I am a big believer in metaphorical gateway drugs. In order to get someone to like a certain movie or band you believe is amazing, you may need an in-betweener to get them there if it's too big of a jump.

How many times have you been in a near-miss car accident where you say "If I had been there two seconds earlier, I would have been killed!!!" Now, how many times have you been killed in a car accident?

Have you ever seen Dateline NBC do their "To Catch a Predator" sting operations? They instigate setups to try and catch people soliciting minors for sex over the Internet. It's riveting television. But, I just thought of something in terms of the legality of the arrests.

I tripped going up the stairs a couple weeks ago, and have lost all confidence in this maneuver.

The basic goals of this federal initiative were to stimulate the economy while moving more Americans to eco-friendlier cars.

The premise: If you trade in your old, broken-down gas guzzler that gets <18 mpg and move up to a certain MPG-approved vehicle, the federal government would subsidize your trade-in, up to $4,500.

So, now, broken-down trucks sitting in a parts dump were potentially worth $4,500. Do you think any micro-economies developed over this initiative? For example, none of my cars currently get under 18 mpg. But, if I was in the market for a new car, purchasing an old junker at anything less than $4,500 would be worth my time.

With Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supreme Court, that brings the court's religious demography to six Catholics, two Jews and one lone Protestant. 1) John Roberts (C) 2) John Paul Stevens (P) 3) Antonin Scalia (C) 4) Anthony Kennedy (C) 5) Clarence Thomas (C) 6) Ruth Bader Ginsburg (J) 7) Steven Breyer (J) 8) Samuel Alito (C) 9) Sonia Sotomayor (C) As a white male Protestant, I'm pretty sick of being underrepresented in this country... But, more importantly, why are Catholics such a safe choice in terms of nominations?

I believe that people have a moral and spiritual obligation to help those less fortunate than themselves. Now, coercing that through legislative mandate? That's something else entirely.

I ran cross-country in high school, and every year before regionals, the team would all go out together for a carbo-load spaghetti dinner. As a freshman, and being poor, I ordered the cheapest thing on the menu. At the end of the evening, expecting to pay $7, I was informed that we were splitting the bill, and I owed 12. This because some people got appetizers and other high-end cuisine while I had only my plate of Barilla. So, next year came along. And as a sophomore, and a little wiser, I decided to get an appetizer, too, knowing I'd be paying for it regardless. When it came out, the seniors came over and grabbed it, saying "it's for everyone, since we're all paying for it, right?" That is the day I lost my faith in socialism by force.

Most women I know are stereotypically neat-freaks. But, I don't know how to rationalize this characteristic with a women's purse, which is the epitome of schizophrenic disorganization. Ladies, please help me out here. Does fashion simply outweigh utility in this case? Because, although I believe you know the contents of your purse, finding any particular item is a minute-long chore.