The whole problem is that vast majority of the people who are anti-abortion are against any sex outside of marriage. In fact many of them are simply against any sex that isn't intended to produce a baby, many are even against masturbation. They use unwanted pregnancies and STDs as just another reason to promote this abstinance agenda. So just show me one anti-abortion person who says as I do "sex should be enjoyed as often and with as many partners as you want as long as it is consensual, safe and responsible" and I will see how we can have a common vision about preventing abortions.

I haven't been follwing this story too closely, I've been distracted by this issue of Bush trashing the constitution, but seeing as I am a gay man, the same age as Foley and actually have been known to socialize with Republicans I have a few things to say.

First of all, will someone tell me exactly what happened? I only read one account from a former page and it indicated that he got this message and had to do some research to find out who it was from. Did these boys know it was Mark Foley? Were they directly working for him? Did they know it was from a Congressman? Was he using his office to pressure them? Could they have simply ignored him, or were they afraid of consequences? Did they complain to anyone? Were these conversations perhaps consensual?

As people have pointed out, paedophile is an exaggeration. Ephebophile is also misleading. Was Foley only interested in teenage boys? It's quite normal for any man to find teenagers of the appropriate sex attractive. AS to how he acts on this is a matter of ethics, not of psychology.

Finally, on this issue of outing, the nature of homosexuality is that it not obvious, so, unless you have the word GAY tattooed on your forehead most people don't think you are gay until you tell them. In effect, we stay "in the closet" simply by not saying anything and we avoid danger that way. Some have chosen to make a lifestyle out of being in the closet, we need to respect where they drew the line, because we all draw the line somewhere. While some closeted homosexuals could be stopped from doing horrible things by outing them, if this weapon is seen as legitimate it can be turned on any gay person by the "righteous" of the right or left.

You just can't say Columbus to anyone from Minnnesota without getting a lecture about the Vikings. Some will even tell you how the Vikings landed in Minnesota.

"They were free spirits, sailors, explorers, so they left some carved stones here and there, relished the exhilaration of the voyage and the sight of new lands, and went home and composed sagas for the amusement of their friends and families"

That is actually kind of funnny. The Vikings were raiders, like pirates except on land. True, they did not try to impose their culture and religion on conquered people, but that is because they were mostly interested in looting. The Vikings and their descendants, the Normans controlled a good deal of Europe and areas in the Western sea, but gave very little to western culture. Columbus, on the other hand may have done some nasty things, but he certainly changed the course of history.

"We have a very high education level in this town, a very high income level in this town. Now, that equates with being conservatives"

That quote blew me away. It would never occur to me that being better educated and higher income makes you conservative. Here in New England that makes you liberal. So maybe, those who try to minimize the differences between red and blue are wrong after all.

And I have to question -- 97% White and 3% Black. I didn't know there was anywhere in Idaho without a significant Native American population?

I know it's not politically correct to deconstruct religious practices, but this total body covering for women in Islam is basically to avoid sexual desire in men. Islam is certainly not the only religion that puts these restructions on women. Shouldn't it be the responsibility of men to control themselves rather than woman to wear uncomfortable clothing?

Being a gay man, I find this particularly interesting. I get to see men wearing very little clothing and even naked in public showers but I never let that desire express itself where it won't be appreciated.

It's become clear to me that the Current Occupant does need an *early* retirement and I do not mean in Jan of 2009. Let me venture to say if he is still in power in 2008 I do not expect we will have a new president sworn in in 2009. Let's remember in 2004 the White House put out a feeler about postponing elections during a national crisis. It was rejected but who's to say what will happen next. I don't want to see anything destory our constitutional process but I'm wondering if it is time for a coup. So many retired military officers are speaking against him, I suspect an large number still in the military feel the same way. I am not sure how it worked in Thailand recently but can we remove this administration by extra-constitutional means and then restore the status quo? It would be a risk, but so much is at stake. Should we be so lucky as to elect someone reasonable in '08 can that person ever repair the damage Bush has caused? We will need to make a 180 degree turn and I don't expect the likes of Hillary Clinton to do that. What our government needs is a purge, and I don't mean that in the Stalinist sense of killing people off, but more in the sense of a huge enema.