I don't necessarily think this story is unworthy of its place . . . it reminded me of the way the difference between a liberal and a conservative was described when I was a political science major in the late 1960s.

The operative definition then was that a liberal believed that the government that is furthest away (i.e., the federal) protected the populace best while a conservative believed that the government that was to closest (city, then state) protected the populace more effectively.

What is amazing to me is that, supposedly, at the time, both liberals and conservatives thought the purpose of government was to protect the populace. The right today would argue that government has no role in protecting the people unless it is in the form of the military, taking arms against other governments and sub-governmental (or is it quasi-governental?) organizations like Al Qaeda.

It sounds like the tradition in KC is to protect no one.

I would like to send a note along to two posters, lolcait and papabotts.

lol -- You think this is typical political weirdness? Well, this sort of thing exists in business. I worked for a huge national retailer (national retailers and chain stores are not good things but that is for another discussion). The second regional manager for our area was fat. She admitted to having gained 80 pounds since graduating from high school and 50 of those pounds had to have come on after she took the job. She worked out of her home and terrorized store managers via phone. She was fond of displaying her breasts, electing to wear thin, sheer sweaters and blouses with plunging necklines that allowed her bra to peep out. The irony is that the sweaters also showed her roll at the waist and the necklines displayed what has to be pre-cancerous skin and the breasts were far from significant.

I also temped at a software firm where the vice president constantly had me produce documents then decided they weren't what she wanted and tore them up. It wasn't my writing, it was that she hadn't a clue what she needed until after it was produced.

papabotts -- You think Miller ought to have been loyal? Loyalty is earned and these folks earned derision. I just wonder what took Miller so long and how he could have liked her. I have met crude women like her and always avoided them afterwards.

My first job out of college was working for welfare but only because I failed to return the post card that would have allowed me to work as a civil rights commissioner for the state of Michigan. I am from a blue-collar, Roman Catholic home and if my late mother (part Irish and part Hungarian, so you can imagine how superstitious she is) were to come back from the grave, she is certain to repeat one of her pet phrases: God punished you.

He probably is punishing me for failing to read the entire post card. I learned the hard way and the next opportunity was working as a welfare case worker.

Kilgore writes here that most people who aren't working, probably can't. Many people on my welfare caseload were prevented from working due to chronic illnesses (diabetes) or physical defects (the loss of an eye) or simply because of low intelligence. I have repeated this information on many internet fora and have surprised right wingers with it. Many failed to realize that there are people who simply are not smart enough to hold a job. Others did not know there is a prejudice against people with certain diseases or disabilities. A few wise guys point to people like Ray Charles and Stephen Hawking, but, their remarkable gifts removed them from the realm of what my father calls "ordinary working stiffs."

I began working at age 16 and continued to do so until I moved to New England in 1976 when no one would employ me! Although I had a master's degree and experience in the above mentioned casework as well as in education and journalism, the president of a placement agency told me that I was "virtually unemployable." She told me that I was fine for the Midwest but "Here in New England, we have standards."

A way that I answered her insult was to earn a master's degree with highest honors from Harvard. Since graduating in 1998, my gross annual earnings have been less than $15,000.

You see, one fact that Kilgore does not state is that while there may be sufficient jobs to employ those who wish employment, especially here in MA, those jobs are low paying jobs in the service sector.

Despite my education and experience, I am working in a liquor store, earning $8.50/hour. My gross for the year is less than $9,000.

I have written my legislators -- at both the state and national level -- requesting that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 be enforced. Some have haughtily replied that they are not responsible for finding me a job.

I should say that within the first two years of receiving my Harvard diploma when the economy was strong, I applied for more than 1,000 jobs. I was interviewed for 14 and hired for none.

There is little to no protection for the poor. At 62, I am healthy and look ten years younger than my age. I am educated, talented and articulate. However, I am being forced to resort to a reverse mortgage.

I wish an attorney could read the contract for me but all have refused, in part, because I am poor! My poverty is not my fault. Admittedly, I did stay home to raise my children and I do not regret having done so but I believe that, and ageism, keep me poor.

As for Michael Steele . . . even by Republican standards, the man is a boob.