Liam

Let me see if I understand her position... 1. she is against gay marriage, but supports civil unions... - In Canada, wouldn't this be a distinction without a difference? Or is her point that the label is more important than the relationship itself? 2. she is against gay marriage because of the effect it will have on the children of Canada... - What effect? wouldn't Canadian couples who enter into civil unions still be allowed to adopt or have children via surrogacy? how would allowing civil unions but not marriage be different? and how does preventing gay marriage not hurt the children who already have one or more gay parents/guardians? 3. "I believe children have a right to a mother and father, and preferably their biological parents," added Somerville, citing how the act no longer defines a parent as "biological."... - This line of thinking has absolutely no place in the marriage debate since it is an argument against gay parenting, not against gay marriage. In fact, if a child has a right to a mother and a father, shouldn't Somerville be arguing that the government must outlaw single parent, hetero adoption also? Someone receiving an honorary degree ought to be smarter than to use unrelated arguments to support her position.

What would chicken hawks have said if they were on the beaches of Normandy 1. "Mission accomplished" 2. "Concentration camps? That idea might come in handy some day." 3. "Why didn't daddy get me that deferrment?!?!" 4. "Actually, I kind of agree with Hitler." 5. "I never saw a beach like this on Spring Break." 6. "There are Jews in Europe? Hmm, how can I use that to my advantage?" 7. "HIDE!" 8. "Who decided on this war?? There isn't even oil here!" 9. "1000 men should be enough." 10. "The Germans will welcome us with flowers." 11. Nothing -- they would be sipping martinis and smoking cigars back at the country club

I think this is a great development and many kudos need to go out to all the servicemen and women who accomplished this objective. But we should not get too far ahead of ourselves here. Intelligence reports in the past month or so indicated that Zarqawi was less important to the overall troubles in Iraq than he had been in the past. The "PR" video that was released of him looking weel-fed and rested and (mis)firing his gun could have been a reminder to others that he was still around, or it could also be explained as an attempt by the new powers-that-be within the terror groups that Zarqawi was a fat loser who couldn't even fire a gun. (Perhaps his being pushed aside in the power structure finally made him more visible to us?) Either way, I don't think we should get too excited about this. It is a good "get", absolutely, but it probably won't decrease the overall violence in Iraq and just means that there might be more violence and bloodshed as different factions consolidate power and fill whatever void Zarqawi left behind.

I find it kind of ironic that Coulter's hero di tutti heroes is Senator Joseph McCarthy, the end of whose career was presaged by his belief that he was above reproach, above criticism, able to say and do what he wanted with total impunity and for whom the career ending question asked to him was , "at long last, have you no sense of decency, sir?" Unfortunately for Ann, people who fail to learn history are often doomed to repeat it.

No, I don't think they are better at national security issues b/c they suffered a personal loss on 9/11. I don't think it was their position that they were better at national security issues. Their position was that they didn't support Bush because of X, Y and Z (he refused to investigate 9/11, he refocused the country's attention away from the war in Afghanistan, he refused to commit troops to finding OBL when he was trapped in Tora Bora, etc.). Personally, if I lost someone on 9/11 and saw my president use it cynically as Bush did and then call off the search for OBL so that troops could be diverted to Iraq, I don't think my anger would have been as contained as these widows'. I think it's actually very easy to join a debate with someone who suffered loss as a result of 9/11. Acknowledge their loss, express your own grief, but then counter their positions with well-thought out policy arguments. Coulter doesn't do this -- she almost seems incapable of the basic kindness or ability to engage in the kind of genuine intellectual debate she repeatedly accuses others of lacking.

