Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

Millions of Catholics mark the the beginning of the Lenten season by attending Ash Wednesday church services and receiving ashes on their foreheads. Some Catholics leave the mark on all day, while others choose to wipe it off. Religious scholars told CNN that either option is fine.

Some people were curious what GOP presidential hopefuls Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich would do - both are Catholic and are scheduled to participate in Wednesday's debate in Arizona.

The question generated an interesting discussion about displays of faith in politics and in daily life.

Will presidential candidates wear ashes at Wednesday debate?

Many commenters, including those who identified themselves as Catholics, said it didn't matter to them if the candidates wore the ashes, and some like Alan wondered why we were even bringing it up.

"Why is this even an issue! It will have nothing to do with the debate, election or anything else. CNN just likes to make an issue out of nothing. I am Catholic, I got my ashes, now do you really think I care which one of the candidates did or did not elect to get theirs, NO, NO, NO."

Phil in KC says he doesn't expect Gingrich or Santorum to have the ashes during the debate.

"They'll be so busy sweating, it will all be wiped off by the time the cameras roll. And that's if the make-up lady doesn't remove it first.
The bigger question is, why do I care?"

FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

Wireless data use is growing at a dramatic rate in the United States and the wireless spectrum that carries phone calls, text messages and Internet services isn't growing fast enough to keep up with demand.

CNN Money is devoting a week of coverage to the "Spectrum Crunch" and readers also are weighing in on the problem.

Sorry, America: Your wireless airwaves are full

CashTheGreen: "This situation would be easily remedied if they would just invest more into upgrading their network and infrastructure, but no, the execs have to line their pockets instead. They won't care one bit about the company once they retire from their short careers with millions."

Alan Elliot "The fix is simpler than it looks, charge what is required to deliver a good quality of service. Maybe data plans will be $100/mo for 1G but it will stop all the mindless surfing and viewing of YouTube on phones. Perhaps the video won't be that funny when you realize it costs you $4.00 to view it."

FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

A new study in the journal Pediatrics found that children who don't conform to typical gender roles (i.e. boys who act like girls or girls who act like boys) have a higher risk of suffering abuse than other children.

This wasn't a surprise to many CNN.com readers, including this guest, who said "I don't think it takes multiple Ph.D.'s and M.D.'s to figure this out. 'If you're not like the rest of us, we'll beat you up.' We learned that in elementary school."

Kids who veer from gender norms at higher risk for abuse

The article sparked some interesting discussions on gender, parenting and society's expectations for boys and girls.

JackiMaddie: "I would love and support my child no matter what, and I hope other people feel the same way. Just do the best you can as a parent to instill your values in your child, but if the child follows a different path, you should still be there for him/her. That being said, I am so relieved my daughter obviously doesn't have this problem."

But MindLikeWarp said you can't support everything your child does.

"Pretty soon we are going to say it is OK to be racist, because that is just who you are. I think parents have a responsibility to teach their children how to be able to function decently in society. I think parents should teach boys to be boys and girls to be girls. I know that isn't the PC thing to say, but you shouldn't just let kids do whatever they want. They need boundaries and rules. Society has them."

Readers also debated whether doctors were turning normal childhood behavior into a disorder.

Guest:
"Seriously? I was a tomboy when I was younger. I'm not boyish anymore. I was normal then and normal now. Why is everyone making such a big deal about this? Kids like to experiment. Some kids like to play outside and get dirty, some kids like to play with dolls, some kids like blue and some kids like pink. Stop trying to paint kids as transgender!! They are just trying to grow up and understand the world. The boys in my neighborhood used to come over and we would play dress up with my dresses. It was FUN. Calm down and let kids be kids!"

Michael J. Creamer Jr.:
"In fairness, it's the children who are painting themselves to be transgender. If you read the article carefully, you will see that they are talking about issues a little more substantial than a girl playing baseball and a boy playing with a Barbie doll."

mwhite5990:
"I really hope they don't start to think that girls that like sports now have a psychological disorder. When I was a kid I loved to play with Barbies, dress up, but I also loved to go outside and play sports and play video games. I think it is healthy for kids to show typical signs of both genders. Most of my friends went through a "tomboy" phase. And from what I know, all of us are straight women. If a girl wants to play sports or a boy wants to be a dancer, let him, don't just assume he/she is gay. Gender roles are created by society.
In short, let kids be kids and have fun."

