Tip-skimming has surfaced in Boston, and there can't be a tipper in America who, on hearing the news, doesn't exclaim, "The greedy bastards!" In a lawsuit filed March 7 in Suffolk Superior Court, five former servers from the venerable eatery Locke-Ober say the restaurant made them kick back the bulk of their tips to management. Then, when they made a fuss, they were fired. Suits are also being filed against three other restaurants by employees. The waiters allege that the restaurants are breaking state labor laws by grabbing their tips.

Skimming tips allows restaurant owners to pay managers less out of their own pockets because the tips make up the difference. And since waiters and kindred staff are paid subminimum wage, they thus get screwed twice. Greed isn't unique to Boston. This must be happening across the country. Soon we'll be asked to make it standard practice to tip a minimum of 30 percent: 15 percent for the workers, and 15 percent for the management.

Hovering somewhere between charity and a bribe, the tip is one of our most polymorphous social transactions. At its most crude, it can be a

In the aftermath of their high-profile failure to lure David Letterman, top executives at ABC are scrambling to repair the public-relations damage from the network's proclaimed eagerness to throw "Nightline" overboard. But the nation's TV viewers don't need to read the current wave of commentaries about the debacle to know that feverish pursuit of unlimited profits by media conglomerates is rapidly causing "TV journalism" to become oxymoronic.

With its suffocating pretensions and frequent idiocies, television has always cried out for sardonic mockery. At times, beginning with Mad Magazine's razor-sharp parodies a half-century ago, "the vast wasteland" has been appropriately skewered. But the day is fast approaching when satire of American TV will be impossible.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Thinking about nuclear weapons is sort of like looking directly at the sun: If you do it for more than a split second, you go blind. Or insane.

Our government is now contemplating such a ne plus ultra of idiocy that it's enough to make one yearn for the dear, departed days of MAD (mutual assured destruction). MAD was such a sane policy. Dr. Strangelove, report for duty immediately, the Bush administration needs YOU!

We are about to get a new nuclear weapons policy -- cute nukes. Teeny-tiny nukes. I was betting the Pentagon would name them "precision nukes," but I have once again underestimated our military's ability to obfuscate with mind-numbing language. The cute nukes are "offensive strike systems."

Though Britain has been blaring its support for America's "War on Terror," there is public disquiet in the United Kingdom at one aspect of the new era of freedom now prevailing in Afghanistan: the renewal of opium cultivation, banned with unprecedented and near total success by Mullah Omar in July of 2000. In order to receive U.S. aid, Hamid Karzai's coalition had to make a pro forma announcement in January that opium cultivation is still forbidden, but the extent of this renewed commitment to abstention from Afghanistan's prime cash crop was almost simultaneously displayed in the unceremonious ejection of Afghanistan's drug control agency from its offices in Kabul, with the drug czar's desk being kicked physically into the street.

A couple of weeks ago, the London Guardian reported in a headline that "MI5 (Britain's counter-intelligence agency) fears flood of Afghan heroin." The ensuing story by Nick Hopkins and Richard Norton Taylor led with the news that "Police and intelligence agencies have been warned that Britain is facing a potentially huge increase in heroin trafficking

To the editor-

I am merely wondering why it is that we have confused the ideal of justice, with this immoral and detrimental notion of revenge. With the recent execution of John Byrd, the lines have become blurred, as they often are.

The concept of taking people out of society who cannot conform to the laws of society is necessary for the greater good, and that is what prisons are for. Once we have given ourselves power to take a person's life, we have attempted to take a position in which we have no right to, a position of God-like authority. In cases of self-defense, where it is inevitably one person's life or the other, there is justification in obtaining that authority, but once a person is imprisoned, there is no longer the threat that makes justification possible.

It is the fact that John Byrd no longer posed a threat to society that renders his execution unjustifiable, which only leads me to believe that someone has failed to differentiate between a desire for revenge, and the humane principle of justice.