Kim, can you describe for me the difference between you hanging out with your friends, swapping jokes, telling stories, speaking your mind, and you sitting in a room by yourself talking to a bare wall?

Imus made these comments when he was on air. He was not hanging out with friends or in a private place when he made these comments as an employee of MSNBC. He knew that he was on the air and his remarks would be heard by everyone. This was not an overheard conversation nor was anyone illegally recording him when he made these comments.

His job was being outrageous and offensive, and a group of people (not even listeners!), came in and told his boss, "he's being outrageous and offensive," and his boss fired him for it.

So let me get this right: Don Imus was just doing his job and his boss fired him. It makes no difference that some people (including listeners) found the remarks about 'nappy headed hos' racist and misgynistic. It makes no difference that two sponsors decided to drop the show. Based on this argument, Imus had a right to keep his job while MSNBC which like most companies I assume is in the business to make money should have let him keep his job even if it were to hurt them.

I guess my question would be under what circumstances does a boss have the right to fire an employee?

This is hilarious. Maybe the next excuse can be that the devil made him do it. . .

As an Asian-American who lives less than 2 hours away from VA Tech, I have been sicken by some of the racist comments I have read on various blogs and websites including the UK-based Daily Mail where a number of self-proclaimed American posters not only made comments about the alleged gunman's nationality but also said that all this could have been 'easily' prevented had the students been armed. My heart goes out to each and everyone one of the victims, their families and friends which I could not help but notice included people of various races and ethnicities.

I forgot to add that I am also appalled that someone would use the racist term 'Paki' like that conservative commentator the blurb mentioned.

I never actually thought that Bush's goons would ever come right out and overturn Roe vs. Wade. Rather, I thought they would chip away about abortion rights until gradually, getting access to an abortion will be all but impossible for most women-esp. poor and working-class women. Today marks the first step and like Emily, I feel like I have been kicked.

When I heard that Bush was visiting VA Tech my first thought was that he was finally doing something right after 7 years in office. Still, that does not justify the mistakes he has made and continues to make about Iraq, the budget, and just about everything else. As others pointed out, 150 people died in Iraq today. Each of one of those people left behind family and friends. My heart mourns for both the VA Tech victims and their families and for the 150 people who died today.

Those that are interested in what effect this may have on a woman's health should read the article salon printed nearly 5 years ago called A Doctor's Right to Choose.

There are medical reasons as to why doctors use the intact dilation and extraction procedure and it is they, not the Supreme Court, who should determine if the procedure should be carried out. To all the people bleating about how grotesque's the procedure is, well, surgery of all sorts is not pretty. Getting my impacted wisdom teeth extracted from my smaller than average jaw was pretty 'gross'. Still, you weren't the ones who had to do it. Luckily, I had a professional do the job and I trust he knew better than me or any of my non-doctor friends how best to do it.

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2002/07/24/late_term/index1.html?pn=1

"You're welcome" to those who thanked me for the link to the article.

One doesn't need to be a physician to identify a human infant.

One can argue about abortion all days til the cows come home and we still will not come to an agreement on the issue of abortion. However, the issue here is not about whether one can identify a human infant but rather why is the Supreme Court-rather rather than skilled physicians-dictating the procedure a woman can use to end a pregnancy? If this doesn't bother you then ask you: Would you want any of the Supreme Court justices telling your cardiologist how to perform your up-coming heart transplant?

Your rebuttal to my heart transplant question did not answer my question if would you like the Supreme Court to decide your medical care. FYI: In some cases, abortions are performed to save the life of the mother but even in cases where they aren't, the woman has a right to receive medical treatment that is the best for her and her body. Somehow, the idea of the Supreme Court making that choice rather than a physican scares me.

Actually, the AMA did include this bit when it said it supported a ban: First, the bill would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician's judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother.

The judgement yesterday makes no exception even in the case of the mother's life.

No one said they were or at least I did not.

However, they should be the ones to decide which type of abortion procedure should be carried out in the best interest of the mother's health.