Other readers argued that sexuality and gender are separate issues.

boatrocker:
"You people are missing the point. This is not about being homosexual. It's about how parents are STILL trying to stereotype their kids by gender – 'girls are supposed to wear pink dresses with bows in their hair, and play with dolls. Boys are supposed to wear jeans and play with trucks.' The parents get upset if the kids don't adhere to these stereotypes. It has nothing to do with sexuality."

blueduck13 said people can't be forced to accept someone who doesn't conform to gender roles.
"Personally, I could care less, but while everyone has freedom of choice, they also have consequences. If you have a Mohawk, some people might stare."

But Aucausin says it's much different from a haircut:
"Unless you have gender dysphoria it can be hard to understand. Imagine tomorrow you wake up as the opposite sex, all your friends and family have forgotten that you were ever different and now believe that you were always the opposite sex. You go to dress for the day and your wardrobe has been replaced with clothes indicative of your new sex. You must wear these clothes with your new body. You go to breakfast then school or work and everyone you know sees you as male or female even though you feel like something different. This doesn't seem like much in text, but it is hell."

What do you think? Share your opinion in the comments area below and in the latest stories on CNN.com. Or sound off on video via CNN iReport.

Compiled by the CNN.com moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity.

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

Anthony Shadid's death inspired much conversation from our readers. Shadid, 43, died Thursday of an apparent asthma attack while reporting in eastern Syria, according to The New York Times.

New York Times reporter dies in Syria

One reader wrote in to share their admiration of Shadid's work.

shakti1111: "The world has lost a very talented and extremely dedicated reporter. My condolences go out to Anthony's wife, children, family and friends. As someone who worked side-by-side with Anthony on the editorial staff of our college newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin, it was clear from his very first news reporting that Anthony was destined for bigger issues than the city council. That he chose to commit himself to bringing untold stories to light, providing voice for the voiceless, bringing the intricacies of the modern Middle East into focus for the rest of the world, only shows his noble spirit and tremendous character. May he be remembered for his outstanding contributions to journalism and great authenticity as a person."

This reader said they don't want to see outsiders getting too involved in Syria.

Sargemdf: "I'm sorry the man died; but I have to ask why do American reporters always feel that they need to go to the very region where we are hated so much just for a so-called story? We should never again send any American troops into any Arab country. Let them work the situation our among themselves. If we go, we are hated. If we stay out, we are hated. So why waste one American life for those people?"

Several readers referenced the cameraman who carried Shadid's body out of Syria. FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved licenses to build two new nuclear reactors Thursday, the first authorized in over 30 years. CNN looked into safety at U.S. plants. There are 23 nuclear reactors in the United States that use the General Electric-designed Mark 1 containment housing, which is similar to the design at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant. Readers talked about the safety of U.S. plants.

U.S. nuclear plants similar to Fukushima spark concerns

Some readers thought the concerns were overblown. This was the most-liked comment:

Jack Baker: "We have been using nuclear power for over 50 years, and there have been very few serious incidents, and only a couple of incidents with injuries or radiation release. And considering that the quantity of waste by-product is significantly less than any other type of power generation, including natural gas, how can people be so adamant against nuclear power?"

There were many who responded in turn to Jack Baker's coment.

MK54: "I believe that rendering a portion of the Earth uninhabitable for centuries, maybe more is a tremendous and unacceptable disaster, because of the persistence, even if no person is directly killed. The scale of a disaster is not always just in people killed. Earth is a beautiful and hospitable place, but it is up to us to keep it that way."

pwrphoto: "Many people would say that it's because of ignorance but I think it is mostly due to the subjective nature of how we, humans, perceive risk. Risk has two components: likelihood and impact. Your comment focuses on both risk and likelihood but most people only look at the impact. That is, they don't care if having a nuclear accident is very unlikely. They just care that if there is an accident the consequences are extreme. It is for the same reason that airplane accidents attract more attention than each individual road accident."

PatriotEagle: "Also, unlike Japan we don't get tsunamis. And France is completely energy because they run the whole country on nuclear energy and there's not been one nuclear problem to my knowledge in France."

