We'd be concened for your worry, but as you consider even the gentlest whisper of faith to be insanity, your definition of "fanaticism" is probably disproportionate too. In a world of genuine monsters, you're afraid of the boogyman. If you actually shared a family meal with churchgoers every week, this would fade.

> I'm ashamed to live in a place where
> people vote to discriminate against
> other people.

I realize you were typing fast and trying to keep it simple, but discrimination is underrated nowadays. A discriminating mind is a useful one, and runaway egalitarianism does no one any favors. See "In Defence of Elitism", circa '98, by William A. Henry III. Or "The Incredibles": "When everybody's special, no one is."

Just curious- when you say discrimination is underrated these days, which types of discrimination are you talking about?

Was in not apparent in the rest of the response?

No- it seems like you are talking two different points.

Sounds like Amy is talking about discrimination hurting people (i.e. gays not being able to enjoy the rights heteros do, such as marriage) and you are talking about faux elitist Harrison Bergeron uniformity thing.

This isn't my argument, and I am not saying I understand your meaning. I'm just asking for clarification.

> talking about faux elitist Harrison
> Bergeron uniformity thing.

I have no idea what that is.

Amy sed:

> I'm ashamed to live in a place where people
> vote to discriminate against other people.

I can imagine 50,000 circumstances where I might feel compelled to disagree, and about 30 where I'm ready to punch the ballot tomorrow morning.

A discriminating mind and a desire to deny other people rights are two entirely different things. Imagine the perverts, sitting around worrying how, exactly, other people are having sex. Freaky.

No, wait. I think Cridlandís onto something here. By extension of his argument, if an airliner engine bursts into flames on the taxiway, the pilot should abort takeoff; therefore, abortion is socially responsible.

Harrison Bergeron was a story written by Kurt Vonnegut where in the future all people are "handicapped" to have the same abilities. A person born with higher IQ was "handicapped" with a device that interrupted his concentration, a person who could run faster than average was "handicapped" with weights around his legs.... the state made everyone equal.

It was similar but opposite to what you said about "where everybody is special, nobody is".

> (i.e. gays not being able to enjoy the
> rights heteros do, such as marriage)

This has been covered here extensively before, but the truth is that gays have PRECISELY, PRECISELY the same rights as you or I, and always have. This is not wordy legalism on my part. The left is so eager to say fluffy, loving, defusing things that no principle survives. It's hokey.

> Amy is talking about discrimination
> hurting people

Ditto Amy:

> A discriminating mind and a desire to
> deny other people rights are two entirely
> different things.

Wish you'd said so.

Amy, you're seriously deranged.

What on earth does the re-election of President Bush have to do with religious fundamentalism and the denial of civil rights to gays? California banned gay marriage in the same election that put Gray Davis in office, and Oregon and Michigan banned it on the same day that they selected John Kerry for president.

America doesn't want to be the first country on earth to endorse gay marriage. We weren't the first to give women the right to vote or the first to ban slavery either, but we did liberate 40 million people in Muslim countries from their oppressive rulers in the last couple of years. Given that your beloved France doesn't allow gay marriage and also coddles tyrants, it's not clear where you'd go if you were in the market for a more progressive country today.

So if you must obsess over those things you think we've done wrong, give a little credit for the things that all fair-minded and rational people know we've done right, such as putting Saddam in prison.

In what way exactly did 'we' liberate 40 million people in Muslim countries? It seems those 40 million folks aren't in agreement with you Richard. Seen the statistics on Falluja yet?

Statistically it's indisputable: Bush has done more for Muslim life than anyone in centuries, maybe since Mohammed. NPR had a report from Falluja this afternoon, talking about all the non-Iraqi combatants they were dealing with... Syrians and Saudis and Pakis and even some Tunisians.

Just when I thought the analogy between the justification for invading Iraq and 1939 Japan/Germany was the most ludicrous statement I had ever heard....

Bush has done more for Muslims than anyone since Mohammed. *-**-sigh**-*-*

Most Syrians and Saudis and Pakis and even some Tunisians are Muslims. They are not fighting out adoration. 3

And Richard, America has a long history of coddling tyrants. Remember Hussein and Bush1/Reagan? School of the Americas? Any of this ring a bell? It was all done with a "democratically altruistic" reason when in the open, and ruthless, lawless abandon when covert. But somehow this time is different.