That's fairly close to Coulter's position. What Coulter does not consider, though, is that Bush's side also had its own group of 9/11 widows campaigning for him. Their side of the debate was fine, but how dare some of the surviving spouses of 9/11 dare to point out to the public that it was only because of their political activism that the Bush Administration even launched the 9/11 Commission? (That's right -- Bush didn't even want to investigate 9/11 and it was only after the public outcry when these women spoke up that Bush grudgingly went along -- and he still refused to do so under oath and without Cheney present.) Bush and the entire GOP politicized 9/11, essentially, from 9/12 on -- to the extent of even holding their political convention in NYC, the epicenter of all the GOP despise. But what gets Coulter the most angry is that these women seemed unassailable, like she thinks it is unfair for any 9/11 widow to speak out against Bush because, to semi-quote Coulter, "give me something I can hit you back with." Coulter isn't interested in these women at all beyond her own ability to play smackdown politics with what they say. Beyond that, Coulter went waaayy over the line by saying that she has never seen a group of women take so much glee in the deaths of their husbands. Unconscionable.

I could not disagree more. If someone cannot express himself or herself when a leader is about to commit the nation to what the speaker believes is a debacle in the making, it would be treason for him to not speak out nor to ask questions. Again, I am not going down the Jane Fonda path because I don't know enough about the chronology of events, her intent, the manipulation of film footage on both sides of the argument, but Alec Baldwin's and the Dixie Chicks' statements are contemporary and available to us here and now. What, exactly, did Natalie Maines say? While addressing a London audience, Maines stated that she, as a native Texan, was embarrassed that the president comes from Texas. Did she advocate harm to the man? Did she attempt to incite criminal behavior? Did she announce her allegience to an enemy of the US's? Did she offer aid or comfort to those waging terror against our shores? Did she undermine the security of the homefront or endanger the lives of soldiers in the field? Did she even ask people to stand up against Bush or start a boycott or even encourage people to join the anti-war protests (none of which would qualify for treason even if she had)? Did she even say anything about domestic or foreign policy positions, whether generally or specifically? No. She expressed embarrassment that she and Bush come from the same state. String her up! That'll learn anyun who dares speak out agin'st a great Amurican. Alec Baldwin? You mean saying that he'll move to Canada if Bush gets re-elected is treasonous? So not only should people not speak out against a politician they dislike, but if they express dismay at the prospect of his re-election, they commit treason? That's one heck of a free society you want us all to live in, Betsy.

I don't doubt for a second that the guy was speaking figuratively, not literally, so we need to respond to this appropriately. It was 100% wrong for anyone to use assasination-type imagery when discussing what one would do to his opponent, so I absolutely do not condone this. But to use this as an example of Bush's getting under all Democrats' skin is absurd. Bush *is* under the Dems' skin -- you need no further evidence than looking at the "anyone but Bush" stuff in the 2004 election. And the Dems are equally under the GOP's skin, just look at the way they respond when someone crticizes the Dear Leader. (I mean, look at what Ann Coulter recently said about 9/11 widows who campaigned for Kerry in 2004.) In any event, the off-the-cuff ramblings of some low-level state party member is hardly representative of the entire Democrat structure. By the way, it's "back pedal", as in to quickly halt and reverse your bike's forward progress, not "back petal" which might be... a feature of some flora??

I am trying to decipher what you're saying here. Are you saying that times have changed and we no longer dip those who commit treason in boiling asphalt and that if we still did this that Jane Fonda, the Dixie Chicks and Alec Baldwin would be candidates for this treatment? I'm not going to get into the weeds of the Jane Fonda thing since there are many better informed people about that topic than I am. But to insinuate that the Dixie Chicks and Alec Baldwin have committed treason or have given comfort to the enemy by speaking their minds, whether or not you agree with their opinions, indicates to me that perhaps you (and those who routinely criticize them) had better sharpen your understanding of the difference between freedom of speech and treason.

