June 06, 2006
from - smijer
You come from many backgrounds and faith traditions, yet united in this common belief: Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization...
For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families...
The words of someone supportive of the institution of marriage? Someone who is getting ready to make a move to strengthen families?
"This national question requires a national solution. And on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come not from the courts, but from the people of the United States."
Because the courthouse shouldn't have any say in marriage (tell that to Dolly Parton). It's true that "the people" should make most of the decisions regarding marriage... but when one is talking about who is or is not empowered to participate in this "most fundamental institution of civilization", it helps to remember that "the people" is not the same thing as "the majority". To give the power of exclusion to the majority of the people is to silence the minority, and remove that part of "the people" from the decision-making process. And, in this case that means that the very people who will be affected by the decision are the ones who have no part in making it. It happened once before, and the activist judges did the right thing. They gave back to the minorities being affected a voice in their own destiny. And today, as a result, there are many strong families living in America.
I suppose I treat this too seriously. The amendment won't pass. It's just an attempt to manipulate the conservative base prior to an election - gee when did this happen before? But I believe that we must remind people that they are undermining both democracy and families by attempting to institutionalize exclusion, so we can get past this - so that 50 years from now our nation will no longer be mired in this effort, no longer sullied by it. So that 50 years from now, no prominent politician will run on a platform of overturning the marriage rights being considered today, just as no prominent politician will run on a platform of overturning the marriage rights that were before the court in Loving v. Virginia. So that our same-sex neighbors will no longer appear to us as the bogeyman; instead, they will be a source of strength to our communities for which we will all (or most all) be grateful.
May 25, 2006
from - smijer
But I don’t want him executed. That would be revenge, not justice. [...] I shudder at the idea of government imitating this killer by killing him. All the talk about the “closure” given by an execution is a myth. Heather is gone. Her chair is forever empty, and killing her murderer will not change that. [...] And I don’t want his family to be forced into grief and sorrow. Why create another family of another slaying victim?The pro-death-penalty argument which normally gains the most sympathy for me is the one that looks at the feelings and wishes of the victims' loved ones. The loss can never be healed, but can they find closure with the execution of the perpetrator? My guess is that many, if not most, family members of victims feel they can - at least until the execution takes place and they learn whether or not they can from experience. Not all, to be very sure, but many.
But I look at the statement from Ms. Wright, and I notice that much of what she says is true of all families of murder victims. The closure hoped for from the death penalty is one that comes from the (quite) understandable motivation of revenge - not an ethical standard. Executing the murderer really will leave that chair empty, that victim gone forever. That empty chair, that knowledge of a loved one suffering, those are the real harms, and execution does precisely nothing to undo them. And, no matter whether there is some "closure" for the victim's family, there is the much greater negative result for antoher family - a family innocent of any wrongdoing apart from having loved the wrong person. If there is some "closure" that comes from execution, is it worth the price of creating a whole new family who will carry the same burden that the victim's family carries?
May 17, 2006
from - RSA
I gather from various news articles that the evangelical Christian right is split in the immigration debate, and there are big evangelical organizations who have not come down on one side or the other. I rarely have useful insight into conservative Christian thinking, but I'm surprised that this isn't a relatively straightforward issue: You've got a lot of poor people who have come to American in the hope of making a living, and the vast majority of them are Christian--what would Jesus do? I think I know, and it wouldn't involve building a big fence.
May 09, 2006
from - smijer
Wouldn't Sean Hannity just throw a fit (and rightly) if someone from NAMBLA served in the Massachussets legislature? Wouldn't he be eager (wrongly) to cite this as proof of the slippery slope from gay marriage to institutionalized pederasty?
What? you say he would be right? 'K then
(H/T: the General)
April 28, 2006
from - smijer
Wednesday was the day of the Fundamentalist "Day of Truth", a response to the student-led April 13th "Day of Silence".
Here is a nice article on it.
In short, for those of you who are too long out of school, it is during the pre-adolescent and adolescent years that anti-gay harassment is at its apex. As a small-sized, socially inept straight, I discovered just how hateful kids can be toward one just labelled "fag". It's no wonder that the friends I had in school who actually were gay never let any one know it. The Day of Silence is an effort to counter that bigotry. Participation by concerned teens, straight, gay, and other helps raise awareness of the anti-gay aggression prevalent in the schools and of the humanity of its victims.