> *-**-sigh**-*-*

Eric, kitten, you're drowning. Attentive readers see that you only note the assertions, and offer no evidence to refute them. I love AA's site and come here almost daily; but I've used that rhetoric in far more challenging fora than this, and no one has ever even TRIED to refute it. Texan George W. Bush, the alcoholic, dyslexic, ne're-do-well son of Ivy League privilege, is the greatest champion that Muslim men AND WOMEN(!) have seen in several centuries. Hippy-hi-yo-ty-yay!

> They are not fighting out adoration. 3

What 's your point?

> Remember Hussein and Bush1/Reagan?

Do you believe that American policy towards Iraq, and apparentlty the middle east, has changed?

For Christ's sake, isn't that what you WANTED? Or hadn't you thought about it?

PS- As Bush's trip to South America begins, expect one or several nations to approach him demanding that Kissinger be extradited. Wouldn't that be cool? Kissinger was against the Iraq invasion. See what I mean? Times have changed.

Sheryl- Imagine that the United States was quickly conquered by whatever sort of people you imagine are the best in the world. (It's safe to assume those aren't the people running the shop as it is.) Do you suppose the Bloods and Crips and every other bullshit street gang would just surrender their arms and go quietly, or do you think they'd fight?

That's who I think we're fighting in Falluja (to the extent that it isn't foreigners)... The shittiest people who smell the opportunity for a power-grab. There's no reason to imagine that they're typical of Iraq any more than a drive-by thug is typical of South Central.

Here's what leftist professor Juan Cole said about the action in Falluja:

---- begin quote-----
What I said was that the role of the US military and other multinational forces in Iraq is now legitimate because it was explicitly sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. This is true. Many readers appear to have forgotten all about UN SC Resolution 1546 (2004), which was adopted unanimously. Here is what the Security Council said about the issue at hand:

ì9. Notes that the presence of the multinational force in Iraq is at the request of the incoming Interim Government of Iraq and therefore reaffirms the authorization for the multinational force under unified command established under resolution 1511 (2003), having regard to the letters annexed to this resolution;

ì10. Decides that the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in accordance with the letters annexed to this resolution expressing, inter alia, the Iraqi request for the continued presence of the multinational force and setting out its tasks, including by preventing and deterring terrorism, so that, inter alia, the United Nations can fulfil its role in assisting the Iraqi people as outlined in paragraph seven above and the Iraqi people can implement freely and without intimidation the timetable and program for the political process and benefit from reconstruction and rehabilitation activities;

ì11. Welcomes, in this regard, the letters annexed to this resolution stating, inter alia, that arrangements are being put in place to establish a security partnership between the sovereign Government of Iraq and the multinational force and to ensure coordination between the two, and notes also in this regard that Iraqi security forces are responsible to appropriate Iraqi ministers, that the Government of Iraq has authority to commit Iraqi security forces to the multinational force to engage in operations with it, and that the security structures described in the letters will serve as the fora for the Government of Iraq and the multinational force to reach agreement on the full range of fundamental security and policy issues, including policy on sensitive offensive operations, and will ensure full partnership between Iraqi security forces and the multinational force, through close coordination and consultation;

So, the Marines at Fallujah are operating in accordance with a UNSC Resolution and have all the legitimacy in international law that flows from that. The Allawi government asked them to undertake this Fallujah mission.
----end quote----

Any questions?

> Any questions?

Yeah, was this before or after the US Army tortured prisoners at Al Ghraib in contravention of international law? Before or after the US Army transported prisoners to Cuba in direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions?

"[the invasion of Iraq] was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view [..] it was illegal."

Kofi Annan, sept 2004

>[..] it was illegal."
> Kofi Annan, sept 2004

Glad you're reading the papers. Have any recent headlines, perhaps from a scandal at a global political enterprise based in New York, caught your eye lately?

Some of have never, ever trusted Kofi Annan to tell us how the world should go.

Legal or illegal. Comes down to who wins. Most Americans love to point at WW2 as a just war that we fought honorably and legally. The only reason you don't hear about the unseemly acts we did back then was that the much more restricted press was in bed, not embedded, with the military. Everyone thought we were fighting for our lives. Wars are to be won, not to be scorecarded Olympic style by a sanctimonious peanut gallery. It's over when the losing side quits. Peace reigns until the next group disturbs the peace and yells illegal to a powerless court of non-combatants sitting in the bleachers.

The number one difference between WW2 and the others since is that the citizen commuter doesn't feel we're fighting for our existence. There was a sudden pang of that right after 9/11, but it went away.