I took the time to read the case made by he who must not be named against us.

I tried not to take a moral stand one way or another. I tried to be dispassionate. But the truth is, I'm finding it hard to distinguish bin Laden's rhetoric from that of any self-styled Bible thumper you'd see on TV. They have a lot in common. The Rod Parsleys and Jerry Falwells of the world would like to see America repent and embrace Christ and stop with all this silly business of equal rights for women, minorities and homosexuals. Put women back in their "traditional roles" in the home, put men back in positions of leadership, and keep the foreigners away from the gate. The irony here is that OSBL and the Religious Right are in common cause, yet if they were put on a battlefield they would destroy each other entirely.

This is the point that intellectually lazy conservatives like D'Souza here, continue to miss.

It would sure seem to me that the real issue here is being missed entirely.

If you're going to put forward the notion of freedom of the individual to live the way he or she chooses within the fairly wide boundaries of the law, as we do in this country (how well we do that is another discussion), then you have to accept the notion that there are people who will disagree with that expression of freedom, and even the definition of freedom. That's democracy. We get to keep re-examining the question, redefining it over again and in the process refining it. I think what Mr. D'Souza wants is the same thing the Islamist radicals and the Christian Right want: a repressed theocracy that keeps women under control and foreigners away from the gates and leaves only powerful strongmen, "anointed by God" in leadership roles. As DeBlock306 would suggest, if they love this kind of society so much, then they should move en masse to any of the countries on the planet where theocracy is embraced. They'd all fit right in. The problem is, because they'd be foreigners, they'd likely be denied admittance. Furthermore, to suggest bin Laden is torqued off because we and other nations in the West have "open" societies is to further miss the point. He may not dig the notion of equality for women, minorities and gay people, but no fundamentalist (which, strictly speaking, bin Laden is) would. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Rod Parsley don't like it either. So instead of staying here and wishing all of us freedom-loving progressives would go away, why don't THEY go away instead? And may I suggest that the easiest way to solve our argument with bin Laden would be to leave Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the Middle East altogether. Stay out of this business with Israel and the Palestinians until we can be honest brokers in the process. Howard Dean said during his presidential campaign that the best way to do that would be to be in a position of not needing them for our economic survival, namely the oil. For everybody talking about our "strategic interest" in the region, the truth is, it's all down to the oil reserves and the interests of greedy men. Let's be honest with ourselves about that and leave this tinderbox region alone for our own survival.

We really do need to mind our own house first.

I'm not actually surprised at the Voodoo Priest's reaction.

I sure as hell wouldn't comment about what Focus on the Family thought about the circumstances surrounding the birth of my child or grandchild for that matter. Having said that, the irony of having been Ghunga-Din for this whack job organization and now having a grandchild born of a same-sex couple(which the aforementioned organization would just as soon destroy)is not lost on anyone. I'm sure Focus on the Family wouldn't mind if the little zygote were terminated. I guess that whole pro-life thing doesn't apply to lesbian couples who want to give birth naturally, does it? I suppose the rights of this fetus don't matter as much as the rights of a straight couple's fetus, do they?

While Focus on the Family would call all this the very stench of abomination rising before God, they seem to completely overlook the depravity of the Cheney family who seem to have one standard for themselves, and something entirely different for everyone else. The very bigotry he expects a pass on for his family he would see enshrined into law for everyone else. He can spill the blood of other people's children, but he has "other priorites" for himself when it was his turn to serve. He can have a grandchild born of a gay couple but he would rather see other gay couples and gay people marginalized at best. And finally when it comes to responsiblity for this awful war we're in, he blames the media, the Democrats, the "liberal agenda", everyone else but himself. This man is Vice President of the United States. I haven't stopped being terrified of this man's version of "morality"since he and the Shrub took office in 2001. The fact that he actually has grandchildren gives me nightmares.

Look no further friends.

I know where the corruption of values in America flows from.

Look to that big White House on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in Washington, DC. There's a big oval office there where two amoral, conscience-challenged men dream up nasty plots to spill blood and make a whole lot of money while posing as the President and Vice President of the United States. They aren't just criminals. They're sociopathic monsters. One can't speak worth a lick, and the other one growls when ever he speaks. I can only imagine the chill of death Speaker Pelosi must've felt sitting next to him at the State of the Union speech. Ye Gods!