Oh my... and since the pledge of allegiance refers to "one nation", it must be like Nazi loyalty oaths!

I don't know much about Nazi loyalty oaths, to be honest. But, the pledge certainly has been used to enforce blind nationalism almost from its beginning.

Supposedly, Bellamy avoided using the word "equality" in the pledge to avoid bringing up the troublesome issue of whether blacks should be able to vote.

The whole notion of pledging allegiance to the flag, rather than the Constitution, is troublesome. But, the idea that citizens have to pledge to anything at all is anti-American. Our elected officials should pledge to defend the Constitution.

And actually, Obama was right to resist the whole flag lapel thing. And I could care less if he pledges allegiance to the flag or burns it as kindling.

But, now he's wearing the flag pin and selling off chunks of the Constitution.

I imagine there will be lots of flags flying at INVESCO field, not to mention some sort of pledge ceremony, and, hell, why not a cathedral of light while they're at it.

Not the full face scary ones, I mean the ones that just show the eyes. They're like thong bikinis for the face.

That's my main objection to the veil. I dislike public displays of sexiness. What people do in their own bedrooms is their own business, of course.

Westerners look at the niqab through their own thick veil. They see "women's oppression" but refuse to see anything else.

And it's funny reading people hiding behind pseudonyms posting that the veil is evil because it masks the identity of women.

Few Westerners realize that the non-Western dress, and particularly those aspects of dress most objectionable to Westerners, have long been symbols of resistance to colonialism and other evils that came, and continue to come, from the West. At the least, it is a symbol of separation, resistance, and community.

It is significant that the veil is adopted by many women whose mothers did not wear it, and even by women born in the West. Some women wear some form of hijab despite the wishes of the men in their lives. It's not just about bowing to an anti-feminist moral code.

Punishing women who wear the niqab preserves its symbolic importance. Yeah, don't let them go to school, or become citizens, and single them out for discriminatory treatment. Continue to single out Muslims for surveillance, detention, and torture. Deny them the rights of citizens. The niqab will endure.

What's braver: wearing a flag lapel pin or a niqab? Conversely, why is it safer for women to wear Muslim dress in Western societies than for men to wear Muslim dress? Remember the Sikh men, erroneously identified as Muslims, who were hassled and, in one case at least, killed because of their turbans? The niqab is both brave protest, and yet a relatively safer protest for Muslims.

If people really want to defeat the veil they would seek to remove its symbolism. You undermine the religious symbolism (which many Muslims don't agree with anyway) by adopting the veil for secular purposes. Madonna probably did more to undermine Catholicism than years of atheist blather. When mall rats start running around in leopard-patterned sequined veils, you know the veil is pretty much dead as religious symbol. Heck, let the fashion designers create swim veils with matching topless bikinis for French beaches.

More importantly, undermine the political significance by treating Muslims as political and social equals with rights, including rights of religious expression.

Shame on Obama's campaign, btw, for excluding those Muslim women from his stage.

In fact, Western women often wear bikinis (or even go at nude) at beaches in countries with conservative mores (not necessarily Islamic) on male and female dress.

And you don't want "it all." You not only don't want to wear a veil, isn't it fair to say you don't want any woman to wear one?

Remember, this discussion started with an example of using the powers of the state to punish women who are wearing the veil. Isn't your argument a bit like arguing that gay marriage "threatens" straight marriage, and therefore should be illegal?

How does a veil threaten your swimsuit?

Certainly longer than SUV's, internet porn, or tramp stamps.

And the French often denied Muslims in the empire French citizenship BECAUSE they were Muslim. Other groups did get citizenship. Your logic is Kafkaesque.

Is there any reporter with sufficient gonads to ask whether Obama was referring to the wall being built by the Israelis?

How about the wall being built between the US and Mexico?

He would have stood at the partition wall that the Israelis are building and said, a la Reagan "Mr. Olmert, tear down this wall!"

That's not what he said.

He would go to our border with Mexico and say, "Mr. Bush, tear down this wall!"

He hasn't said that either.

Instead, he goes to Berlin, where the wall has already been torn down, and talks about tearing down walls.

What spineless, vacuous pap.

Though, Obam has nice ring.

Oh yeah, because THAT would be oppressive.

Yes, but what is the policy? One day we'll go it alone into Pakistan(!) and the next it's multilateralism in Europe?

And I say what the media and voters will eventually be saying: If Obama can't designate a single physical wall that he'll tear down by the end of his term, then his "tear down the walls" is empty rhetoric of the most dangerous sort.

Dumb speech. McCain should be able to fillet Obama's claim by simply going to the Mexican border and promising to build a secure wall, and challenging Obama to tear it down. McCain can then jet off to Israel and stand on that wall and ask Obama when exactly he'll tear it down.

Hey, I want the walls down. I just recognize empty rhetoric when I hear it. Hope is one thing, crapola is another. Obama's polls are falling in my part of the country.