I agree if Blackwater or any other mercenerary or government force started to attack and kill any of these Somali pirates there would be reciprocal bloodshed.

In an ideal world, the Somali government would get kickbacks to support their citizens from merchant vessels sailing through their waters.

If we can justify a society where we allow companies to hold patents on drugs and force people to pay up big for life-saving meds... then we can have a tax for sailing ships through other nations waters.

It's sad when the rich can force the poor to pay, but the poor must provide everything to the rich for free.

Until there is equity in the world, things like this piracy can be expected to happen... using lethal force only makes things one-sided even further.

I went through the link to read the Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla, and I thought it was hilarious.

I don't know why the author Camille Paglia is bothering to defend Palin.. perhaps feminist solidarity?

I'm not sure whether I am alone in thinking this, but I think leaders should be able to express themselves with some sort of eloquence. They should be able to get their ideas across to people without any confusion.

Personally I get irritated by people who use complex jargon and lots of big impressive words to express themselves... I believe it is important that a majority of people should be able to understand exactly what you are trying to say.

So unless Sarah Palin's rapper slang and grammar skills become the new status quo of the world, she really needs to retake her English classes and get a pass before she could hope to represent and speak for an entire nation.

She should at least have as good a grasp of the English language as foreign leaders for whom English is a second language.

Am I missing something here?

Am I missing something here? Or wasn't it largely the Republican rank and file that opposed the financial bailout? The Democrats, in contrast, went along with their leadership and wholeheartedly supported Bush's bailout plan. Maybe someone can explain how overwhelming democrat "Yes" votes for the bailout bill is somehow translated as "opposition."

-- cingetorix

---------------------------------------

I think the answer to that question is that both republicans and democrats wholeheartedly wanted the bailout.

It would please their campaign contributors.

However traditionally republicans are opposed to government intervention and so I think more republicans would be pissed by the bailout than democrats.

Democrats I guess are less ideologically opposed to bailouts, granted they are rightly cynical about the government and what would happen with that money... but nevertheless a democratic politician would be able to assume that his/her voters backlash would be less than what a republican would have to endure.

I haven't read the bible for years now. But I remember in the book of revelations the apocalypse had alot to do with Israel.

Now Fundamentalist Christians who are a very powerful and large political group in America would love to see the apocalypse happen. They are all hoping for Jesus to return in their lifetimes.

So they have to hope, in a sense, that Israel does get destroyed for their apocalypse to happen. But at the same time they have an obligation to defend it - in order to be good righteous christians.

It makes my head spin... trying to think religiously.

So as a result I think that the fundamentalist christians of america enable corrupt politicians in both Israel and America to get away with spending as much money, stealing as much land and blowing as many people to smithereens as they like... without a question, as questioning any tactics that are supposedly trying to preserve Israel would in effect be unrighteous and blasphemous.

The common wisdom that two wrongs do not make a right, somehow seems to elude our supposed 'moral authorities' yet again.

Perhaps they are hoping that enough wrongs done back and forth enough will eventually lead to the apocalypse they so desire.

I imagine thats how it would happen.

I'd go for Cary's suggestion to the letter writer. Run away!

The father is responsible for the daughter, the letter writer is not. But if she stays with the father as a married or de-facto partner, then she would be putting herself in a situation where she would be expected to be responsible for the daughter.

If she can't handle the 'messed-up' daughter then she should leave. Perhaps the girls father will meet someone who may be willing to look after the girl... who knows? But staying would eliminate this possibility and simply create an unhappy and unsustainable family unit.

Whats in the best interest of the daughter is to have a stepmother who loves her.. if the letter writer feels she cannot be this person then she should simply leave now.

I can understand the teacher getting sacked, but if both are over 18 and the sex is consensual it doesn't seem to me to be a criminal offense... only if the law can prove the student was being given better grades than they deserved, maybe.

I hope the teachers who've been caught out in the past haven't been sent to jail... that'd be an over-reaction and unnecessarily harsh.

Again, I wouldn't condone this behaviour, just as I wouldn't condone binge drinking. But it happens and there are other consequences besides.