The Day of Truth - well, that's an obnoxiously self-righteous attempt to distract attention from the hurt being caused in our schools and to focus it instead on "fighting the homosexual agenda". Kind of a slap in the face if you ask me.
April 27, 2006
from - smijer
Monday, we saw a baby step toward doing something about the Sudanese genocide in Darfur. Four individuals were targeted for sanctions by a unanimous vote in the U.N. A baby step indeed, but at least someone is starting to pay attention. If the Sudanese stop the genocide and do things like this, instead, then they are likely to attract a lot more U.S. attention. (related - also related)
Meanwhile, the Sudanese Government has ramped up military action against rebels and people who live near them in the Darfur region.
Murmers of cooperation between Khartoum & the U.N. are looking less optimistic.
Now, to editorialize.
Over a year ago, the estimated death toll from the Sudanese genocide was, at minimum, 63,000 men, women, and children. That's about 16 of the World Trade Center attacks over roughly a two year period. Other estimates double that figure. Neither Le Monde, nor the New York Times has headlined, "We are all Darfuris." No worldwide coalition has been joined to remove the Sudanese government which aids, abets, and - quite frankly is the responsible party for this genocide.
When America lost 4000 of her own to violence from Al Qaeda, we stepped up, and the world stepped up with us. When it was our turn to help put an end to killing on a much larger scale, we opted instead to invade Iraq, where the murderous regime had long ago settled its score with Iraqi rebels and the blood had long dried - while letting the Sudanese genocide continue. Where are our hearts? Our eyes? Our minds?
It is a shame that bin Laden and Iran have to cozy up to the Sudanese government in order to raise even the least bit of American interest - and then, who knows if that will even spur our interest? Maybe Hollywood can help.
* Worth noting: I do not think a war in Sudan is the best first resort. I think the best first resort is to write up war crimes charges, then send in special ops to bring out the responsible parties for trial in the Hague or elsewhere. If this, along with more pressure to allow UN peacekeepers and watchdog groups doesn't bring about a change in direction there - then, maybe, as a last resort - war.
April 16, 2006
from - smijer
This does not quite convince me that the ticketing change was actually intended specifically to exclude kids from non-traditional families from the White House egg roll. If it was, then shame on them. If it wasn't - well, there are people out there who would cheer for such a thing. So, shame on them.
God forbid that the public find out that families of same-sex parents are ... wait for it... just like the rest of us. Their kids like egg rolls, and their parents like to take them to them. Can't let that secret out.
March 30, 2006
from - smijer
Blood:Water Mission takes a community-centered approach to AIDS that includes establishing basic conditions necessary for health, providing vital medical care and clean water, working toward social equality, addressing the constraints of poverty, and empowering communities to take ownership of their own long-term healthy development. This kind of integrated approach is essential to winning the battle against AIDS.
bloodwater doesn't seem to be indexed on CharityNavigator.org, so I don't know much about it - but it certainly appears that their hearts and heads are in the right place. Salut!
March 29, 2006
from - smijer
WHO AIDS program not doing so well... mainly due to lack of money:
Each year, more than 570,000 children younger than 15 die of AIDS, most of them having acquired it from their mothers at birth, according to the report.
An estimated 3 million people die of acquired immune deficiency syndrome each year, and WHO officials believe that the "3 by 5" program prevented as many as 350,000 deaths in 2005.
"People have died and continue to die of what is a treatable disease," said Dr. Kevin De Cock, director of the WHO's HIV/AIDS Department.
The program was launched by the WHO and UNAIDS on World AIDS Day, Dec. 1, 2003, with high hopes that the drug benefits achieved in industrialized countries could be quickly spread to the developing world.
But within a year it was clear that the 2005 goal could not be reached, primarily because of insufficient money, the high cost of drugs and the poor health infrastructure in many of the most affected countries.
Nearly 2,000 babies are born with HIV each day because their virus-infected mothers do not get the treatment needed to stop transmission, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Tuesday.
The Money Quote - from the LA Times:
Global spending on AIDS totaled $8.3 billion in 2005, up from $4.7 billion in 2003. Nearly half of that sum came from the United States through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
But the report predicts an $18-billion shortfall in funding for 2005-07. If treatment coverage is to continue expanding, it says, at least $22 billion a year will be required by 2008.
Now, for the perspective. That $22 billion per year is less than the cost of four months of having us a war in Iraq.
One more time... 2000 babies per day vs a "Peance, Freance" Iraq.