This is both a sad day and a great day. Sad, because the President has decided to again place his own political self interest above the rights and freedoms of Americans. Great, because I believe Bush's support for this at this point in time will only further doom the cause of making gay marriage unconstitutional. (I cringe as I write the words, "making gay marriage unconstitutional" more as a lawyer than as a gay man. Bush is the first president I know who is championing a cause that would permanently enshrine in my nation's greatest document the second-class citizenship of a minority.) I also think this is a great day as Bush has nailed yet another negative nail in the coffin that will house his dismal legacy. With this move, Bush guarantees that the youth of tomorrow will look upon him in the same light as my generation looks upon those who opposed Civil Rights in the 1960's. Good on ya, Loser. Here is a recent Gallup poll regarding the issues Americans find most important. Gay marriage didn't even make the 1% cut. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M...WYxMDdmNWY4YWQ=

I completely disagree. I think knowing one's enemy is the key to defeating him.

Monty -- clearly you didn't check the link I included in my message. Wonkette has not only used the ping pong ball trick against poor li'l Michelle Malkin. Click on the link if you want to be proven wrong.

Actually, some hardcore conservatives have been abandoning Bush lately. The fiscal conservatives see the mounting deficit and blame Bush and his GOP majority in Congress. The social conservatives see things like his proposal for guest worker status/"immigration reform" and Rx drug coverage and think he has sold out to the likes of Teddy Kennedy. Liberals, social and fiscal moderates, and independents have long ago abandoned Bush. His core of support now is primarily among the most Christian-fundamentalist among us, rural voters (Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah are the only 3 states where his approval remains at or above 50%), and the few GOP hawks remaining who think he's the only option we've got in terms of battling terror.

I have great respect for our military (yes, MB, even as a "Massachusetts liberal" ), but things like Haditha, aside from being terrible crimes, undermine the entire war effort. As such, whoever committed these crimes (the shooting and then the cover-up of the shooting), need to pay to the fullest extent of the law if convicted. On top of that, this is yet another reason Rumsfeld ought to go.

I said it before, and I'll say it again, Wonkette pulls out the ping pong ball joke on whoever is the object of their humor on a particular day. It is not only used on Asians or on women. I've seen it used on white men, white women, whomever. Harry Reid, Cynthia McKinney, Jerry Falwell and, yes, Michelle Malkin. It is so clearly a joke that it cannot be taken seriously. If she only used it to slam Asian women, or if someone used fried chicken jokes only about African heritage, or Nazi jokes about people of German heritage, I would agree that it was racist and over the line. That's not at all what is happening here. About that "who just happen to make up the vast majority of the people who defend freedom and are willing to give their lives to do so". Your comment was apropos of nothing, but if you want to go there, fine: the vast majority of the returning Iraqi war veterans who are running for Congress are Democrats. I happen to have plenty of respect for the US military. My dad was a veteran and a big-time liberal, unionist, and Democrat. I don't really see many members of the GOP-elite signing up their kids for this war, yet they are the most vocal supporters of neo-con policy. I suppose some people get very brave when they're outside of rifle range. Rumsfeld, Bush and the rest of the GOP are playing politics with peoples' lives, especially those of our armed forces. If taking one's eye off Afghanistan, using torture in places like Abu Ghraib, running secret torture prisons overseas, Guantanamo Bay and Haditha are the ways Republicans run a war, I can only say that they have absolutely no respect for our military institutions. Coulter: here are some quotes: - "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." (Clearly, Coulter was implying that she wished the damage done to the Murrah Building, including the deaths of those inside, was directed at the NYT. If this is humor, I think Coulter needs a new ghost writer.) - "My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism." (Another joke? Maybe, but even her own party's pull toward fascism is not lost on her.) The whipped cream pie in the face: I don't condone criminal behavior, but a pie in the face is perhaps the weakest form of assault possible. It's more Laurel and Hardy and meant to generate a laugh than anything. Still, I don't condone it. Civil liberties: where do you want to start? violating the sanctity of the family (Terri Schiavo)?; breaking FISA with the warrantless wiretapping?; denying using the Patriot Act to round up petty criminals when its focus was squarely aimed at stopping terror?; labeling anyone who voiced dissent about Bush policy as "un-American" (seriously, it is neo-McCarthyism -- the Bush folks could not afford serious debate, so they needed to intimidate people into giving up their right to speak out)?; collecting phone data on millions of innocent Americans?; not affording apprehended individuals their civil rights (Jose Padilla, an American citizen apprehended on US soil and held in a prison in South Carolina for two years while denying him the right to see his court-appointed attorney)? More?