One reader replied to the "Why?" and wondered why other kinds of energy aren't being explored. FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

Both the number of interracial marriages and the acceptance of such couples is growing, according to a new study. But the relationships themselves still stir a bit of conversation, and we saw some fiery debates among our commenters. We also heard some stories from couples in interracial marriages.

Study: Interracial marriage, acceptance growing

This reader talked about her own interracial marriage.

lchristma: "As an Asian-American who married a white man, my race was not a factor to him. I had more concerns than he did. I knew he had never faced racism, and he would be judged. Culturally, it was not an issue, since my adopted parents are white. People should remember that the U.S. adopted many Asian children, which contributes to the increase. I just get annoyed with people wondering if I am a mail-order bride, can speak English, must be submissive, etc. Just more stereotypes that are not always true. Fortunately we live in a very educated, diverse, and liberal college town. We live there so we can give our children a safer and healthier environment. No one should grow up feeler lesser than others, due to others people’s ignorance."

For some couples, race is just about a nonissue.

casselli: "I am married to a 'white' man, and I don't see us as an 'interracial' marriage. I love him to death and adore his beautiful skin. I am Mexican, and he feels the same way about me. Needless to say our kids are gorgeous and lucky."

FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

The story about an apparent heart attack suffered at Heart Attack Grill in Las Vegas was naturally a talker for readers of Eatocracy, our food blog. This story presents a bit of a quandary for some readers.

Man suffers heart attack while eating "Triple Bypass" burger at Heart Attack Grill

People who have been to the restaurant shared their opinions.

Amanda: "I've been to this place once when it was in Chandler, Arizona, and you get fat by just walking in the door. This place is a novelty restaurant, so you know what your getting into when you go there. You reap what you sow, if your going to eat a 6,000 calorie burger by yourself. But as much as this article highlights the restaurant, it probably wasn't the burger that gave him the heart attack ... just saying ..."

Tr1Xen: "No joke ... this guy's probably been eating food like that his whole life."

Can a Triple Bypass burger really give you a heart attack right then and there? FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

Sports anchor Rick Quan wrote a commentary on CNN.com saying he believes the so-called "Linsanity" over New York Knicks' Jeremy Lin isn't just about race, but isn't completely devoid of it either. Our readers had a bit to say about the way race is discussed.

With Jeremy Lin, of course race matters

This was the most-liked comment:

cesarchavez: "Saying race plays a factor doesn't make one racist. It is simply stating facts. The same publicity Lin is getting because he's succeeding in a sport in which members of his race don't typically succeed is what Tiger Woods experienced with golf. If you have a black hockey player or a white basketball player having Lin-type success he would probably get more publicity than if you had a white hockey player or black basketball player doing the same thing. Race can matter without it being racist. People say all the time that we have our first black president. In that instance, bringing up President Obama's race matters, but one isn't necessarily racist for bringing it up."

That comment received several replies. Quan and readers were referencing a remark by famed boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr.  FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

Children are getting bigger, say the statistics, and companies that make school furniture are nudging up the sizes to accommodate larger pupils. Some say this is a disturbing trend in coping with childhood obesity.

Obese children outgrowing kids' clothing and furniture

One of the biggest questions this story raised among our readers is whether stigma spurs kids to lose weight or merely depresses them. This was the most-liked comment:

Techsupp0rt: "Yes, let's keep babying the fat kids and lying to them and telling them they're just like the rest of the other kids. They aren't, and they know it, and you insult their intelligence by lying to them. You aren't helping them by giving them bigger chairs, you're enabling them. Being fat is supposed to be uncomfortable, because our bodies are not designed to carry that much extra weight. Discomfort should be a motivating factor in losing weight. When they complain about it at home, their parents should do something instead of just handing them another Twinkie and sitting them in front of the TV and telling them that they'll 'grow out of it'. Very few of them ever will, and if their parents are also fat, then it's highly unlikely that they will ever be anything but fat, until they grow up and learn what they can do for themselves."

Binky42: "Shaming a fat person to be thin doesn't work. It just ends up causing psychological problems, which is turn usually results in weight gain."

Being overweight is a person's responsibility, many of our readers said. FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

Writer Stephanie Coontz posits that presidential candidate Sen. Rick Santorum's views about women come straight from the ultra-olden days in an opinion article on CNN.com on Tuesday. Her story got thousands of comments.