March 27, 2006
from - smijer
It's the immigration legislation that is in the news now. Normally, I would ignore it simply because I've never developed much of an opinion on it. Part of the reason for that is that it's a tough issue to get into. So, let me just ask a stupid question. Why not negotiate with our neighbors a "free market" for immigration? Put another way, why not allow and document immigration for anyone who wants it? Here is a brief list of the "pluses" for such a scheme, as envisioned in my imagination:
- Opens an option to would-be immigrants to avoid such unpleasantries as dying in the desert or on the back of a truck.
Avoids the perpetuation of an American underclass who lack wage and labor protections, opportunities for education, etc. Also, reduces crime rate which results from said underclass.
Border patrols and immigration services could police for a relative few "hard-core" cases - workers who have some motivation to come in undocumented and give up minimum wage and other labor protections. They could then screen more extensively among undocumented entrants for potential terrorists.
Once job market is saturated, motivation to immigrate to U.S. should decline, and emigration to other markets - particularly those with healthy economies - should increase. Problems associated with illegal immigration should decline in turn. At the same time, a "free market" for international labor would help keep American labor pool strong.
Fewer moral issues with deporting undocumented workers. Those not deemed security threats could, in fact, be offered a chance to document under a probationary scheme.
$$ in tax revenue, currently lost, would be recovered.
What am I missing? What down-sides to such a scheme make it, apparently, unthinkable under U.S. policy?
March 22, 2006
from - smijer
I think some "pro-lifers" - or even most of them - sincerely believe that abortion is murder... And yet the majority of them answer the questions in Amp's chart as though they are more concerned with having women held responsible for the consequences of sexual congress than with preventing murder.
I don't look at this as proof that pro-lifers are misogynistic. I look at it as a wake-up call.
First, it is a challenge to review what it means to believe that abortion is murder. How do you believe it? Do you believe it the same way you believe that the sun will come up tomorrow? The same way you believe that your spouse loves you? That your children are "good" (or bad)? Do you believe that abortion is murder the same way that you believe it is murder to put a gun to the head of a child and pull the trigger? Or is it the way you believe it is murder to withhold medical treatment for a child for religious reasons (or that it is evil to give medicine to a sick child, if you are Christian Science)? Or, do you believe that the same way you believe that "we are living in the end times"?
Second, it's a challenge on whether you have the courage of your convictions. If you believe that abortion is murder, will you demand the same criminal penalties for aborting doctors and women as are applied for other murderers? Do you believe it so strongly that you would imprison a woman or doctor for life if they are found guilty of abortion? Do you believe it so strongly that you are willing to stake the lives of your woman family members and doctor friends on it?
Third, it's a challenge on whether you will oppose conservative "pro-lifers" when their policies are inimicable to the prevention of murder. Are you willing to push contraception and sex education - even if it may mean giving implicit permission to kids for illicit sexual congress - in order to prevent murder? Is prevention of murder not a more pressing concern to you than hanky-panky? If you answer yes, but your GOP leadership is pushing legislation in the second column - don't you think it's time to be putting some pressure on them for change?
Some things to think about when considering whether fertilization magically endows an egg with "human life".
March 13, 2006
from - smijer
We took the Unitarian youth to visit the Quaker church on Sunday - I did not realize before, but he was a member of the Quakers/Friends. He was also a former Chattanooga resident. I guess it's a small world.
March 07, 2006
from - smijer
One report on Monday's Supreme Court ruling regarding university policies on recruitment and discrimination and the federal response... I'll explain, with running commentary.
Most prominent law schools, because of their respect for the law and the principles behind it, require a written pledge from those organizations who wish to recruit their graduates that they will not discriminate... including on the basis of sexual orientation.
Good so far. Now, as we all know, the military cares more about "hating teh gay" than, you know, keeping America secure. So, under the policies of most prominent U.S. law schools, the Universities will not allow them to recruit on campus... good for them!... except, they do. Because they receive (and require) substantial federal funding, which depends on them allowing military recruiters on campus. So, they have made an exception, since the eighties, to allow military recruiters after all, however they do not provide military recruiters the same assistance in terms of communication and advertizing to their students as they do employers who do not have openly bigoted hiring practices.
So that's good. But now (and I'm not clear whether this is based on new law or old), the military is pulling funding on the basis that their recruiters are not provided the same services as other recruiters. So a group of law schools (including Georgetown, and I'm not sure who else) have sued the government under the first amendment. And this is where it gets complicated.
