Liam

Excuse me, but I have a life, not a "lifestyle". I work, I pay taxes, I shop at the grocery store, I support local charities, and volunteer my efforts on national political issues. I send my kids off to school each morning after making breakfast and picking out shirts and pants and jumpers. I fold laundry while I watch "Desperate Housewives". I've buried both a parent and a spouse. I worry about inflation and the economy, I wonder if I should get four yards of mulch delivered this summer or five yards. I have to fix one of the downspouts from my gutters. I arrange play dates and sleep overs and birthday parties for my kids. I worry about their future. I'm concerned about Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder if I'm saving enought for retirement. I have a dozen projects to finish at the office before my kids and I go on vacation next week. I have a car battery to jump this weekend and about four or five things to pick up at Home Depot tomorrow afternoon. I have to aerate and fertilize my lawn. I've soccer practice this weekend. And my kids have sewing lessons. I absolutely have to take my recyclables to the town dump this weekend. I make an effort every day to be a good role model for my kids. If you did half the things I do each day as a single parent, I would be impressed. But you probably have a wife at home who handles 70% of this stuff while you drink beer and slovenly moan against gays and how their "fag" agenda is demeaning your existence. Cripes. Have some honor. Gain some self respect. Develop a sense of self worth on your own time, I've got enough on my plate to do it for you. Yes, I've got a fag agenda. It's called getting through each day. It's called just being seen as a person and being treated no different by the government I fund than someone who did nothing to earn a a place in life where he can call me "abnormal". Just who in the h*ll do you think you are? What have you done to earn your special status as "normal"? Being born straight? Spare me - there are more abnormal freaks who are straight than you'd ever find in a gay bar on sake and karoake night. I think it's pretty clear that I'm the normal one. If anything, I think it's up to you to show you're even equal to someone like me.

Actually, it was said during a sports report not a comedy sketch. Imus didn't do comedy sketches - he had his crew of comedic characters which he bounced lines off - I've seen his show, never saw a sketch - he had guys come on and do crass imitations of public figures etc but trying to take a report on NCAA Women's basketball finals and call it a comedy sketch is not just foolish but cognitively dissonant You're right -- I was wrong, it was during the sports recap. Still, it doesn't change my opinion about the entire thing. The punishment so outweighs the "crime" as to be almost unfathomable.

I disagree that I have the facts wrong. he said something stupid, but it was said in the context of a comedy sketch during radio show that mixes comedy/politics/public advocacy. Absolutely no one can say that he said it with an intent to wound anyone. (Unlike, say, Ann Coulter who chooses her offenses in a calculated and premeditated manner.) Sharpton needs something to chafe against to remain in the spotlight. (Ask yourself when was the last time you saw or heard from him or Jesse Jackson -- suddenly each was in the news. Hello.) Put the two together: someone who says something slightly over the top in the context of a comedy routine and someone who needs a soap box to stand on and you have the makings of an overblown boycott and orgy of victimization. Seriously -- if you think Al Sharpton is out there to defend the reputation of young black women, I suppose you'll be joining him on the picket lines next time Snoop Dogg releases his next video or someone puts out a "Girls Gone Wild" DVD. Are you lining up? Look, I'm a pretty liberal person, but I'm not offended by what Imus said because I think he said it in a lazy kind of way and in the context of ad-libbing in a comedy routine. I don't think for a second that he said it out of malice. Should he be blackballed and fired? Get real. There are dozens of celebrities, Chris Rock, Dave Chapelle, etc., who *calculatingly* make fun of ho's and black people and, yes, make racist jokes about white people, left and right and yet NOT ONE of them is EVER taken to task. That doesn't make what Imus did right, but it shows that there is selective outrage going on. And, yeah, I am sure the suits at CBS and NBC who routinely put boob jokes and jokes abour premarital sex on "Friends" and liquor and drug (and, again, pre-marital sex) content on "Will & Grace" on air at 8pm Monday through Friday are appalled (appalled!) at some stupid off-the-cuff statement that lasted all of four seconds on a radio program. This is all a case where someone who needed an enemy found one. Someone who needed to hold his people out as a victim found a way to do so -- and he was going to organize boycotts against anyone who didn't line up with him. Unfortunately, Imus opened the door. I'm not saying that what Imus said wasn't wrong or wasn't stupid -- it was both -- but the firestorm over this is simply out of control and out of proportion. Cripes, where was the protest march when Mel Gibson railed against Jews? He's still working. Who stood up when Ann Coulter called John Edwards a f@ggot? She ended up selling more bad books. How about all the times Eddie Murphy makes fun of honkeys? Give him another $20 million. But while in the midst of a comedy routine Imus says "nappy headed ho's" and suddenly the moral center of the world is about to implode unless he gets fired? This is ludicrous.

