Oh, I agree. We are hardwired to socialize and we are often isolated in unnatural ways, such as cubicles, which are the big tease, since you know someone's close, but you can't see them. I just didn't want to assume that I know what Confu wants. I asked him as a courtesy and for curiosity.

Yes, office politics complicate friendship even further.

A frightened population is pliable! Corporations want us bunkered in our houses, filling them with things to replace lost relationships.

Yes, let's hope for something more. And let's work for that. I think when we change ourselves, it force others to change. Those others might not like it. Rather, they might hate us for it, for change is the death of the familiar and we think the familiar is our friend, even if it's steadily killing us.

I think people tend to be sheep. You see this in clothing. In my neighborhood, all the youngsters wear their requisite clothing. Likewise, the women at your workplace react in the expected ways. However, you don't need to convince them all, just one or two. Lead a couple sheep from the flock and the rest will follow, whether rams or ewes.

Regarding the canard of Stranger Danger: Yes, yes, and yes.

The ones we know are the ones who rape and kill our kids.

Regarding reasons to panic, today might actually be that day: oil is up 17%, gold is over %900, and the stock market dropped nearly 400 points.

The End isn't near.

The End is here.

Maybe.

Sorta.

We'll see.

Now, when will Bush come out and say, "But, hey, hey, hey, don't forget to hate the gays!"

Ease up on your forehead, Pumpkin. I think the world is much safer than most people assume. People are the primary danger. People think I'm unsafe if I solo-venture into wilderness.

"Nah," I say. "There's no one out there. It's pretty safe."

But even people are pretty safe.

As it was, so it is.

And we choose our kind. Just as some people will select Palin because she looks like them, some bosses will promote those people who look like them and the majority of bosses are men.

Most of the nasty stuff that M³ wrote was deleted, which was good. It was a lot of ad homs and the same old, same old. Thanks for the good thoughts. I'm fine.

Worry about the rich!

It's been a couple years since they had their last tax cut. Poor dears. Their cats won't be eating beluga caviar unless McCain gets elected and gives them another five tax cuts.

Lindsey and Sam have been together long enough to preclude this as a ploy to attract boys.

And Ms. Lohan isn't a has-been. She'll be back. America is like Jesus's tomb. We all get to resurrect.

Palin too.

They don't know that "thou shalt not lie."

There's a book that says that.

They should read that book.

I agree with other posters. What you wrote is mean-spirited and better suited to TMZ or Perez Hilton.

Editors, what does this have to do with women's issues?

And mocking Tom Cruise takes no courage whatsoever. What are you going to mock next: mullets?

The moderator should delete what Ms. Margulies wrote.

However, I reread what Ms. Marguilies wrote and I can only see the worst. Like:

"In case you've ever caught yourself wondering how someone as sane as Nicole Kidman could have married a wack job like Tom Cruise, wonder no more: Turns out, she's out of her mind, too." WACK ATTACK!

"Kidman disagrees. Who needs science when you can have legend?" SNARK ATTACK!

"Impenetrable logic, no doubt,..." SNARK FEEDING FRENZY!

Let everyone who voted for Bush take on the debt that Bush is proposing. Or don't they believe in personal responsibility?

If they did, they'd all be in Iraq, fighting the Galactic War on Terror.

And kufir666 is aptly numbered.

Here's my advice. Go to any restaurant. Behold the horror, the horror, of any opposite sex couple who have absolutely nothing to say to each other. Then go forth and be consequently unfruitful.

My internal conflict could be because I still have the bitter aftertaste of Broadsheet's Ms. Margulies's ugly essay in my cerebral craw, an essay that's okay with Broadsheet, even though it's suited for Perez Hilton, TMZ, or the Star. And it could be because Ms. Cheever shouldn't be berated for admitting to the power of youth, which is beauty.

I do agree that young, lovely women are more likely to be used. Conversely, I think that a very few young and ESPECIALLY lovely young women get to use the long acquired assets of older, rich men.

Did Ms. Cheever consider the peril of that youthful beauty? I don't know because I didn't link to her essay. Youthful beauty doesn't just seduce men. It also seduces young women. You can squander early adulthood on seduction and then you suddenly slip into that mottling, middle-aged skin and you're without assets, unlike your once less lovely peers, who used their youth to acquire degrees and skills, which can age quite well.

So, Cheever's an idiot? You know her, I assume. You've known her for years, I further assume, since you're sufficiently comfortable making such a public proclamation. When you call her an "idiot," are you using the old school definition of someone having an IQ below 20? Or is yours just a sloppy slur?

You argue well. And Cheever's very assertion undercuts her assertion, since she'd old, but her opinion provokes discussion.

Paris Hilton also provokes discussion, but her power twines with being used, rather than an older, wiser person using a moment.

@ redshooz

Yeah, I think you misread what I wrote. I'm waffling in this thread.

Like Bush, she's inarticulate, Bible-thumping, science-disparaging, war-mongering, and all too ready to do what the Romans did to Jesus: torture.