I think the practice of mutilating babies' genitals for 'religious' reasons is heinous. Much attention is given to the mutilation of girl's genital in Africa, and when immigrants try to continue this religious tradition in America, they are prosecuted (someone was just sent to prison for 10 years in Atlanta).

However, mutilating baby boy's genitals is still a widespread, accepted, and legal practice. It should be made illegal.

Parents should not be allowed to surgically alter their children for no good medical reason. Cutting off part of a baby's peni$, for no medical reason and without anaethesia, is barbaric.

If you think your religion requires you to be circumcised, fine. On one's eighteenth birthday, they can decide to have part of their peni$ chopped off, and I think that should be entirely legal. But a baby has not decided what religion they want to follow. You should not be allowed to make irreparable, life-altering surgical decisions for your baby.

Circumcision affects sexual function and pleasure for life. It is genital mutilation. I wish people had the will to protect baby boys from this abuse.

Michael Savage has sued CAIR for posting several minute-long excerpts of his program on their Web site to make people aware of his often vile and vicious rhetoric.

He has made the laughable decision to sue them for copyright infringement.

Mr. Weiner has one big problem: the well-established principle of Fair Use.

Copyright law allows one to excerpt another's work for the purposes of criticism or comment. And of course it does--can you imagine how much free speech would be stifled if you could not quote what another person said when you were discussing their ideas? There could be no discourse at all, if copyright law were what the deluded Michael Weiner thinks it is.

This case is a non-starter. I am no fan of CAIR, but I am even more angry at the abuse and misuse of our court system. I ESPECIALLY hate it when people use copyright law to suppress speech. That is NOT what copyright law is for.

Weiner has every right to say whatever he wants. And CAIR has the right to criticize him.

People also have the right to contact sponsors of a program when they find the content objectionable, whether because it is filled with sex or obscenity or attacks on a certain religion (whether it be Islam or Christianity). And then sponsors have the right to decide whether or not to heed those complaints.

See? That's how free society works. We don't sue people for criticizing us. Copyright law protects ones ability to profit from the sale of the work. CAIR has not created a product that can substitute for the Savage program. End of story.

This suit is vexatious and malicious, and I hope CAIR countersues for frivolous litigation, and is awarded their attornye's fees. Weiner needs to get over himself.

Turkey has authorized an attack on the Kurdish portion of Iraq.

Terrorist attacks have spiked dramatically in Turkey, largely because of weaponry related to the American occupation of Iraq (more Blackwater's weapons than our military's) are being smuggled across the border by our Kurdish allies to the PKK, a Kurdish nationalist terrorist organization that has been attacking the Turkish military and police officers.

Thoughts? This is a complicated situation, when an ally attacks a place we are occupying. Especially since I don't think we can really blame Turkey. Are they not allowed to defend themselves from terrorism like we do?

I personally think that we have to approach Turkey, hat in hand, apologize for the terrorism that has emanated from the Kurdish area of Iraq, and try to help them address this problem. We cannot permit them to simply attack the Kurds (and us). But we have to acknowledge their justification.

Whatever we do, this will make the Kurdish area of Iraq more troublesome. But the peace there was always a bit false; the fact is, the Kurds, while they are pro-American because we got Saddam, are a separatist group, and an extreme element among them is not going to be satisfied until there is a Kurdistan. Which would involve hacking up Turkey.

I wanted to know what others were thinking about this. I think it is by far the most important news story today, and I am surprised I have seen nothing about it on this site. I think it's because the conservative machine can't figure out how they can possibly spin this....

I am so tired of people acting as if Ahmadinejad was the leader of Iran. I am so tired of people wanting to talk about Iranian politics, when they don't know the first thing about the country they are talking about.

He is just a figurehead for an elected government. He has no real power.

The leader of Iran is Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who can veto anything Ahmandinejad does. Ahmadinejad has tried to relax the requirements on Islamic dress for women, and the Supreme Leader just said 'no.'

Ahmadinejad is NOT commander of the Iranian military, and is only authorized to carry out the foreign policy set out by the Supreme Leader.