The cause of action is under the established legal doctrine that to tie federal funding to the exercise of protected speech is unconstitutional. The doctrine is, I believe, legally sound. But, the application is weak... even the Court's remaining "liberal" justices rejected it. Chief Justice Roberts put it ... well... admirably, in writing the decision:
In his opinion on Monday, he outlined how First Amendment protections of free speech and association weren't jeopardized by what Congress did.
"The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything," Roberts wrote. "Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military's congressionally mandated employment policy, all the while retaining eligibility for federal funds."
He noted that the law might require schools to send e-mails or post notices about military recruiters because they do it for other businesses. But he said such "compelled speech" was only incidental to the requirement that military recruiters be treated equally.
Comparing that situation to similar ones the court has faced, Roberts wrote: "Compelling a law school that sends scheduling e-mails for other recruiters to send one for a military recruiter is simply not the same as forcing a student to pledge allegiance, or forcing a Jehovah's Witness to display the motto `Live Free or Die.'" He said it "trivializes" constitutional protections to suggest that the law schools face similar burdens.
Roberts said law schools aren't "speaking" when they aid students in the recruitment process.
That isn't to say I like the idea of any organization - military or otherwise - using college campuses to recruit into a system of mandated discrimination. But I agree that the first amendment challenge is weak. .... Now, please bear in mind that this is running commentary as I describe the situation .... I'm not "building" to anything here....
I do think, however, that there is a flaw in the application of the law... It would (probably) be within the rights of the government to tie funding to a University's practices regarding recruitment in the sense of making specific demands on what the University must do in order to gain said funding, I don't think that the Universities should lose funding based on the actual law, which says they must provide the same services to military recruiters as to other recruiters. The challenge, then, should be made on the basis of the application of the law, rather than on the perceived violation of the amendment number 1. See, the law doesn't prescribe that specific services must be provided by the university - only that the same services be provided as are provided to other recruiters. And, the university does provide the same services as are provided to other recruiters - it uses campus resources to advise students when employers who meet their recruitment standards, regardless of who they are are recruiting on campus. The military does not meet their recruitment standards. They are treated better than other organizations who do not meet their recruitment standards - they are allowed on campus. The university's advertizement program is not "one size fits all" - they advertize based on the organization's individual merits. And the same standards apply to the military as apply to any other recruiter. So, under the law, they should not lose funding.
So, the challenge was wrong - and a very legitimate one was available - one which should have succeeded, and should have left Congress in the position of having to pass very specifically bigoted legislation in order to achieve their desired end regarding military recruitment on university campus.
Next point... this is an opportunity. Many representatives of the law schools in question view this decision, as it was written, as an invitation to more aggressive protest of the military's policies of elevating hatred over security. That's true and good. But there's a bigger point waiting to be made, too - if the courage and the money exist to make it.
Because, as I've mentioned numerous times previously, the military does value bigotry over security... but few people have thought about it enough to perceive that fact.
So what happens if the universities decide to take the financial hit and ban miliatry recruiters, per their own high-minded policies? Well, the military loses access to a very valuable pool of recruits at a time when they are already facing very tough recruiting challenges. The government has a choice.... they can be seen to be abonding this pool of recruits and threatening an already threadbare security force - or they can change their discriminatory policies. Which will they choose? Who will support them in their choice? If they choose to abandon campus recruiting and trigger a situation where numerous prestigious universities are de-funded, then they will be seen by the public to have no interest in the most vital asset any nation can have - a well-educated populace. If they stay to the hardline, they will most certainly be voted out and replaced by people who care about education and security over gay-bashing.
And that's where George Soros comes in... because no one could ask the American university system to commit suicide. And that's what would be happening if the universities gave up funding en masse. We need a safety net for them to make it possible for them to take a principled stand... And then, we need a lot more money and organization to rally behind that principled stand - so that during the next elections there will be a clear national referendum on the relative importance of maintaining a culture of hatred and keeping our nation secure and well educated. As attractive as that culture of hatred is to so many people, when the choice is clear, the balances will tip in favor of security and education. And, if it doesn't... maybe we don't deserve to remain a first world nation, anyway.