There is nothing about Hillary and Dennis Hastert: wonkette: OMG I AM WATCHING MICHELLE MALKIN’S INTERNET VIDEOS FOR THE FIRST TIME operative: she has internet videos? operative: does she do the thing with the ping-pong balls? Only after criticism from the right side of the blogosphere, did Wonkette (who is a female), put this at the bottom of her post...Update: This is not funny. We apologize. I suppose you will accuse Malkin of wallowing in "conservative-as-victim self pity." Oh, and this is how the post ends: wonkette: i think i envy the unabomber for probably not knowing who michelle malkin is. operative: plus, he’s got a great haircut wonkette: also: less scary Nice. A convicted terrorist is less scary than Michelle Malkin. If you read Wonkette with any regularity, and not just when wing-nuts send out a mass email to their disciples to tune in to b*tch about their sense of humor, you would know that Wonkette occasionally does the ping pong ball joke. There's nothing on there right now and the "examples" I gave were just conjured up in my head, but they are fairly representative of things I have seen on Wonkette. I thought they were so obviously made up by me that such an explanation was not necessary. (Here is a real on, though, if you're interested: http://www.wonkette.com/politics/pat-rober...alls-175544.php ). And if you know their humor, you'd also recognize that "apology" as anything but. They're totally laughing their *sses off over the complaints, believe me. I didn't accuse Malkin of wallowing in conservative-as-victim self pity. I accused you of that. As the ideology of manly-men and pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstrap types, you conservatives sure have paper thin skin. Re the terrorist/haircut thing. Uhh, again, don't you get humor? Are conservatives allowed to laugh, or are you so busy stomping out civil liberties and monitoring the goings on of private bedrooms that you've forgotten how to smile? I suppose you were equally outraged when Coulter voiced a wish that Timothy McVeigh had blown up the NY Times building instead? (The difference being that Coulter's audience might actually resort to violence, whereas Wonkette's is much more interested in satire and wit, which Coulter sadly lacks.)

FWIW, Wonkette asks the Ping Pong ball question across the board... "Yeah, but Hillary do the ping pong ball trick?" "One question remains: can Dennis Hastert do the ping pong ball trick?" Please get your facts before you wallow in conservative-as-victim self pity.

I don't think she was there. It was a press conference, not an official state-of-the-union type event which the first lady would attend. I think it's more a case of a flare up of a recurring Bush malady: fratboyus arrogantus.

The hypocrisy of Kyoto is that some countries that were the most vocal advocates of the treaty and the most vocal critics of those who didn't sign aren't even following it. I also find it strange that the US was the main villain during the entire Kyoto debacle. Russia didn't sign for the longest time -- did they ever? -- yet their Soviet-era smog monsters never featured in a single editorial in Le Figaro.

Yeah this is nothing in the US's eye, they will support Israel in almost anything they do. Yet Iran is still the bad guy. I really think the US is the one to blame here. How did the US get made part of this issue? Why is it our fault?

Don't get your hopes up too high that the Democrats will take either house of Congress in 2006. Since the change in congressional and state-level power to the GOP in 1994, the GOP has redistricted congressional seats so expertly that incumbents (of which the GOP is in the majority) will almost always be re-elected. There needs to be a tsunami-like sentiment among the national electorate to undo the GOP majority in either house. While I see plenty of voter anger out there, I don't quite see enough to make me think the Dems will be swept into control.

