The accuracy of information spewed by your typical reporter isn't now and never has been very impressive. In areas of my own expertise, I've observed that your average daily reporter has an accuracy run rate of 50% to 70%. Experienced, top-flight daily reporters are a little better: 65% to 80% accurate. And the one Pulitzer Prize winning reporter I've worked with hit 95% accuracy. All of which makes sense if you consider how many days/weeks/months are invested in the stories. Your average reporter has a deadline a day or two away; the Pulitzer guy spent weeks on a follow-up to an in-depth report that he probably spent 6 months on.

We get what their editors pay for and there's not much point sweating the details; fix one reporter and you only have thousands more to put on the straight and narrow. It's not hard to anticipate the ongoing use of "A-320" in airline stories and "oxygen tanks" in stories related to SCUBA diving.

is a notion that I get stuck on. Hell yes they're enemies. And they're crazy, too.

Aside from that, why not critique the material left behind. Take a highligher, red pen and blue pen when taking time out for daily duties. A little redaction here, an ironic tweak there and a name change or two would, I think, be quite entertaining (for me) and educational (for the wingnut).

Just remember to wash your hands when you're done.

Some home guests recently had the misfortunate of traveling from Europe too close to the British hysteria. As a result, they couldn't carry on their lap top computer. It was in their bags when they cleared customs in Philadelphia and gone on arrival in San Francisco. Only the checked bag containing the laptop was riffled; the other bags made it through unscathed. Soooo... while under the control of the TSA, someone opened up a bag they probably identified with xray screening, stole a computer and went on the merry way. Who's supposed to stop the same person from putting something in the bag rather than the other way around? Great system.

by their parents in one way or another. We don't "survive" childhood without some impact from the people who raised us. So what? LW has a laundry list of complaints that boil down to having parents who were (occasionally?) self-centered, unwise and inappropriate in their parenting. Big whoop. I can see that everyday basically just doing some grocery shopping.

LW unsurprisingly survived but still clings to the baggage she's been dragging from her childhood. Apparently, her parents are ogres existing outside acceptable civil boundaries. So, fixated on the ogres she knows, she stays blissfully unaware or uncaring of the simple truth that her kids have to grow up tough enough to deal with the fact that life has real dangers. The GPs don't even count as serious threats in the bigger picture.

The LW might give careful consideration to moving on with her life. Let the kids see the grandparents. Sure, the LW has a duty to protect her kids and she should do that. But that's easy enough to do without imposing draconian restrictions on the GPs and CERTAINLY without expecting her parents to formally seek some kind of arbitrary absolution from their child. Heck, I wouldn't talk to LW about her complaints with me if I were her parent; what in the world could I possibly do NOW? Ask for forgiveness? Act contrite? Promise to try to do more than learn from my past mistakes and apply whatever wisdom I've acquired on the journey? This to the kid I raised, sheltered, fed, chauffered for 16 years or more, put through college and brought her up to marry Mr. Right and have two darling grandkids? What a crock.

The request from the laidoff co-worker seems straightforward. Why wouldn't the response to the situation be equally straightforward? "I'm willing to be a reference but I don't recall you being my supervisor and that is true whether it's a claim on your resume or a question from a prospective employer." What started out as a transparent attempt to enroll the LR into a minor fraud is turned aside and responsibility stays where it should: with the coworker and any prospective employer. Seems simple enough to me.

for voicing concerns and calling for changes that run counter to their backgrounds and biases.

I recently sat through a speech/presentation/talk by retired 4-star General Dick Meyers who, from late-2001 until mid-2003, was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He started his presentation pointing out that he could speak his mind now that he was retired. That sounded promising.

An hour later, I found myself thinking that I might have been listening to a mildly-interested peripheral observer of U.S. military and political leadership during the Afghan war into the beginning of the Iraq war. To his credit (I suppose), he did share one or two interesting antecodotes he collected from that time. But that was no salve for my consternation over the realization that General Meyers represents the pinnacle of U.S. military leadership. God help us.

His entire presentation was a waltz around the pink elephants in the room. Indeed, I admit that I was mightily impressed by his abilities as a consummate euphemist. And, maybe, that's what it takes to rise to the top of the "inside-the-beltway" military.

If so, a pair of two-star generals willing to call for regime change in the U.S. is a refreshing ray of sunshine.

I don't think there's a Plan A Pill.

If 200,000 or 600,000 dead Iraqi's aren't an issue, if lying to the country about WMD isn't an impeachable offense, if the Donald (the one with some hair) hasn't been fired, if the aftermath of Katrina is still mostly aftermath, ... then some dubiously ethical (but still legal) actions by Bush appointees doesn't even make onto the radar. As much as I dispise the Shrub worshippers, this shouldn't (and won't) make into the news cycle.