This whole thing is a farce. He's been railroaded by Al Sharpton -- who elected him spokesman for all black people, anyway? -- who needs an axe to grind to stay relevant. Imus might have been offensive, but he did nothing worse than any countless number of rappers. Anyone who doubts Sharpton is being a selective opportunist want to wager that Sharpton will find other things to do and not picket outside Arista and CBS Records when the next "b*tch and ho"-filled 50 Cent album comes out?

Though you'd never know by my demeanor, I am gay. I hate to pop your hetero-bubble, but I am sure there are already a few homosexuals like me in your midst: people you would never assume are gay and who you know absoultely nothing about. No, not the femmy guy you snicker at, I mean one of the "normal" guys. The guy who is the toughest guy on the company rugby squad or who seems to get all the girls. I doubt he's having puppy love dreams of you.

I don't pretend to be morally superior.

Did Rove tell Clinton and Blair to bomb the crap out of Iraq in '98 (Desert Fox). Or starve the poor bastards to death with sanctions? Or establish a safezone for Kurds using military intervention and funding? Bush's approval rating is at 33%...that would not be 0%. So now the Congressional votes don't matter because of public opinion? That's not how our government works. No, but you can be damned sure Rove told Bush to bomb Iraq in '03 because it would make for a good political issue in '04 and we all know Rove and Bush whored the hell out of 9/11 in the '02 and '04 campaigns and to impugned the character of anyone who dare question the motives or actions of the administration, like Max Cleland. Bush' rating is at 33% for a reason: he's a loser who is out of his depth and whose reputation can't even be salvaged by GOP brain trust (such that it is). He will, without question, go down in history as one of the greatest failures and one of the greatest lost opportunities in all of the history of the American presidency. As far as Congressional votes, historical Congressional votes do matter. Did I say otherwise? Only, they're not nearly as important as the Congressional votes of today and tomorrow. In that regard, I suggest you either hold onto your seat or buy some Depends undergarments.

So you're actually in favor of torture, then. That's fine if you have the courage to own up to being fine with pulling fingernails off adolescents and depriving suspects of both humane conditions and legal counsel. Own it with pride. I have no doubts the US has used torture in its history, but what is shocking to me is the cavalier attitude that GOP and Bush sympathizers have about it. (Particularly among those who are self-proclaimed Christians -- need I remind them of the dehumanizing torture of Jesus this time of the year?) Historically, even the most jaded US politician or goverment lawyer disavowed torture -- it was something bad people did -- and that mystique was part of the US's "global brand": unlike Pakistan, we don't torture people, we believe people have worth and shoud be afforded civil rights. *In practice* in the dark corridors of the CIA, I am sure a certain degree of torture happened, but *none* of it was authorized by law, none of it was publicly known, and if the fruits of that dark place were ever made public by government leaks, the practitioners of such acts were, at least metaphorically, hung out to dry. The problem with this administration is that if they have erased the concept that we are better than our enemies. They proudly wear torture on their sleeves like it is some litmus test for patriotism... what do you mean we shouldn't waterboard suspects -- are you un-American?!?! This is the reality of the times we live in. We're not even talking about torture of the guilty, but the torture of the suspects, the people against whom the state hasn't even acquired the basis of incarceration and accusation. I say if we're the better country, let's try the accused based on the evidence we've acquired through legal and civilized western means. If we're so convinced someone is guilty of a crime, let's put forth the evidence and have done with it. Some bad people will slip through the system, no doubt, but more iinocent people will escape the hell the Bush folks have designed for them. And our national standing will benefit more than it would if we kept practicing in the Khmer Rouge-like practices of waterboarding. I guess I am just more optimistic about America's future than someone who thinks we ought not be better than our opponents. But if it comes down to it and somethig terrible happens, I can live with the consequences should my plan fall short. I cannot live with the consequences of the Bush plan should it come to fruition.