March 06, 2006
from - smijer
The abortion debate carries a very large number of complex and difficult questions and controversies, but it very frequently revolves around the notion (from the pro-life side, mainly) that
people women and infants should have to live with any negative consequences of an unintended pregnancy - if they (the women, that is) should wish to avoid those consequences, then they should choose not to have sex. Of course, some pro-lifers back down from that position when the negative consequence is death (not lifelong disability, or any of the myriad other possible "natural consequences" of pregnancy) for the woman. It is acceptable, apparently, to some pro-lifers for a woman to choose to have sex, but then avoid the consequence of that choice if it happens to be death. That position seems at odds with their philosophy that "personal responsibility" is the foundational value, to which all other values must be subordinate, but there you have it.
But that's beside the point... The point is that from one perspective, including Digby's, the "personal responsibility" gig boils down to this: don't want to impoverish your family, or leave your offspring to the tender mercies of the state foster care system? Then close your legs.
Now, to me, telling adult human beings to "not have sex" is just ridiculous on its face. It's like telling songbirds not to sing. But the notion that sex is a luxury commodity like chocolate, that can and should be avoided unless
you the woman is fully prepared to deal with the natural consequences of it - up to, but not necessarily including, death - remains pervasive... And while one cannot settle the abortion debate as easily as convincing people that your view on "not having sex" is the right one... it doesn't hurt to get your message out. So, for those of you who think sex is chocolate, here are two perspectives on what the rest of us think... The first is a pragmatist one.
Amanda: Sex is like the gruel served at the nursing home... that is, you had better eat it!
* Abstain until marriage * Start having children straightaway when you marry * If you have a job, quit it to raise your children like a good mommy * When you’ve had as many children as you can handle, tell your husband that you won’t be having sex with him anymore. * Nothing will happen to you when you do this. We swear. Certainly nothing like finding yourself trying to get a job for the first time in 20 years while your ex-husband tells his new girlfriend that you wouldn’t even have sex with him anymore.
I imagine that most women reading this who still want sex to be chocolate are middle class or better ladies with an internet connection, 2.5 children, and a physician who can extract even the most difficult pregnancy with a minimum of risk and discomfort... In other words, I imagine that they are unconcerned enough about the possibility of an additional pregnancy, that - with the aid of a contraceptive patch provided by their high-dollar insurance plan - they feel no need to stop having sex, and are comfortable enough about "suffering the consequence" of a 3.5th child in the family that the notion that stopping sex for the remainder of their lives seems foreign... They cannot walk a mile in the shoes of a woman to whom the above applies.
So, I've engineered another analogy for what sex/abstention amounts to, which turns away from the expectations our society does, could, or should hold toward women, and brings a different view... There is another activity that can, and does have apparently unavoidable negative consequences. But we can no more ask people to avoid it or be forced personally clean up those consequences than we can with sex. Religion. I know I put myself at odds with the more hard-line anti-religious folk (with whom I once identifed more strongly), by saying that we can't expect people to give up religion merely because it is the right thing to do... But the fact is that many or most people need (in the psychological sense) religion every bit as much as many or most people need sex. And, just as I think people who have sex should maintain as much responsibility as possible in the practice - use protection, avoid multiple partners, arrange for the care of offspring where possible - I don't think they should be forced to take individual responsibility for every negative consequence when there are legitimate options for avoiding those consequences. Likewise, I think preachers, disciples, and evangelists should take responsibility for cleaning up the messes that religion causes... but that doesn't mean they should be forced to fight the religious wars against their will should they arise... I don't think they should be forced to travel to Africa and personally rescue the abandoned, abused, or murdered children that result when they send their missionaries there to prosyletize to a culture they do not understand. You get the idea? Just call this perspective "sex is like religion"... and if you don't want Richard Dawkins telling you that you have to give up religion, then maybe don't tell the women of this country that they have to keep their legs closed. Does that make sense to you?
February 10, 2006
from - smijer
He's got a point.
February 07, 2006
from - RSA
It's amazing what passes for semi-mainstream commentary these days. Pat Robertson says, according the Media Matters,
Europe is right now in the midst of racial suicide because of the declining birth rate.
White people have been around for tens of thousands of years (neglecting the myth that God created humans in their present form a few thousand years ago in the Garden of Eden). I somehow doubt that tens of thousands of years in the future, there will be no more white people.
Numbers aside, what's the rationale for being concerned about such an event, even if it were likely? Is such closet racism--actually, it's pretty overt in this case--a misguided application of some feeling of kinship? It's hard for me to understand what's going on in the mind of someone like Pat Robertson. He rails against Europeans at every opportunity, based on what some say in public, but Pat seems at the same time to think, "But it would be a shame if there were fewer Europeans, because, after all, they're white."
