I've seen that GQ, and Jen looks good. Not that one sees the actual, um, article(s), but still.

Regarding Derbyshire's observation (?) that we look best between the ages of 15 and 20 -- well, duh. And I'm sure he keeps his eyes primly averted when 27 year olds walk by.

You know how you look around for a movie critic you connect with? Read a few reviews, give them the benefit of the doubt for a film or two? Maybe try the Times, or the Tribune, or hey somewhere online? I have to say Salon is a big whiff on this score for me. Charles Taylor was execrable. I mean, he would write things that to me read like "Food is not good to eat" and "For breathing, try methane". Andrew is so far off in indie land that I look at my Netflix queue and blush with shame.

Stephanie I just kinda don't get. Scarlett Jo -- I'm with the poster below in saying "what?". Sharon Stone, yeah, that was a good turn. Nothing beats a throwaway role isn't thrown away.

But "Red Eye"? Rachel McAdams? Hey, let's give her two Oscars, cause she was SO affecting in Wedding Crashers (for which VV should in fact win something -- probably a car or a Senate seat).

Ms. Z, maybe I was wrong about you. Any Salon-film-writing-person who praises Mos Def is all right. Liked him in Hitchhiker's Guide, loved him in Woodsman. Sounds like 16 Blocks is worth it just to see him (and Bruce wearing a real life cop mustache and short sleeved shirt!).

The best proof they've got is that it "looks" like WTC7 collapsed "wrong" on video. And they are demo experts because ... they set up the WTC site in Sim City?!

Then they say that 9/11-denier-deniers don't get that the Bush administration are a pack of liars? Guess what, we do! That doesn't mean they murdered 200 Americans to ... get their hands on the gold?! Haw, haw. What is this, Cryptonomicon 2?

I have no doubt that there are details that will come out later -- Saudi involvement, as Kerrey says, would not surprise me in the least. But that the govt is behind 9/11? Get real.

Lastly, I am happy to read this article in Salon. It's an interesting subject that I wanted to know more about; now I do. I also think Mr. Manjoo shows editorial restraint in his presentation of some (imo) absolutely zany ideas. He is also careful to point out that the latter should not keep us from considering more moderate deviations from the accepted story.

Larry R, great post. My only quibble is in your characterization of Joe as the poster boy for lack of accountability among Democrats. I disagree, because I think Joe really does believe what he says. Like him or not, it seems pretty clear to me that he is sincere.

I think there are others in Congress, like many who voted for the Iraq war and Patriot Act, who have in fact been very cowardly, and who are doing very little to protect this country from Bush.

Mikeweb, I also agree with your point about representation of views, but the voters are free to throw the bum out if they don't like what he's doing. Granted, an incumbent often has a general advantage; we'll see what happens in the primary.

I agree that supply-side economics is bad voodoo, Bushonomics is worse, and they are clearly spinning their projections.

However, the facts (http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf) are that the deficit has been decreasing since 2003. I was hoping this article would provide an alternate explanation as to why that was the case.

Anyone else?

I've been amused, if a bit queasy, to watch Salon swing back and forth over the past year. A few months ago, we had the spate of "It's so hard to be a mommy!" articles. Lately we've had nine "God is dead" pieces, and now we get "Hey, we're not all breeders, you know". Next week: the puff piece on Baudrillard.

I am not a parent, and I still don't want kids seeing sex and ultra-violence when they're ten, because they're emotionally immature. Others may disagree, as is their right (though I want to smack parents who bring six year olds to films like War of the Worlds), but I have no problem with having a rating system. I think they have a much less deleterious effect on filmmaking than this "investigation" would have us believe. If things are so bad, how did Boys Don't Cry get made and see wide release?

Lastly, speaking of (self-)righteous, isn't Stephanie the same "thinking adult who cares even remotely about the vast artistic possibilities of moviemaking" who nominated Pride & Prejudice for EVERY category in Salon's last Oscar poll?

The two probably go hand-in-hand, as Mr. Newberg seemed to take great pains to remain objective. That's to his credit as scientist.

This bit:

"We really need to look not just at what science has to say, but what the subjective nature of these experiences are ..."

is the crux of the issue for me. The reductionist argument, that spiritual experience is ONLY a bunch of neurons firing, ignores the CONTENT of the experience for the subject.

The brain is clearly a necessary component -- the neurons do need to fire -- but not by itself sufficient to explain the entirety of the human experience. This study does provide objective evidence that the nuns and monks are having experiences that are profound and meaningful TO THEM.

Now the athiests will say these profound experiences are just delusions, the spiritual types are just fooling themselves. But the nuns and monks are presumably radiant, calm, happy. I know Martin Amis isn't happy, I've read his books. So really, who are you going to believe?