At least it's not a dictatorship anymore. The GOP Congress did more to undermine separation of powers than all the "activist" judges combined. At least we now have a valid two-party system and not the dictatorship Bush and Rove all wamted. You are right, Congress voted in '98 to have regime change as a main goal in Iraq and the '02 vote essentially authorized the war. But neither vote insulates the administration from criticism that it failed to wage the war competently. Nor does it insulate the administration from the fact that public opinion has now entirely turned against it and the war, regardless of congressional votes.

Torture has been shown time and again to be the least reliable way of getting good intel. Most victims of torture simply want the beatings to stop and are willing to say whatever it takes to make them stop. Torture simply reinforces the notion the torturer already has in that he will not stop till the prisoner confesses to what the torturer already "knows". It is abosultely unreliable as a means of routine intel gathering. On top of that, torture entirely undermines the West's "soft" power. Prior to abuses by the Bush Administration at Guantanamo and Aby Ghraib and elsewhere (secret prisons in eastern Europe, etc.), the US had quite a bit of *moral* influence in the world. The Bush cronies have frittered that away by being cowboys and torture junkies and they have entirely undermined the US in terms of moral authority in the world. I love the US, my home country -- at least how it used to be -- but I've got to be honest when I say that if the Iranians had tortured those British soldiers till they made false statements, I'd be equally angry at the Bush administration for legitimizing torture in such a way that even the most vile of out enemies are immune to criticism. Bush & Co have made torture the coin of the realm. I have no illuions that some lone wolves in prior administrations have not acted like angels, but the Bush folks have made torture a #1 priority in terms of foreign policy. That is their legacy and that is their shame. Ordinarily, we would have prided ourselves at being better people. The Bush approach is that we are no better. It's sad, actually. But what's worse is the impact the administration's actions have on real men and women in the field of operation. I only hope the soldiers who are captured in the years between now and the time when we un-do the Bush damage have captors who are more forgiving than we've been. In the past it was fairly easy to be proud to be an American, mostly because we were a nation that both said and acted in a way that put rogue nations on notice that we were better. For the most part, we've now cowered to their level. It's utterly shameful and I can't help but think that there's a tight little corner in hell reserved fir Bush, Cheney and all their enablers.

You're right... 'Nam actually had bipartisan support and was not seen by both members as an interventionist war that did not need to be waged. Advantage Bush? Please, even if Congress folds on war funding (and I suspect they won't entirely fold), the nation knows Iraq is 100% Bush's fiasco and that no amount of funding or defunding will impact the course Bush set the nation upon.

What is "legal" torture? I'm seriously asking in a non-ironic, non-cynical way. What makes torture legal? By what legal code, by what moral code is torture "legal"? Let's dispense with the "24" notions of obtaining reliable information under duress of the ticking bomb in the local daycare center, because most cases where the government has crossed the line have been in rather pedestrian cases of wrong place, wrong time. But even if not, if torture was a reliable way of getting good intel -- and all indications are that the tortured will tell his tormenter anything to stop the abuse -- can it ever be legal (in a just society) and is it ever moral? Is it something Jesus would condone? ("... what you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me...")

something that should be taken personally? Do you understand the meaning of the word "if"? I did not accuse you personally of anything. I do not know you and you do not know me. Why take anything personal? I would say that is worth a lot. Frankly, I thought our post was somewhat accusatory in tone, if that's not what you meant, I withdraw the interpretative part of my comment.

