There are those of us who don't feel the need to "fight". There are those of us who prefer to discuss disagreements calmly, even lovingly. Typically, we have a low tolerance for anger - our own, or others, and don't see the need for it between loved ones. We really don't understand why other people blow up over frankly stupid things. We rarely raise our voices, and are easily offended when people raise their voices to us; we often avoid such people as being unpleasant.

If we're lucky, we marry someone else of a like mind. Sometimes that's difficult, especially since less stable people are often attracted to our anchor-like demeanor.

Everybody wants to think there's something wrong with us; a fairly typical human attitude towards anybody different.

I think there's something seriously wrong with the rest of you.

It scares me and I'd really like to pretend that things are otherwise. So please, close down the commenting feature.

Why is this Salon's fault? You don't have to read these comments. You could even go back to the old version, where selected comments were published - all you have to do is click the "editor's choice" button. You act like this feature is chasing you down and forcing itself on you.

The bottom line on drug pricing is that those who think they should be controlled in America have to be honest and tell people that if such controls are imposed they'll get cheaper drugs now, but far fewer and far less innovative drugs in the future.

We're not talking about price controls, we're talking about price negotiations. Disallowing price negotiations IS a price control, for all intents and purposes: it takes pricing out of the market and leaves it in the hands of the seller. That's also a formula for a lack of innovation: why make a good, new drug when you can just charge an arm and a leg for a near-placebo that the taxpayer has no choice but to spring for?

Just stop covering Mr. Leopold. He's irrelevant.

If prices of consumer goods continue to spike, Bernanke's Fed is likely to continue to raise rates. But if economic growth starts to slip, a U-turn could be in the offing, or at least a pause in rate hikes.

What do they do if prices continue spike and economic growth starts to slip? That is, after all, a reasonably likely consequence of sustained high oil prices.

In other swimsuit news, the Times also reports that men's swim trunks will be shorter this year and will feature more leg. Does that mean that guys will be tugging at their suits all summer long, the way women have been for decades?

Men's shorts and trunks have gotten absurdly long. Now, many of them end well below the knee, sometimes just a couple of inches below where full length pants would end. It's silly and impractical, and frankly makes it difficult to keep cool. I'm glad the tide is turning.

Sad fact: I've seen that ad several times, but it took Broadsheet to bring the all-too-obvious innuendo to my attention. Sigh. And yet, I think it's even more pathetic that people get offended by this sort of thing (and the "Man Show", for that matter).

Anybody know any good analyses of how this came to pass?

Brightstar has to go after young meat. No older woman wants his weary chicanery.

He hopes the young girl is clueless and thus easy prey.

No such luck, apparently.

[blockquote][i]another bitter Manhattan feminazi.[/i][/blockquote]I can hardly even imagine anything more pathetically hypocritical than you calling other people bitter.

another bitter Manhattan feminazi.

I can hardly even imagine anything more pathetically hypocritical than you calling other people bitter.

...Unless, of course, I were to criticize someone for not previewing their post to check formatting. :o

Isn't it the Supreme Court's job to interpret the constitution? Isn't that precisely to avoid people "conveniently" interpreting to mean they can ignore everything it says? The President has no real power in making such statements and I don't believe the press, the legislature, or anybody else should let him get away with claiming they're worth the paper they're written on.

Not all atheists are devoid of compassion, but you wouldn't know it to read these letters.

Shouldn't we reserve the noble concept of "victory" for more appropriate endeavors, like declared wars against people who have attacked us and can defend themselves?

Um, shouldn't you look up the word "victory" in a dictionary before going around trying to re-define it?

On the one hand, men have gone without periods for a very long time and overall seem to do alright. I mean, we still die younger than women, but not by all that much.

On the other hand, I seriously doubt that long-term side-effects are that well teased out yet. Perhaps it's comparable to early menopause, for isntance? (In fact, that's basically what it means.) Aren't women athletes who stop having periods at heightened risk for osteoporosis? I can definitely see cause for concern, here.

How come she had more moxie as a cherubic twentysomething in trashy leggings than she does as a woman with a reported net worth of $315 million?

That's to be expected; in fact, it's extremely normal. The difference is in how much you have to gain versus how much you have to lose.

Cheney defined exactly what he meant by "last throes" by saying: "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline". It's the focus on the "last throes" soundbite which allows these liars to squirm around. A much better question would be something along the lines of: "Last June you said that the level of activity from a military standpoint would clearly decline. Why were you so wrong?"