He has the power to make decisions about things like gas rationing and bank's interest rates. Exciting things like that.

He doesn't actually have that much power in the country, especially since the Ayatollah doesn't like him all that much.

This latest uproar about him speaking at Columbia drives me up a wall. All this hysteria on the part of conservatives is not only silly, it's extraordinarily misguided.

He LOVES it. Quit giving him so much attention, BECAUSE YOU ARE PLAYING RIGHT INTO HIS HANDS. He doesn't have any real power. What gives him credibility? All you fools acting like he's such a big deal. Quit giving him what he wants.

In E.L. Doctorow's opus, 'Ragtime,' (if you haven't read it, read it now), there is a character named Coalhouse Walker, a ragtime musician from Harlem around the turn of the century.

Driving through a small town, Coalhouse is stopped by a group of firemen jealous that a black man has a Model T. His car is vandalized.  He insists on the damage being paid for. They laugh at him. He files a police report. The police tell him to go home. He tries to find a lawyer to sue, and no one will take his case. He becomes obsessed. Things spiral out of control, and horrific violence eventually erupts. And it is impossible to read the book and not have great sympathy for Coalhouse, and see how his frustration drove him mad.

Jena is a mostly white town, and white boys at the school carried on a campaign of harassment towards the few black kids at the school, even dictating where they could go and sit.

Hanging a noose from a tree to try to intimidate someone and control their behavior is absolutely a terroristic threat. It is a clear threat of bodily harm in order to control. In civil society, we cannot allow this kind of behavior.

The kids at this school were consistently engaged in this kind of behavior, and school behaviors and local law enforcement REFUSED to discipline them the way they should have. These are only kids. After dealing with months of aggravation and injustice, and watching other kids abuse them and get off scot-free, they snapped. And even then, they didn't even hurt the kid that badly--shoot, he got a bump on the head. A lot of boys wouldn't have even gone bawling to the police about something like that.

There should be punishment. We are not allowed to respond with violence, even when provoked. Coalhouse was punished. But when when a person is severely provoked, and the authorities will do nothing, I have sympathy for those who lose their patience.

It's unfortunate that in this day and age, people can still get away will abusing people for months on end with no succor from authorities. The reason we HAVE law enforcement is to prevent this kind of situation; so people will not have to take justice into their own hands. In Jena, law enforcement fell down on the job.
 

So continuing my little series (as if anyone cared about my opinion around here :) ) I decided to tackle what I thought of the top-tier Democrats before moving on to second-tier Republicans.

Hillary Clinton
As I have said before, my biggest issues as a voter are executive power, especially these days. Before all else, we must guard against authoritarianism.

And I think Hillary has an authoritarian bent. Not as bad as Rudy, but the worst among the Democrats. Though I admire her accomplishments, I dislike her hunger for power. And I think her time in the Senate has been bad for her--she's cozied up to the same bad guys that I dislike the Republicans for cozying up to. I don't want pharmaceutical company lobbyists having undue influence. She probably had my values back in her Harvard days, but the machine has corrupted her too much.

Besides, I am honestly frightened as to what would happen to this country were she elected presidents. We had several terrorist attacks by right-wingers during the Clinton presidency, including the second worst in our country's history. I am NOT saying all conservatives are terrorists, of course, but there are so many people who hate her with such a rabid hatred they make the Code Pink ladies look like the epitome of rationality. During a Clinton presidency, a federal building would be bombed, I would bet a great deal on it.

I want someone who could unify this country. Now, there are a lot of rabble-rousers out there who will fight unification at all costs, because they make a lot of money off of demonizing liberals and tearing this country down the middle. But Clinton would throw a lot of fuel on that fire.

We can do better.

Barack Obama
He's my guy. I like that he has political experience, but it's not lengthy--careers in politics just corrupt you. I think this country could really use a Constitutional Law expert as a chief executive. I like that he got involved in politics in a very non-glamorous way, as a community organizer on the Southside of Chicago (showing a real desire to serve, not just get glory; the exact opposite of a guy like Thompson, with no real interest in serving this country as an elected representative, just interested in the prestige and attention and perks).