Santorum's stone-age view of women

The most-liked comment was about women's rights and ambitions, which many of our readers said could be in danger under a conservative president.

abcdef54321: "Conservative women make me sorry that American liberals worked so hard for so long to give women the vote, to allow them to own property, to allow them to wear pants, to give them equal pay, to protect them from sexual harassment at work, to give them access to abortions, to allow them to use birth control, to encourage them to seek advanced education, and to allow them to serve in the military. Conservative women vote every November for men who would pay them less than men, outlaw abortion, outlaw birth control, perhaps outlaw divorce, repeal child nutrition programs, repeal child health programs, repeal laws protecting them from sexual harassment, make it harder for them to get a college degree, and close public schools. Go figure."

But then, here's what a reader identifying as one of those conservative women had to say:

not1not99: "Well, I was an American liberal and I am now an American conservative. I am college-educated, I have a good job, I've never been on welfare and my husband loves me as Christ loves the church. I am not oppressed, beaten, ignorant, or chained to the kitchen (actually I love to cook!). I have my own ideas, thoughts, and opinions that are not my husband's but conclusions based on facts that I research on my own. The people I associate with are other college-educated moms who have made the choice to stay home, raise and educate their children instead of leaving that responsibility in someone else's hands (public school system, day care). They respect my choices, I respect their choices. However, in retrospect I would have rather have stayed home, and raised and educated my children.

"Our choice is our choice. Not out of ignorance or some distorted or perverse sense of 'obedience to our husbands.' Husbands that choose to dominate their wives come from all sorts of different backgrounds, conservative and liberal. So stop being childish, pointing fingers and playing silly stereotyping games."

Several commenters talked about the many difficult challenges involved in staying home with the kids.

FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

"So glad I'm an unique snowflake and we don't celebrate this day. 'Oh, I love you more than anything on THIS day only!' We pick a random day to celebrate, and it works for us."
– Canada: America's Hat

Many of our readers are eschewing stereotypical Valentine's Day celebrations, saying dinner at Waffle House and other humble trimmings are perfect for love.

Scattered, smothered, covered, cuddled, kissed – Valentine's Day at Waffle House

One reader swears by the restaurant chain.

Rebecca: "Waffle House has long been my Sweetie's and mine's 'secret' Valentine's destination. Good food, great service (none is better than Ms. Pat in North Augusta, South Carolina!), and a fun lively atmosphere – all at a reasonable price! The perfect thing for lovers of all ages and purse sizes!"

Some found lasting love there.

Jason: "I proposed to my wife at a Waffle House in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Amazingly, she said yes and we are married nine years now."

Don't forget about Taco Bell. (One of our readers drew the line at Cracker Barrel, but it probably has some fans as well.) FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

The violent unrest in Syria has many people wondering what solutions might exist. Among our readers, a debate is brewing about whether it's a good idea to get involved in the country's affairs, and if so, how.

Harsh condemnation for Syria at United Nations

This story talks about the United Nations' involvement in particular. The most-liked comment was about the Arab League's responsibilities.

blursd: "What's the point of an Arab League even existing if the only time it uses its collective militaries is when it a question of Jewish interests. Seriously, if they think this is as imperative of an issue as they say it is (a member state unjustifiably killing fellow Arabs), then they should be willing to commit their militaries to resolving the issue. Instead, they just sit around and twiddle their thumbs like a bunch of ineffectual hypocrites, and expect the 'evil' West to come in and do the 'dirty work.' I say let the Arab League step up to the plate ... if they want to world to treat them like a legitimate organization, they need to start acting like one."

JohnRJohnson: "Unfortunately, the Mideast is more than just nation states. It is an uneven grouping of several branches of Islam. Shiites in one country would not like seeing Shiites in another country fired on by an Arab League force. The same goes for Sunnis. These people are bound together more by religion and tradition than by a sense of nationalism. So the Arab League has to tread very carefully here, and that's the primary reason why it is calling on the U.N. to take action."

Is it right for outsiders to get involved?

ConvinceMe12: "Once upon a time, two Muslims were fighting trying to kill each other. An outsider tried to stop them; so the Muslims joined together and attacked the outsider. Once the outsider decided to leave them alone, they went back to trying to kill each other again and blamed the outsider for what they were doing."

