It is interesting though to consider how the robotic corporate inhumanity that places the dollar above all, so infects the executives who work in such places. How is it that they check their integrity at the door?

I think people without integrity in the first place are drawn to certain occupations - preferably high paying and with power over other people.

...point out that even lefty sites such as Salon act like Darfur doesn't exist. I find that a compelling question. Why don't you?

Because the premise is false. Type Darfur into the Salon search bar, and you get 368 hits. The last Salon headline referencing Darfur was yesterday. This does not constitute acting like it doesn't exist.

...AEI, a hawkish Washington think tank.

Hawk ish? No, no, our feathered friends at AEI are the genuine article; they actually divebomb rodents for dinner.

This kind of amuses me. Of course she wants Bush to get the troops out of Iraq before she takes over! She certainly wouldn't want that mess on her hands... Not that I can blame her for that sentiment, but if you're going to run for president you really ought to show some willingness to deal with the disasters left by your predecessor, especially when you know perfectly well that your predecessor is George W. Bush!

--where exactly are these crazy Luddite environmental activists?

Really? Is that a question? How about "Europe"? Like, most of it.

One thing that annoys me are LW's who ask questions answered bluntly in the article they're asking about. Here's a great example:

What does Broadsheet have against married heterosexuals sharing parental responsibilities, or of anyone who supports marriage and parenthood?

And in the article:

The trouble with the marriage-focused approach to supporting fatherhood is that it neglects the wide array of nontraditional family setups (which, it has been argued, are becoming the rule rather than the exception).

If you're not going to read the article, please don't ask questions of its authors.

But old is in the eye of the beholder...

The operative term in the linked article was post-menopausal.

So far, the Democrats haven't thrown a temper-tantrum and tried to overturn long established precedents.

I don't see any moral difference between selecting traits in your own babies and selecting traits in adopted babies. Either is essentially prejudice, as you say, and for the same reasons. The major distinction is that the one is commonly practiced today (and long since) and the other is only beginning to be possible.

If sex-selective abortion is ok (and I don't see how you can argue against it if you believe in a woman's right to choose)...

Then you're not thinking very hard. Let's try an example: I'm for freedom of speech, but I think Rush Limbaugh oughtta shut the hell up.

They should have been fired...

If for no other reason than a paid blogger for a campaign is nothing more than a shill.

Nothing more than a shill? Wait, what do you think campaign staff does? Of course they're shills. Promoting their candidate is what campaigns are for.

Frankly you can't make a statement along the lines of "the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of contraception forces women to bear more tithing Catholics.” and then claim later that you did not mean to offend them.

That's it? That's the big controversial stand for which someone was pilloried? If someone takes offense at that, they're just looking for an excuse.

They say torture doesn't work. But I don't believe that. I don't think it's honest to say that if someone you love was being held, and you had five minutes to save them, you wouldn't do it. Tell me, what would you do? If someone had one of my children, or my wife, I would hope I'd do it.

So, if you had five minutes to rescue your family, you'd use a technique that doesn't work? Niiice. Have you told your family how little they mean to you?

"Hi, I've been dating this woman for seven years. We've talked about getting more serious, maybe moving in together, but she insists the finances aren't right. I'm not sure why, she lives alone and I have roommates, two can live almost as cheaply as one, so I don't think that's the real reason. She has me stay over sometimes, but I have to be out whenever she's gone and so forth because I don't even get a key.

"So, my question is, am I wasting my time with this woman? It seems she's perfectly happy with things the way they are, but I'd like to move forward at some point in my life (we're 35). Is that unreasonable of me? I've waited seven years, and it just doesn't seem to be happening."

Ahem.

To the letter writer: it's your place, do what you want with the key. But, what you want in a relationship is not reasonable; you should be with someone who's boundaries are as wide as yours, rather than stringing along some poor guy who wants more.

It may not be possible to change what turns you on. That's embedded very deeply. It may, however, be easier change to your reaction to that. It's okay to enjoy consensual submissiveness in sex - in fact, it's not even all that abnormal. Getting upset about it afterwards, however, is not healthy. I think you might have more luck confronting that thought process; it's a sort of rational-side irrationality.

"...and not a Democratic senator, governor or electoral vote (since 1992) among them."

This statement is false. Alabama had a democrat governor during this time period - Don Siegleman.

The inaccuracy here is your reading comprehension. The "since 1992" parenthetical is clearly limited to the electoral vote.

Study found that men don't actually like women who MAKE jokes, finding them a little threatening, apparently.

My experience has been that women who make jokes disproportionately make their spouses the butt of them - and not in a nice way.