His life story is clearly compelling. I think his experience with Muslims is only a plus--we need someone who can deal with and understand people around the world as HUMAN BEINGS, not someone who reduces anyone non-American into either simplistic provincials or bearded maniacs. In these dangerous times, I think we need someone with a broad understanding of the ins and outs of the various slices of humanity, something that I think Obama offers more than any of the candidates on either side.

Though the usual suspects will have to tear him a new one if he gets nominated (they get paid millions to do so) I do think that he can be a unifying figure. And maybe the country's residual racists would finally realized they lost and give it up.

John Edwards
Not a fan of trial lawyers, dealt with too many of them. I like him last time around because of my preference for Southerners, but he's just too phony. I do like that he talks about some of the issues of poverty (like the large number of 'near-poor' there are in this country, which don't always really show in statistics--the millions that are one financial setback away from plunging into poverty) that the other Democrats won't touch, but it rings a bit hollow from him. My heart breaks for his wife, but not so much that I can support him.

My opinion is worth so many beans, but several people have asked in different discussions who I support in the primaries (this question is usually asked by the people who support the ones that I trash). But I don't just throw in behind one candidate, I really like to think about what recommends each one. So here's my sum-up.

(Keep in mind that I am a leftie, but that doesn't mean I can't see the strong points of a conservative)

Rudy Giuliani

He's my least favorite in this race, for a bevy of reasons. I am bothered by the fact that he is a scumbag who intentionally publicly humiliated his wife, which is about 5x worse than plain old adultery in my book (I could forgive my husband for cheating, I could never forgive him for publicly ridiculing me).

I think that most of what makes him a strong candidate is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. His leadership at 9/11 wasn't all that great. What, he's a great leader because he didn't break down and start crying like a woman? That's the least that was expected of him. He had serious lapses in leadership that may have caused more lives that day :

1. He located an emergency control center with massive unsecured fuel tanks in the place in New York most likely to get hit by terrorists; those tanks were one of the main reasons Building 7 was destroyed
2. One of the principle lesson learned in 93 was that fire and police needed interoperable communication systems. Giuliani had done nothing to improve the communications ability of New York emergency personnel. Firefighters in the building did not get the order to evacuate because of utterly preventable breakdowns in communications.
3. Giuliani did not do due diligence in protecting all of the city workers and volunteers clearing the rubble

Also, Giuliani has a frightening authoritarian bent. The first thing he did after 9/11--before lifting a finger to try to better coordinate rescue efforts at Ground Zero--was to try and postpone the upcoming elections so he could be mayor longer. That's a BAD instinct for someone who wants to be a leader of the free world. We always need to guard first against tyranny. I also don't like how he decided laws didn't apply to him, and would use Bernie Kerik to wiretap anyone who pissed him off, or would use other underhanded methods to take people out. It's like the Clintons on crack.

He has a long history of taking credit for things that aren't his doing. Most of the 'cleaning up' of New York City was accomplished under Dinkins, not Giuliani. He kept some of Dinkins staff just long enough to finish up their projects--like the Disneyfication of Times Square--and then fired them for stealing his limelight.

He's a bad guy, and most of his accomplishments are appropriated from others or aren't really there.

The attachment to Giuliani is entirely emotional. He makes us feel a certain way, because of the emotion of that day. I don't like candidates chosen on emotion.

Because most people vote on emotion, I think he has a good chance of winning the primary.

Mitt Romney
He's a bit too coiffed, like Edwards. He rose significantly in my estimation when he said he liked Orson Scott Card.

I don't like how conservative Mormons tend to be, but I got to say, the Mormons I have dealt with in my life have all been remarkably decent, forthright, and pleasant people. I think the religion is a bit wacky, but they clearly have something going on.

He did a good job running a populous state, so he's got the competence. He's not a raging ideologue, which is good. He has the ability to be diplomatic. And though he's been fudgy on the abortion question, I think he's one of the more honest candidates.