We saw a lot of readers saying people should stay out of Syria's business, but others were frightened of that idea as well. FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

Celine Dion is facing criticism after saying drug use "took over" Whitney Houston's life. Many tore into Dion via Twitter after her "Good Morning America" interview Monday discussing Houston's death. Nevertheless, Dion got lots of support from our readers. Many commenters said Houston made poor decisions in her life, regardless of their feelings about her work as an artist. We've highlighted a few of their remarks. What do you think?

Celine Dion on Houston: Drugs took over her dreams

Several readers said they believe Dion's assessment was correct.

bluegrassbiscuit: "A fan of Whitney here; however, I agree with Celine. It's sad and unfortunate. When will people learn? We say these people are our idols and they influence us to do great things, become a singer, reach for our goals, etc. Then why can't, when something like this happens, we get influenced to not fall into drugs and alcohol? It should work both ways. ..."

Rose: "Drug and alcohol abuse can still kill you even if you get clean and stay clean for years. It causes a lot of damage to your organs that can cause an early death. I hope that she had not fallen back into substance abuse."

But others noted celebrities often get what they want, even when it hurts.

Louisa: "I'm still so sad over her death, but how could anyone get to her? When you have money and bodyguards and people that will tell you anything you want to hear, how could anyone get close enough to help? Same with Michael (Jackson). He could afford doctors to give him what he wanted, and if they didn't, then he got someone else. We have lost some true talents."

There were a lot of personal stories about the consequences of substance abuse. FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

Think of this as a companion piece to the previous "overheard" post on privacy. There was a comment in the story about Google that provided some inspiration.

Pitt86: "Slightly off topic, but, in the 'Google vs. Apple' climate seemingly everywhere on this site, am I the only one that finds some humor in the fact that the picture at the top of the article shows a Google screen on a MacBook?"

We do have quite a division between people who despise Apple products and those who love them. There are devoted Android and Google fanbases, but also plenty of iPhone and Macintosh devotees. This division was fairly evident in a few stories this week, but maybe no more than in this piece about the cost of iPhones for carriers.

The iPhone is a nightmare for carriers

This was the most-liked comment:

Sinator: "It's not right that we non Apple users are subsidizing the posers through higher rates. They just need to tack on a sour Apple fee for those who can't feel cool without one.

This person agreed.

fingaz: "And this is why I will be getting the Droid 4 this Friday. Verizon knows that they can make more of a profit on this phone while still sell this awesome phone for cheap! Apple products are simply just wayyy over priced with tons less features then other phones. And you can't even customize them. Its Apples way or the highway! I still have no idea why people buy them!"

But this reader went for Apple.

zopaa: "So I got a brand spanking new Motorola Android-based phone last October. It was great, but I switched to iPhone as soon as it was available on Sprint. The reason? I was trying to show off my new Android phone to my friends after work, but couldn't because the batter was dead. All the bells and whistles are not worth anything, if the basic functions are not there. When in a few years Android make a usable product, I may switch back. I have no allegiance to Apple, but I want to have the best device and IMO iPhone is such a device for a mobile phone."

These commenters talked about the U.S. mobile market. Some of our readers said other countries do it better. FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

"I've trained a bunch of pigeons. I write down my query, attach it to the pigeon's leg, and send it out into the world. Sometimes, they even come back. I'm finding the results about as relevant as using Bing or Yahoo. I'm a little worried, though I have no evidence to back this up at all, that they sometimes alight on the windowsill of a third party, who gets to see what I'm searching about. It's unsettling, really."
–1anony

Frida Ghitis, a former CNN producer/correspondent, wrote an opinion piece about Google's new privacy policies, and about the future of information security. Our readers had lots of thoughts about that.

Google knows too much about you

Readers debated how much users should worry about where their information is stored.

MeJustMe: "I am reminded of the cartoon of two pigs talking as they are loaded on to a truck. One pig says to the other, 'This is so great we have a warm place to sleep all the food we can eat and now we are going on a trip. And it is all for free!' The caption underneath reads if it is free and always will be free then you are not the customer.
Sums up Facebook and Google nicely. Yes it is free to you but who are you or your data being sold to and for what purpose?"

