source.