I think he has a good chance of winning the primary.

John McCain
Always liked McCain. Compelling story. Think that he could do an excellent job with national security. People who have served in war have historically been much more hesitant to go to war (since they don't sugarcoat the horror that war is, as many who cheer from the sidelines to), so as a pacifist, ironically, I am always drawn to military men. He has shown immense strength of character throughout his life, and he is not beholden to some of the powerful special interests on the right that I find distasteful.

He won't win, though. He won't toe the line closely enough. Republicans want a party man, and apparently, decades of service to the party isn't enough without slavish devotion to the platform.

Fred Thompson
Why does anyone like this guy? He's a high-powered DC lobbyist who plays the roles he needs to play to get votes. Starting when he put down his forkful of filet mignon to come down to Tennessee, rent a pickup truck, and play the role of the populist, which he invented from whole cloth. He doesn't even remember what he did in the Senate, which is not surprising, considering the minimal effort he put into the job. He was an especially unaccomplished Senator, unable to keep control of his own committees and often making bizarre ad unfounded public statements.

He's the most artificial of any of the candidates on either side. I can't see why anyone would want to nominate a B-actor with no political accomplishments (TOTALLY DIFFERENT from Reagan in almost every way--Reagan had real vision and political accomplishments, he wasn't just an actor who discerned what role would win him the ofice).

I am starting to bore myself. I will continue what I think of the Republicans, and then the Democrats, later.

I am asking this because I honestly want to know.

I know that some pro-lifers think that abortion should be illegal even if the mother's life is at stake. This question is not addressed to you, since your answer will be obvious. It is instead addressed to the mainstream pro-lifers who do believe that abortion should be permitted in order to save a woman's life.

Even the pro-lifers who think that life-saving abortions are necessary have fought abortions to save a woman's health. And as a woman who is currently pregnant, it made me think.

I have some severe eye problems. I can currently be mostly corrected and so can drive and live my life normally. However, I am at high risk for retinal detachment, and have always been strongly cautioned to IMMEDIATELY report to a doctor for surgery if I start to see a lot of floaters or flashes of lights. 90% of retinal detachments can be corrected, but it has to be done very quickly.

And of course, it is major surgery, and requires general anaesthetic. So it's NOT something I could have done while pregnant.

I spoke about this with my husband, and he wholeheartedly agreed that he believes I should terminate my pregnancy to save my eyesight.

Would you allow this, or do this yourself? If you were going to go blind unless you ended a pregnancy to have surgery, would you do it? If you are a man, would you want your wife to save her eyesight? Would your answer vary based on the stage of the pregnancy?

Do you think the government should bar a woman from ending a pregnancy to save her eyesight? Is this such a clearcut decision that legislators should make it for us?

Please, no nasty responses. I really am just curious.

Let's see how long this lasts :).

I am a liberal. I am actually a pretty moderate liberal, as I understand the benefits of the free market in most contexts and believe the preservation of family is important (though I think if it's important, we should address the problems that actually threaten the family, like no-fault divorce and drug laws).

I try to be polite and respectful. I am not perfect, and I sometimes fail--I can on occasion be a bit ruder to people online than I would ever be in real life. However, I am not a big one for ad hominems, and have definitely received far, FAR more vitriol than I have ever dished out. I have been called moronic, worthless and evil more times than I can count.

But I am the one who has had my account canceled twice. And do you know what it appears got my account canceled?

Quoting Bible verses that do not support the Republican Party platform.

So yes, you can be a liberal around here, but when you start dishing out liberal parts of the Bible, they shut you down.

Though it's possible it was also that I pointed out that normal straight men do NOT think about gay sex as much as Kevin McCollough and Mike Adams do. I don't think most GAY men think about gay sex as much as Kevin McCollough does.

So just be aware, around here; raving is perfectly acceptable. But making a well-reasoned argument (especially a Bible-based one) that threatens the orthodoxy around here will get you silenced.