Some people said the fear was going too far, and referenced tinfoil hats, but others said there is much to worry about.

Cal78: "Your ISP knows every site you go to as well. Your phone company knows everybody you called. Your bank knows everywhere you've used your debit card. Better put on the tinfoil hats."

allanhowls: "Or, you could demand that that which actually belongs to you stay your property. Change the laws so that personal information stays personal, rather than bending over like the sheep you are."

maff: "I dont think it's tinfoil at all. If you live in the inner city and you sleep with the front door open, eventually you're gonna get robbed. In modern society we are in compromised and vulnerable positions. We have faith in people we have never seen before. And now with data mining and these supercomputers, all that information can be consolidated, and eventually it will be. You see the direction technology is going. I'm not saying now, but it's inevitable."

Do you read the fine print? How do you feel about Facebook's privacy versus Google? FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

Democrats and Republicans are grappling over a pending federal rule requiring religiously affiliated employers to provide full contraception coverage to women. So are our readers, who posted several comments in defense of birth control. Others said people should step back and think about the implications of this policy.

Contraception controversy consumes D.C., campaign

Here are arguments on each side of the issue.

LiviClaire: "This pits religious freedom for organizations vs. religious freedom for individuals. As an individual you have the right to choose whether or not to get contraceptives according to your religious beliefs. But should an organization that employs you have the right to deny you contraceptive coverage in your personal health plan? This "mandate" is not for individuals (who can always choose) but for organizations that cover individuals. I say let individuals decide if they need contraceptives. Not their employers."

tedkingston: "These are nonprofit entitites, trying to make the world a better place, and the big government bureaucracy is MANDATING that they sacrifice their values in favor of what government elites think is best for individuals. By the way, there are birth defects related to birth control and other problems. Do you really think a drug that can cause birth defects is good for you? Do you really think it's good to mandate charities provide it for their employees, against their organizational values? Epitomizes socialism/fascist liberal movement in this country. That the people can't take care of themselves and the government knows better."

An interesting discussion began about pregnancy prevention techniques. FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

There's a bit of controversy going on between the NCAA and the University of North Dakota over the school's mascot, the Fighting Sioux. Readers had strong responses to CNN's story.

School will continue using Fighting Sioux nickname

Many of our commenters were supportive of the name, citing the Fighting Irish as an example of another use of cultural stereotype.

bronson2010: "This is ridiculous. The political correctness that has overtaken this country astounds me. What about the University of Notre Dame Fighting Irish? Is that offensive? Perhaps to the Irish. I'm Irish and I support North Dakota with my heart and soul, even though when you think about it, this may be considered offensive since the Irish were stereotypically known for getting drunk and fighting. Time to grow a skin people. Or did I offend you?"

This former student says the name is OK. Several commenters said the use of the name Fighting Sioux is a compliment to the Native Americans in the area.

PhiDelt: "As a former student of the University of North Dakota, I am happy they are fighting to keep this name. It is a long and storied tradition at UND, and it does honor the Sioux of that area."

A few commenters said the word "Sioux" is not an actual name for the tribe.

N8iveThought: "What people don't understand is Sioux is not a Lakota, Nakota, or Dakota word. It is French for enemy/snake. It's insulting because it's not a name we call ourselves. I'm Oglala Lakota not Oglala Sioux. There is a difference there and we natives are the only ones who know it. It's like calling every white person in the United States French or jew or whatever may have it. Also there are many tribes that were called Sioux. There are seven tribes in South Dakota alone that have been label Sioux. Which in turn are really not. We have the Cheyenne River, which consists of four bands (Itazico, O'ohenunpa, Minnecojou, and Si hasapa), Oglala, Sicungu, Yankton, Lower Brule, Sisseton Wahpeton, etc. Not to mention the tribes in Minnesota, North Dakota and Montana. So I think they'd have to get permission from all tribes to actually use the insulting name in question."

Some also mentioned the Minnesota Vikings. FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

"Clint Eastwood doing 'Spaghetti' car commercials ... priceless."
–jedclampet1

Readers buzzed about a Super Bowl ad featuring Clint Eastwood, wondering if "halftime in America" was a political statement or a misunderstood ad slogan.

Don't pick a fight with Clint Eastwood
Were politics buried inside Eastwood's 'Halftime' commercial?

