I like your point about TV babysitting adults everywhere! It's ridiculous, isn't it? I see couples sitting at tables, not talking to each other but looking at the ceiling-mounted screen, and I think, why bother coming out?

Not to mention, those things often are turned to news stations like CNN, which do not filter out violence (not that they should), so often parents have to be vigilant. Once when we were eating in a restaurant talking, I began to notice my son's attention becoming fixed on the television (one among many) overhead. It was when they discovered the missing pregnant mom from Cleveland a few years ago--dead and with the fetus cut out of her. Ugh--can you imagine the wake of that story that we had to deal with re my young kids? It triggered a whole set of nightmares and behaviors that we could have lived without.

It's just so unnecessary.

@rampart and momof2:

Rampart is right about the control group of course, but truth be told, wouldn't it be nice if we had one for every issue? I mean, honestly, I've often wished we could live parallel lives, trying out living in the country v. the city to see how the kids turned out, not to mention all kinds of other issues. I remember the bike helmet thing. We stuck to it for a while, but the cost of being the only kids in the neighborhood wearing them became too large. I know other families who couldn't come to terms with this, so they simply stopped riding bikes (that way, the kids didn't get mocked, the parents didn't have to compromise on the helmet thing). I kind of hoped the whole thing would go away, but eventually stopped making them wear helmets. Nobody ever got hurt, and they rode bikes all the time and had great fun. I can't begin to imagine that this is the right solution for everyone, but a control group to see which gives the right outcome--wow, what a great concept. If only we had some little "control group" feature built into our lives, where we could just tune in somewhere and see into that parallel universe where all but the one feature was changed and then adjust our behavior accordingly!

I'm not even depressed about it anymore, just wanting it to be over. All the passion is gone. I'm hoping once the nominee is decided, we all coalesce and find something to ignite our enthusiasm again. Maybe an invasion of Iran or something?

I didn't even understand your post until Anderson pointed out that you were talking about electoral votes. The problem with your logic is that you assume states that went for Hillary in the primary won't go for Barack in the general and vice versa. That's absurd. NY is going for the Democrat, period. As is true of other deep blue or red states. Or are we misinterpreting your question?

A. There is a difference between these statements: "America (as a result of its foreign policy choices) caused 9/11." and "America (because of its foreign policy choices) deserved 9/11." I believe Statement #1. I do not believe Statement #2. I can't say for sure, but I believe there is a difference, generally speaking, b/t the liberals and conservatives on this issue. I believe liberals have generally subscribed to #1, and conservatives (like Falwell) have subscribed to #2.

B. I think we should also remember the 80's and 90's when we talk about patriotism, bc it's around then that these white evangelical preachers used to talk about how evil America was b/c of its lack of values, immersion in sin, corruption by Hollywood, etc. I loathe the cardboard patriotism of the right and wonder why they have ignored, since 9/11 and Bush, that THEY were the ones who "hated" America during the Bush 1, Reagan, and Clinton years. The difference is that the left never made the issue patriotism itself. IE, the left may have refuted the claims point by point or perhaps mocked Gingrich and the lot, but it was simply not a ploy to argue that the right "hated America," which in retrospect would have been a good plan, as we've seen how effective it is and hard to get out from under. Not that I regret it; I guess I'll always prefer the party that doesn't resort to this kind of frustratingly inaccurate and beside-the-point conflation gamesmanship.

C. I'd like to thank Glenn for remaining neutral in the Obama v Clinton wars but, like a dutiful trooper, making the argument for whichever Democrat is currently being smeared. In other words, at the end of the day, when one of our candidates emerges from the fight, we're all going to have to go back to Glenn's columns to find our arguments to fight the right, who will inevitably use all this same stuff. Whether for C or O right now, we will be glad to have the file ready for us on day one; afterall, day one is when McCain will be ready to fight.

I'm picturing this of you: I wore the little robes and lit candles.

Color me disarmed.

Unisius said this..."The disparity between the religious view that America deserves disasters because of its sinfulness and the secular view that America deserves disasters because of its own misdeeds in the world isn't that difficult to understand, really"

I'm not picking on Unisius b/c many others have said it, too: Don't you all agree that there's a difference b/t saying the US caused 9/11 and the US deserved 9/11? I think those on the left who connect 9/11 with American foreign policy think the first while the evangelicals who connect the two think the second.

Or am I making a distinction where there is none?