The obvious question raised by Mansfield's article has to do with the definition of "quiet times," in which the rule of law can be restored. What is a quiet time, and who sets the standard? Obvously the fear first of the red scares of the 1920s, then of Fascism, then of Communism and now of terrorism suggests that there have been no certifiably quiet times for, oh, at least 100 years.

I too was disappointed that the questions on which so many of us voted, thinking they would be asked of the Republican candidates in last night's debate, were in fact not asked. As a result of this column, I can understand why. The Politico people would probably dismiss this objection, claiming the poll was simply a marketing stunt. But I think it completely erases any claim they had to be a useful, objective source.

I guess Anonymous can be proud of Bush and the Republican candidates, who are not only millionaires but proudly support expanded wealth for millionaires at the cost of subsistance wages for the rest of us. At least they're not hypocrites.

I suggest the following slogan for Gore's 2008 campaign: "Gore-Obama '08: Best for the Nation, Best for the Planet."

I agree with the people who think that David Marchese was a poor choice to write an article on this subject for all the reasons they cited. Now it's up to the Salon editors: Explain your choice or apologize for it. If Glenn Greenwald can reply to his critics, the arts and culture editors can do the same.

If anyone remembers, Jackie Kennedy gave a televised tour of the White House back when JFK was president. I was startled to hear a little-girl voice come out of this accomplished woman. She sounded a bit like Marilyn Monroe. What do you make of that?

An article in today's NY Times about a formal ceremony for the opening of the refurbished White House press room notes:

"...with the White House press corps under attack from liberal bloggers as being too cozy with the Bush administration, some reporters say they feel a little bit queasy about attending."

Sounds as if Glenn and others are having an impact.

Brooks pointed out that Bush wants to deal directly with foreign leaders, Putin and the rest. Brooks did not recall that Bush's method of dealing with Putin was to look into his eyes, read his soul, and conclude that he could be worked with. Of course this is equivalent to the rest of Bush's simplistic yes-no outlook. Looking into someone's eyes and determining how to go from there certainly saves a lot of hard work and discussion and the need to take into account shades of gray, all of which our noble leader eschews. It's so much easier to have a Manichean worldview. because it's so much less work.

Isn't our massive deficit also to blame for the dollar's slide?

Mr. Shapiro -- Many writers have rightly called you on your use of "coiffed" and your other apparent biases. It's your turn, even your obligation, to respond. Glenn Greenwald does.

Seems awfully convenient (and familiar) to blame it on "friends."

There's a useful distinction, in danger of being lost, between "less" and "fewer." The latter word refers to things you can count, such as opponents. The former refers to mass quantities, such as grain.

I could go on about the distinction between "disinterested" and "uninterested," but that's enough grammar for one day.

I e-mailed Todd in regard to the earlier discussion in which he excused torture by American officials. Though he was good enough to reply, his reply made no sense. He said that if the case against them were as black and white as I seemed to think, the torturers would have been tried and convicted. Of course this ignored the fact that charges need to be brought against them, which the Obama administration has been resolute in opposing.