Doug, a minor point, entirely off the subject. In reference to Clinton's infamous quote, people tend to forget that he was the one who DID know the meaning of "is". He was being questioned about his prior deposition testimony, in which he had been asked "Is there an improper relationship (with Monica Lewinsky)?" He had answered "No," which was entirely correct, since the relationship had ended by that point. When asked later whether his answer had been truthful (i.e., whether he had perjured himself in the deposition), he responded that it "depends on what the definition of 'is' is". This was an awkwardly worded answer, but it was truthful, since the lawyers taking his deposition had been artless enough to phrase their question in the present tense. It was THEY -- the Republican-financed lawyers -- who didn't seem to know what the meaning of "is" is. [Remember, lawyers live and die by the precision of their words; I hope your party asked these guys for a refund.]

This is not an attempt to open THAT can of worms again, but the way people intentionally take this particular quote out of context in order to twist its meaning is a little grating. Regards -- WS