Wow... a quote of yours I actually agree with. But now here's the rub... what about people detained in Afghanistan who were there defending the Taliban, the seated government? If they were there as combatants and were captured as combatants (not the ones there attending terrorist training camps), and shipped of to Guantanamo, shouldn't they be afforded the same Geneva Covention rights the US gave to captured Viet Cong? How about Iraqi insurgents who, unlike the factional militias targeting civilians, are conducting (what they see as) a guerilla warfare against foreign invaders. Should they get captured, shouldn't they be entitled to Geneva Convention rights (e.g., no torture) or do they deserve Abu Ghraib?

I didn't know that my motives concerning the environment were subject to your litmus test, but for what it's worth, my town does charge people for the trash they throw away and I don't object to it. We have a pay-per-throw system whereby you must buy and use town-issued trash bags for all non-recyclables. Believe me, since I pay-per-bag of trash, I try to reduce the amount of stuff I send to the town landfill every weekend. Do I pass your test? Are my motives concerning the environment good now?

Then the easy solution is to charge people more for the more polluting product. People still have the choice to buy the product they want in the marketplace, but there is an out-of-pocket cost associated with it.

Yes, it would be better to reduce consumption, but I'll take recycling of a town's trash at a rate of 50% over throwing away 100%. Who's to say that recycling at a given rate is a relative waste of resources? Maybe the energy consumption (carbon production, etc.) of recycling, even at 50% of all trash produced, is less than the production costs and environmental impact of making new, non-recycled paper and alumium and glass? I don't know, but I'm glad we're at least recycling 50% of our trash and look to the day when we'll be at 60% or 70%.

As far as my recollection of this entirely inane thread goes, the people honoring "300" as a "manly" film did so due to the war-like nature of it and its violence. Your thread was the only one I can remember that equated defending one's nation with the honor the Spartan showed. I can't speak for everyone, but I see no dishonor in being in the military or in defending one's home. Of course what the Spartans did was brave and honorable. Their sacrifice saved Greece from the Persians. But everyone here went off the deep end, like they were there at Thermopylae as co-defenders with the Spartans and anyone who took the p*ss out of them by mocking the film were Persia-lovers. "300" is just a piece of entertainment.

Come on! This is such a manly movie!! No homoeroticism whatsoever!

Agreed... to an extent. I think it's a sad state of affairs when parents in our society are so sensitive to certain things (evolution, the holocaust, Huck Finn, etc.) that schools can't even teach an honest and intellectually challenging curriculum. But I also think the schools are being complicit in this scheme by not standing up to do the right thing.

Extremism, generally takes a very right wing stance, so that statement is somewhat redundent. Unless of course you are aware of an exremist christian or hindu org that didn't have the taint of fascism on it.... I'm not picking a fight, but I would temper what you're saying by adding that today's extremists might appear to be that way with one or two notable exceptions (Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Chavez in Venezuela). Also, I think Mao and Lenin would qualify as two left wing extremists.

I've heard that the first person in a debate who brings up Hitler or Nazi's automatically loses. Don't know who did it here. Don't care. The issue is Islamic extremism.

I would say this was merely a disgrace if it wasn't such an outrage.

In the Troop Surge thread, I opined on the issue of Muslim extremists and the conversation shifted to one of racism. Not wanting to hijack the thread, I'm moving the issue here and posing the question: is it racist to hate Mulim extremists?

No, the topic is the efficacy of the Troop Surge...accordingly and with much delight: You should start a thread on that issue, I'm sure it will be a lively discussion, because it is off topic to the original post concerning troop surge strategy. ... been waiting much to say that? Fine (and fair enough). I'll take my own advice. New thread titled "Is it racist to hate Muslim extremists?" starting momentarily.