I can't speak for others, but I can say that I did considerably more than just show up at the ballot box. I donated money and time to campaigns, I talked to family and friends, I wrote letters. Please do not assume that I only showed up on election day. I knew the risk W would get re-elected was HUGE and I did as much as I could to not have it happen. The problem is that because a slight majority of voters went with Bush, the rest of us have to suffer the consequences both at home and abroad. I can't tell you how many times either I or Kerry-voting friends and acquaintances of mine had to work to dispel the myth, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the 2004 election, that all Americans were on board with the Bush agenda. I think it is not only ignorant and lazy for non-US persons to think that way (when there are 55 million voices to the contrary), but to then have members of the international public say things like, "well, now you [Americans] deserve what you get." WHAT?! So I now deserve the anger of the Islamic world? It is justified if I get blown up by a car bomb? My colleague deserved the acidic vitriol of that crazed woman at a dinner party in London? My friend deserved the derision of some counterparts when he was at a conference in Montreal? That's what I meant by lazy thinking. For all the claims people make that non-USians know more about the US, I sure was shocked by the amount of ignorance of outsiders that I both heard about and personally experienced after Bush was re-elected. I frequently hear Canadians lamenting that Bush is president. You think it's bad living next door to a madman? Try being held hostage in one's own home by the madman and having all the neighbors tell you it's your own fault.

As I am sure you are intimately aware, it's really only the self-loathing closet cases who think about the Skipper in such a manner.

In most cases that is true, but their quest for money is no different than a Norwegian oil man's moving to Qatar for financial gain. Yet, I have not heard of westerners' demanding that Qatar set up a seperate judicial system to mete justice according to European/Western legal standards. Didn't this "sharia law" thing almost happen in Canada, by the way?

Astute comments. I agree that most Canadians who might be labelled anti-USian are instead anti-GWB and that the latter really took off after 9/11. However, there has been a growing lack of respect for USians since Bush's 2004 re-election. It's the old Chinese proverb: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. "Anti-American" can be such a vague term... does it mean anti-US policy, anti-US individuals, anti-stereotype of US individuals, anti-Hollywood, anti-Coke/McDonalds/globalist (etc.)...? I can recognize anti-Bush statements and behavior. Believe me, I live in a blue state, I'm fairly well educated (and, hopefully, mostly literate), I am gay, I am liberal-leaning, I am a Democrat -- what could I possibly agree on with my current government?! -- yet, even I am occasionally offended by some of the anti-(whatever) statements that non-US people hurl about. The problem I have is when valid criticism of Bush devolves -- and it *always* devolves -- to personal attacks against US stereotypes or individuals: "you're all fat, you all carry guns in one arm and a Bible in the other, you are gluttons with the world's resources, when you travel French waiters spit in your food so you had better sew a maple leaf on your backpack, you're mean, you're ignorant, you love NASCAR and shop at WalMart, you're always boasting that you're Number 1, you have no sense of community, you have no culture, you drive everywhere, everyone in the world hates you but tell them you're Canadian and they'll be buying you lagers all night, you are stupid, none of you have passports, you have no healthcare, you are obnoxious, you wear baseball caps in the Louvre, your cities are all ugly and soulless compared to [Canadian, Italian, wherever] cities, you invaded us in 1812, you are all warmongers, I won't go to the US because I know I'll get shot, blah blah blah..." Normally, such criticism reflects more on the speaker than on the object of his tirade, but such tirades do become personal when heard often enough and particularly so when they come from the least expected source, like from foreign nationals where we have some common cultural touchstones (Canadians, Britons, Aussies, Irishmen, etc.). I'm not playing victim here -- I get quite angry when I see or hear such ignorance and am more than willing push back -- but such slanders are meant to be hurtful and they sometimes hit their mark squarely and deeply even though they don't reflect the target. As far as 2004 goes, you have to remember that over 55,000,000 Americans told Bush they wanted him gone. That's twice as many people as live in all of Canada. 55 million people essentially gave him the finger, and yet through some form of lazy thinking out there in the world, we're all accused of being Bush-disciples. Hog wash.