When I read Joan's suggestion to grab a hanky my thought was, "Joan, you big softy. Don't cry for him, Joanentina!" But it was pretty moving.

For me, the thing to focus on was that he changed his mind. How many times has a politician found himself unable to change political positions for fear of looking weak? Isn't that the point of a democracy? Don't we want our leaders to be flexible in order to move with the times? Anybody who bashes this move on the part of the mayor is punishing the idea that a person of authority can admit when they're wrong. That's total lunacy. Whether or not he is a pro-business, conservative, anti-medical marijuana republican is another matter that can stand as their own issues. But I thank Mayor Sanders for being brave enough to do this.

Thank you for posting that! It explains so much about the Bush administration as policy. All of the puzzle pieces were there, but I couldn't quite fit them all together.

I couldn't agree with you more. All of this betrays the network's real feelings towards developing technology and the democratization of television: Hostility. They're not ready to move into the 21st century and, what's more, they don't want to. If you want proof of what I'm talking about just look at their websites. Flash animation nightmares full of broken links and bad design.

I saw Kate Walsh's dance moves on the sneak preview (housed at ABC.com). It made me so sad! She is such a beautiful lady, why'd the whole thing have to take place while wearing a bath towel? I think the creators of this show delight in "the bad touch." Know what I mean? They just love putting their characters in yucky situations and then watching them squirm. There's definitely a sadism there.

Oh, and I loved the review. Brilliant as usual!

Seriously, there's going to be an ongoing column about our knowledge of the brain?! That is so awesome!!! This might be the tipping point that gets my subscription going again. I mean. Once I find a job.

Well, the responses on this article sure are disheartening. Is it that only racists read Salon? I can't tell.

I'm glad that Kaplan wrote what turned out to be a tidy distillation of a debate that a friend and I have had regarding the Jena 6. Her portion of the debate represents Kaplan's opinion and my portion represents the brother's.

I think, for the most part, protests get the shaft. Turns out that lots of the people who don't like them have never been to one. But there is a lot of power and energy that can come out of a successful protest march. It means something to connect with people in order to create the community that occurs in protests and demos.

Our society tells us that there are only a few sanctified areas of congregation: the shopping mall and church. All other venues and events are suspect.

If nothing else, the people in attendance in Louisiana will carry on with their lives knowing that they are not alone, that they are not the only people who see racial injustice. But the alliances made can also last into the next few years and beyond.

I can't help but think that the LW's resentment and hostility towards her new sister-in-law is going to cement [the in-law's] grim future, not lift her out of it. If you say she's looking for a meal-ticket and you treat her like she is stupid and unthinking, she's much more likely to fulfill that role. On the other hand, one of the most commons avenues out of poverty and broken relationships is through marrying into a caring and supportive family. You need to decide what you're going to be; A hindrance and a constant critic to your future relatives or a resource. Maybe she wants all the things you have and just doesn't know how to get them? Maybe she's in need of resources.

"I used to pore over the Sunday real estate ads and imagine how happy I'd be in that beach cottage on Antigua. But they don't call to me anymore"

At least I think that's right.

"I talk to God unabashedly and say what's up, you fucker, what fresh hell have you so graciously arranged for me today? I bless myself."

Ha! Excellent!!! That's a much more elegant version of my own mantra.

About two years ago I endured listening to an interview on NPR by a venerated black civil rights leader who explained why gays had not yet reached critical mass, why they were not a real "movement." It was terribly galling because basically he was defining "movement" to specifically mean "the black civil rights movement of the United States from 1955-1964.") I hear the same haughty tone in your voice that I did from him and it sickens me all the same.

It has already been said, but it is worth repeating: Divide and conquer is the trademark strategy of the conservative movement. It's us versus them! Immigrants versus citizens! Married gays against married straights! Blacks versus whites!

The sad part is that nobody is forcing Aravosis into this position. He's doing it all himself. Good job! The conservatives will appreciate our infighting so much that they will . . . . aw, isn't that a shame. They won't give you jack shit. Obedient gays are still moral degenerates as far as republicans are concerned.