February 04, 2006
from - RSA
I've been reading a bit lately about the controversy over the Mohammed cartoons. Slate.com has a rundown of what Arab journalists are saying, along with a pointer to the cartoons (which apparently haven't appeared in any mainstream American print medium.)
I don't have anything in particular to add to the discussion of this case, but a related thought occurred to me: Suppose that, between Moslems who let this pass with a roll of the eyes and a comment of "Ignorant infidels!" (apologies if my light tone is offensive) and Moslems who set fire to the Danish embassy in Syria, there is a group who says, "The cartoonist and his publisher should be jailed." It's not hard to imagine such a view, given how often we read about journalists being jailed in the Middle East for expressing their opinions.
Now switch gears: Think of politicians and political commentators in the U.S., mainly on the right, who push for a Constitutional amendment banning flag burning. They're saying, "The person who burns a U.S. flag should be jailed." I don't think it's possible for a reasonable person to say, at the same time, that the "middle-of-the-road" Moslem group I've hypothesized above is being unreasonable, and that a flag burning amendment is in the spirit of American democracy. It just doesn't work. Satire/mockery/degradation of a symbol (whether religious or secular) is either a matter of free speech or it is not. One can't pick and choose which symbols deserve special treatment.
January 26, 2006
from - smijer
I'm not saying that we should all relax and leave this to the professionals. This case certainly merits all the public attention it can get, including attention from journalists, bloggers, and public officials. But those responsible for the macabre circus that was the Terri Schiavo case have squandered all moral authority on this issue. The best thing they can do for Haleigh Poutre is keep quiet and leave this case to those who have some credibility.
Maybe not... I mean, everybody screws up sometimes... there were so many who, in some small way, were partly responsible for the "macabre circus" that it is impossible to say all of them are permanently without credibility. If some of those individuals can put past hysterias behind them, look at this case from a perspective of humans caring for humans (instead of adopting the instinct to demonize the "other side" that unfortunately prevailed last year), and make a positve difference - more power to them.
Another case that the good-hearted elements, capable of rational reflection, from the wrong side of the Terri S. case could have done well by spot-lighting: Tirhas Habtegiris (this will make you cry)... only the good hearted elements, capable of rational reflection, from the wrong side of the Terri S. case were not in charge of the spotlight. They are the ones in the pews who watch where the spotlight points... And that's a shame (another Balloon Juic hat tip - this one to commenter PB).
January 16, 2006
from - smijer
I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.-MLK, Jr.
Some preachers are OK I guess.
January 13, 2006
from - smijer
It's good to know that this wasn't an instance of executing the innocent.
For a further silver lining, certain members of the pro-death penalty camp may offer less resistance to future DNA testing to determine the innocence or guilt of those executed, perceiving less threat to their cause.
It turns out that the death penalty was a fair result for Keith Coleman... I continue to maintain that it was not a just action for the people of Virginia.
Hippy Dave has further comments.
Spotlight: Damien Echols and the West MemphisThree
New Holocaust Brewing
The Wages of Death
Mouth watering for the Death Penalty
A Pro-Life Argument Finds Support
Somebody's watchin' you!
News In Review
Dangerous World for Young'Uns
Eating the dead
Why Actors Shouldn't Be Given Veto Authority
It's a Race! Part II
A Farewell Post for the Terri Schiavo Issue
Friday Digest & Miniature Doggie
They're All Terrorists Anyway
Real or Parody? You Decide
(Another) Sad Day for America
Blood... Thicker than Venom?
Quote of the Day
Or, We Could Dwell Mainly on Sleeping Arrangements
While There is a Soul in Prison, I am Not Free
In My Next Life I Want to Be Able To Say Things Like This
Shaving the Genitals of Conservative Law Professors in Their Sleep is perhaps even a moral imperative
Backpedalling on Moral Bankrupcy, to No Effect
Vengeance as Justice
Judicial Tyranny versus the Tyranny of the Majority
Truth about Consequences
Money is Power; Power Corrupts; Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Go Read Somebody Else's Blog
Patent Not Thy Neighbor
Shame On Us
Make a Stand
Quote of the Day, in Two Parts
Let Freedom Reign!
Meet the New Boss
The Rural Homeless
Homeless Persons Day
Morality Police Roundup
I'm On Vacation
"Outing" a Hater
Not Just in America
Meet The New Boss
A Free and Democratic Iraq
Child 'Prisoner' Abuse
La Republica D'Al Qaeda Española
What Liberal Means