We took a look at responses to a couple of the stories about this subject. Turns out some of our posters are big fans of Dirty Harry, and we saw a variety of descriptions of the actor.

Is he conservative? Some readers said Clint Eastwood ...

"... is a Republican. I don't think he would have done this to plug for President Obama. Maybe the ad is just the truth." –Rrigo

"... is a Hollywood liberal. And a joke." –jcg20

"... has stated that he is a libertarian. Therefore I honestly doubt the ad was politically motivated." –JohnnySeven

"... is an American folk hero, and a lifelong Republican." –bp4truth

"... still has a seemingly naive notion that government can work." –nzgrrj

"... is a staunch conservative (I don't hold that against him as he is a brilliant film maker) so it is not likely he would be endorsing Obama - something (Rove) could never figure out with his tiny brain." –statman29

There were some readers who got the feeling that there were politics behind the ad, whether Eastwood realized it or not. FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

Rick Santorum was thrice victorious in Tuesday's GOP contests, leading some to wonder if he's gaining momentum. Some, like opinion writer Timothy Stanley, are wondering what real impact he will have. Is Santorum the "coulda, shoulda, woulda" candidate, as Stanley asserts?

Santorum, the 'coulda, shoulda, woulda' candidate

We heard from a few Santorum supporters, who said they believe the candidate could be a good option for Republicans.

AngelThree: "He is looking better each primary. He is a devoted family man who appears to have no skeletons in his closet. He is a devout Christian who puts family first. He is a moderate who is not aggressive militarily. He truly cares about our country. He also seems to have a bit of that Kennedy mystique about him that will attract the independent voters. He does not attack the other candidates. Like all humans, he will have faults, but they seem minimal as opposed to the other candidates or the incumbent. I believe he has a chance to serve."

This reader didn't think Santorum's success over Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich would carry over in other places.

Evilchicken: "Of course the surge isn't real. States like Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota do not reflect popular opinion anywhere outside of the Midwest. Romney will win ... sadly."

There were quite a few comments from those who are not fans of Santorum, as evidenced by this comment addressed to Stanley. It was the most-liked response.

angie412: "A professor at Oxford, huh? Do you study past speeches of candidates, sir? Mr. I-Want-to-Ban-All-Abortions and Amend-the-Constitution-to-Suit-My-Own-Personal-Religious-Beliefs is the most frightening candidate I've ever seen. I can't believe, given his terrible track record of crazy, that you'd even suggest he's an appropriate candidate in any party for the President of the United States. I'd vote Bush in for a third term before I'd vote for Santorum!"

Some of the posts were about a dissatisfaction with the choices available for Election 2012. FULL POST

Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.

"This gives a whole new meaning to 'stimulus money.' "
–hence21

When a story is about strip clubs and welfare, the reader response is going to be colorful. LZ Granderson wrote an opinion column about a bill designed to prevent people from spending government assistance money in strip clubs and casinos. He argues that Democrats shouldn't bicker and try to oppose this bill.

'Strip club bill' a no-brainer

This commenter said Congress has better things to be doing.

fishfry001: "So LZ, if your position is right, then how come we can't get congress to pass laws putting them under the same health care coverage as the rest of us (maybe you have it, maybe you don't), And why don't they change the laws to stop the lifetime full pensions legislators earn for serving even just one term in congress? Those are very significant drains on taxpayer dollars and deserve to be changed right along with this "strip club" initiative. I'm certainly not saying that those receiving public assistance should be able to spend some of that money in strip clubs or the like, but I AM saying that if we are going to get so deeply into controlling the people at such a base level, with saving taxpayer dollars as the justification and congress is all for it, then it's high time congress made these other changes as well. Oh, and while we're at it, once they leave Washington they should never, ever be allowed to lobby. You've done your time, performed your service to the government, now go home. Taxpayers deserve nothing less. So, LZ – why don't you use your influence and get the dialog started on this initiative?"

Some readers suggested that the government assistance system needs tweaking.

grinch031: "The welfare system should be abuse-proof. No more cash. It should be in the form of vouchers that can only be used for necessities. If someone is able-bodied, welfare should be temporary, not permanent. Time to end the abuse."

This reader said the bill would be hard to enforce. FULL POST