Exactly, Merina. Affluence fills our lives with distractions from challenges, responsibilities and even our own consciences.

Lust is an exceptionally powerful distraction.

This is one of those titles that sets me on a tumble of alliteration: Nipples in New York, Biceps in Brussels, Tails in Tazmania, Abs of Abu Dhabi...

Would this be a good time to remind everyone that everything's bigger in Texas?

At least FOX execs are not planning 24 episodes and airing only 8 or 10 before canceling, as they did with Firefly and Drive.

I watched 24 via Netflix back before the days of streaming. I couldn't imagine watching that show in particular only 1 episode per week.

I'm not sure I will watch another season of 24. It strains believability that Bauer still has his job after all that. Besides, if I want to hear someone yell for hours on end, there must be an Al Pacino film I haven't seen yet.

I'm having trouble identifying why this has surprised me.

I've been saying for years that Obama and his ilk are restrained only by power, rather than by principles. They will use whatever power is available to them, seize more power when consequences are not forthcoming, and they have exhibited no moral regard for their opponents. I have also said repeatedly that Obama's actions would become more flagrant as they became more audacious.

Perhaps I am surprised at the lack of resistance.... that we have come this far without any significant resistance from Republican politicians or civilian groups.

Williamson's seizure of the phone was short-sighted, even if he had not broken it. The woman was very likely to become furious and to cause a scene, thereby furthering the distraction to fellow movie-goers. Taking the phone did not help anyone.

If fellow movie-goers in general and theater management could be counted on to support spontaneous and informal sanctions, then actions like this might be reasonable at times. But our culture has already degraded to a point that customers cannot expect business owners to issue, let alone enforce, demands of respectful behavior... for both legal and non-legal reasons.

That said, we won't escape the status quo and restore old standards of neighborly respect by only talking about it.

No system can eliminate the need for individual judgments. We will always rely on the wisdom and good nature of individuals.

Teach your children to be patient and merciful. But also teach them to be strong and just.

Law and order does not completely erase the need for vigilantism. Modern generations have been trained to believe that vigilantism is always wrong. Question that assumption.

Likewise, the need for physical intercession (by civilians, and not police alone) can never be eliminated. Words only appeal to reason, and human beings are often unreasonable. Furthermore, fear of immediate and visible consequences (pain) is more compelling than fear of eventual, possible consequences (law).

Physical restraint is generally preferrable to violence. But physical pain is not the worst thing in the world. Even the greatest pains quickly become only the vaguest of memories. There are many ways to restrain somewhat and cause discomfort without injuring the person.

What a sissy nation we have become! Do you think life is a kindergarten playground in which crying for Teacher is always the best option?

Government participates in justice. It is not the Alpha and Omega of protection, deterrence and recompense.

So is science. So are philosophy and theology. So are literature and art. There are many paths to truth and beauty. History is a pursuit of truth, not the pursuit of truth.

We should not make the mistake of confusing quality with definition. There are bad and mediocre works of art. Some things which are called art should not be, but the problem is that they are not art rather than that they are bad art.

Likewise, there are many poor and mediocre histories, but they are yet histories. Their deficiencies might be factual errors. The shortcomings might also be mistaken associations, mistaken emphasis, ambiguous language, or refusal to mention (with qualification) possibilities which cannot be verified but for which some evidence exists.

Creativity and "speaking finely" can certainly overwhelm the information within a history. But a history can also be relegated to the dusty shelves of academia by overly dry writing. Is history for everyone or only for a select few who aspire to be a society's decision-makers? A good historian speaks to non-factual truths (as expressed in drama, humor, affections) while clearly identifying what is certain and not.

Strictly speaking, only histories or "a history" exists. History as an objectively discerned, immutable thing does not exist. That is because any history is a story. It is not mere facts. It is a telling which gives facts meaning.

A history, like any story, involves many subjective (however logical) decisions: relevance, association, sequence, implication, etc.

To determine which facts are necessary, which provide context, and which are irrelevant or clutter the telling, the author must first limit and focus the history's subject. That in itself is a debatable choice. Association answers questions of causation and context. Sequence means choosing where to begin, where to conclude, and how to progress. Chronological order is not always most illuminating. And what questions or answers does the author leave us with?

Then there is style, which requires choosing a preferred audience. Is it for kids, scholars, voters, foreigners, etc?

Modern academia longs to place histories on a footing with the simple deductive methods of the hard sciences. But history is necessarily a combination of research, analysis and creativity.

Doesn't everyone have a genetic predisposition to one cancer or another? Does anyone here have a family tree completely free of cancers? 

My "favorite" scandal is still the passing of nation-changing legislation without even reading it, and the way everyone treats it as valid law. But that's old news!

The recent scandal that will get the most attention is obviously the AP phone records scandal, because reporters will prioritize their own interests before those of their customers.

Jolie didn't have much choice in talking about it publicly. She's a major celebrity and famous largely for her figure. Her masectomy was going to be in the news one way or the other.

Risk of cancer is part of getting old. Genetic history or not, anyone over 50 should be prepared for the possibility of severe health issues, because most people don't die peacefully asleep at home. And that's alright. There's more to life than the ending.

Whether you die at 50 or 100, there should not be a day in your life when you believe you have done everything possible or appreciated all that life has to offer. The gifts of life are beyond measure and inexhaustible.

My grandma is 95 now. She gets to know her great grandchildren. That's wonderful, but don't you think she would like to meet their children, too? And their children's children? There's no age at which all blessings have been spent. If you live long enough to know your own children, be content.

I'm not opposed to genetic testing or other precautions. But people worry too much about their futures.

Because the entire world is upside down.

Then what is the significance of the legal distinction in your country between such a person and an actual citizen? I'm curious.

The reason it doesn't make sense for guests to have power over the direction of our government, no matter how long they have stayed, is because a guest is not committed to the country's future. Granted, a citizen may leave the country at any time and forsake citizenship. But natives are generally more committed than that.

A national community is more similar to a family than to a neighborhood (the residents of which come and go). However long a family allows a guest to stay and participate in their affairs, the guest cannot assume authority on behalf of the family or demand authority within the household as an outsider.

Voting is a right of citizens. The implication of this is that someone can be a citizen of a municipality or local district without first becoming a citizen of the nation. In other words, the law would allow someone to become a non-American New Yorker.

Well said. The essential question is whether visa and green card holders are temporary citizens or they are guests and foreign laborers. The latter is traditional, is it not?