Did the person who wrote these words even WATCH the interview before consulting their Republican-issued talking points?

What you saw there was not rage, but anger. Exasperation. Frustration with a very clumsily attempted hatchet-job. Clinton refused to let Wallace and Fox News get away with their typical tactics. I think Fox is just so used to interviewees not calling them on their bullshit that it was startling for them to see.

Come to think of it, yeah, Fox. I can see where you might see the truth as "terrifying to behold." After all, you don't expose yourself to it very often.

... is get people to vote with them on issues which resonate emotionally - those "Three G's" again - God, gays and guns - to the point where people can sometimes be convinced to vote against their own economic self-interest. If one can appeal to emotion and bypass critical thinking ...

I'm reminded of the movie "The Wizard of Oz", when the curtain is pulled back and the Intrepid Four see that the All-Knowing Wizard is merely a man amplifying his voice and pulling a lot of levers. "Pay no attention to those tax cuts for the rich, that, by the way, you don't get. ATHIEST GAY people want to adopt children, so YOUR RIGHTS ARE AT RISK!!" How? never quite articulated convincingly, but people are scared shitless.

Fear as a motivator. Primal, and classic.

Are we all so jaded about politics, so accepting of sliminess and spin, that we can't hold our elected officials to such a standard Marty describes?

I was a competitive athlete working out 3 hours a day, and still gained 10 lbs. my freshman year. The culprit? Birth control pills.

I could just see the wheels spinning in my then-boyfriend's head... "Extra 10 lbs...condoms...extra 10 lbs...condoms..."

I went off the pill.

I long for the day when a celebrity's sexual orientation is not front-page news...

WORD, Natalie. Can we focus on the content of the article, Paglia's ideas? and less on the personalities involved? Are we unable to separate the two any longer? Do people even try anymore? Has what passes for incisive media coverage today trained us to be satisfied by this, to be complicit in this?

On days when I have less-than-positive thoughts about human nature, human intellect, reading some of these letters validates those thoughts. Depressing.

Rush, you can have an actual opinion about Michael J. Fox and the legitimacy of his Parkinson's if you -um - live in Fox's body for a month, or, barring that, FACT CHECK before you open your drug-adddled mouth.

Oh, that's right, I forgot... you're not worried about whether your opinion is informed or not. Never mind.

Even if Rush isn't ashamed of himself, his listeners should be, on his behalf. This is the type of thing you teach your children about - don't make fun of the kids in your school with handicaps, or the grandparent who can't speak because she had a stroke. I mean, really. This is core decency.

Guess it didn't take.

In his book "Sacred Silence: Denial and the Crisis in the Church" (2002), Catholic Rev. Donald B. Cozzens opines that "the priesthood is or is becoming a gay profession." Psychologically, this makes sense to me: if a young man, growing up in a devout family, starts to feel "different" (i.e., gay), where else would he turn to but his faith, where, during confession, he can receive some sense of forgiveness or absolution for his 'deviant' feelings and impulses?

If a boy is raised in a system where he believes his core sexual orientation is a sin, it is perfectly understandable to me that such a boy may seek a profession in the clergy, where, under Catholicism, celibacy is expected. He cannot sin if he cannot have sex, whether with a man OR a woman. He has a chance to be a "better person" and live a "less sinful life." (Let's not explore why celibacy came to be expected of priests in the first place, other than to say it had nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with money and inheritance.)

Human sexuality is a very primal thing. And clergypeople are human. Denying expression of one's sexuality, regardless of its target (male or female) can be a powder keg just waiting to explode. I believe that some members of the clergy, who may have entered the clergy in part out of sex role guilt in the first place, are just PRIMED for the type of exposure Haggard is experiencing now. And as we know, Haggard is just the latest in a long line of such exposures.

I would like to see organized religion use these revelations (ha!) as opportunities to learn about psychology and also the history of their church's practices. And to think honestly and hard about why they perceive Haggard to be a less able leader today than they did a week ago.

I must say, Christ on a f*ing cracker. The ignorance and hypocrisy is boggling.

FIVE CHILDREN is 'not sexually available?' She let herself go? (Are sexually active men really that clueless about the toll that multiple pregnancies can take on the female body?) The reality is that HE let himself go...outside their marriage, and gay at that. He abused her trust, committed adultery, may have used drugs, and exposed her to who knows how many STD's.

I hope she gets tested for every STD known to humanity, pronto.