Urgently needed — a new Greasemonkey script to collect salon letters on a single page. HELP!

Sorry to come back to the topic of the post, but with respect to the claim by Shooter and the other high RWAs that Congress has no say in US foreign policy, has anyone ever read the Syria Accountability Act of 2003 (http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s982.html)? Pay particular attention to SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY: "It is the policy of the United States that--"

And if Congress has no voice in foreign policy, why is there even a House Committee on Foreign Affairs (http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/) or a Senate Foreign Relations Committee (http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/).

Before idiots start talking about Congress (and congresscritters) exceeding their Constitutional authority it would be well if they took a look around and see what the Constitution of the United States is all about.

Indeed, the first two letters of Christ's name in Greek (Χ and Ρ were superimposed to create one of the earliest cruciform symbols of Christianity. The Chi-Rho became the imperial insignia after Constantine's victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. See http://www.rochester.edu/College/REL/symbols/chiro.html

All of which, of course, is irrelevant to those who argue their positions without knowledge of the history behind the position they have taken.

Christopher Michael Neill:
Okay.. fair enough. Let me propose this, then; authoritarianism provides easy answers to complex problems. Easy answers work, for a while. Then, after time passes, those easy answers start to fall apart.
Well, if you an authoritarian, I can see the viewpoint that criticizing authoritarian views can seem negative. I see it differently. I see accepting those views as counter-productive when those views fail to pan out in the real world. I see criticizing those views as the first step in creating a realistic critical dialog which may bear the fruit of realistic solutions.
To put it in terms you might grasp: authoritarian = concise, clear, brief and direct solutions to problems; liberal = measured, weighed, diplomatic and academic solutions to problems.

For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
— H. L. Mencken (attributed)

and similarly,

For every problem there is a solution which is simple, obvious, and wrong.
— Albert Einstein (attributed)

As for bashing conservatives -- please, are you kidding me? The current administration bears little or no resemblance to anything traditionally "conservative."

I fear that you are wasting your time trying to educate shooter. I used to believe that there were basically two types of people: Those who had to be told everything and those who could figure it out for themselves. Having been exposed to shooter (and his henchman daleyrocks) for a sufficient period of time, I am now convinced that there is at least one more type: There are also those who still can't figure it out even after they've been told.

Sonofabastard: I'm not sure I would have the two lines perpendicular to each other. I think communism and authortarianism are closer than 90% apart.

You're conflating economic systems and political systems. Marxist communism is not authoritarian — it is anti-authoritarian (withering away of the state and all that). The only kind of communism that you are familiar with is authoritarian communism (Stalinist USSR, Democratic People's Republic of Korea). Marxist communism, like Christianity, has not so much failed as it has never been seriously tried. It is simply not feasible for a large, manufacturing-based nation-state; at best it can only be sustained in a small agrarian commune or kibbutz. The People's Republic of China was able to keep (economic) communism alive as long as the economy was primarily agrarian. With the rapid expansion of the manufacturing sector of the economy, the PRC has had to move toward market capitalism as an economic system (at least in the manufacturing sector; they also had to move from a dictatorial political system to a merely authoritarian one).

Noron: "Tony Snow said today that you guys want the truth, and in this interview, you guys are going to get the truth from Karl Rove. What's wrong with that?"

Imagine that you work for an auditing firm and are expected to do a mandatory audit of a large firm. You and your team show up at the firm and the CEO says "well, you can't look at our books, but you will can have an off the record chat with our head accountant and he will assure you that everything is fine." So you say "do we still get our $50,000 fee?" And the CE0 says "sure — we may even make it $75,000 just to show that you can trust us." And you say "sure — what's wrong with that?"

As always, those with the hardest job in America are those who seek to satirize Bush followers. No matter how far one takes the satire, they always exceed it.

Recently seen, but worth repeating:

Exhibit A: Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over' (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784) January 17, 2001.

Exhibit B: This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism (http://www.theonion.com/content/point/this_war_will_destabilize_the) March 26, 2003.

They have not just exceeded, they have lapped them.

The real winners are Jon Stewart and TDS. Jon won an award for the best comedy writing, but The Daily Show writes itself. All they have to do is show the clips of what was said side by side with clips of what actually happened and it is hilarious.

Here is a rousing speech which pulls no punches:

And here is another one that is very similar. In fact, if you replace "Jews" with "Muslims" it is nearly identical in tone if not specific content.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ley3.htm

I think that the issue pointed out by Glenn in #5 is a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Quite right, but there is precious little reductio involved. It is absurd on the face of it.