No! Don't say that! We need Palin in 2012!

Can you imagine the mismatch at the debates? In one corner, President Obama, smooth operator, proven orator, deep thinker, a natural hand at expressing the complex nuances of public policy. In the other corner, Palin ... living proof that prolonged exposure to hockey causes brain damage. Barely coherent, thin skinned, won't answer questions, insists on inserting "Real Americans" in every other sentence. It'll be the C-Span equivalent of Muhammad Ali vs The Taco Bell Chihuahua! That debate practically sells itself!

Want more? Think of her on the camapign trail! Every interview she will have to give beamed coast-to-coast. Every single excruciating, eyeball-rolling, jaw-dropping "Did she say what I think she said" minute on primetime television! You think she messed up with Couric? Wait till she gets interviewed on "Meet the Press"! Or "Hardball"!. Her campaign machine will be in perpetual damage control mode!

Right now, you are probably asking yourself "How can I make this wonderful thing come to pass?" EASY!!

KHENGSTA'S SIMPLE 4-STEP PLAN TO SECURE A PALIN NOMINATION

1. Contribute often to her campaign.

2. Join lots of conservative forums under a pseudonym (e.g. Son of Elephantman) and post often about her electability and appeal to "Real Americans".

3. Denigrate Gingrich, Jindal and all the other wannabes as RINOs.

4. Tell every Republican u meet that the reason they lost in '08 was that they didnt go far enough to the right!

Together, my friends, we can make this dream a reality!

Trust France to lead the charge into secular absurdity.

If someone, as a matter of religious devotion, chooses to wear a particular clothing item, thats between them and their God. It is no concern of yours. You of course have the right to your differing opinion. You don't have the right to impose that opinion on them.

To be clear, I recognise that some women may only wear the burqa due to the coercion of their fellow believers. This is hardly unique. I'm Catholic, but I would LOVE to eat steak on Friday. If I were being honest, I'd say my refraining from doing so has less to do with my faith, and more to do with preventing my more devout mom from giving me the evil eye. I think that in the vast majority of cases, their decision to wear the burqa is likewise complex. Maybe they do not put much stock in the religious justification for the burqa. Maybe they do think its oppresive. But maybe they also want to fit in, or want to avoid the hassle of explaining to their community why they are departing from the norm, maybe they want to avoid their parents giving them grief too.

Put it another way. Say some sikh boys are sick of keeping their hair long and having to wear turbans. Maybe their scalps itch, maybe they would like to be able to try out different hairstyles, maybe turbans just aren't their thing. Should we then ban turbans for their sake, and thus deprive the rights of other sikh kids to express their religious devotion? How is their situation different?

The knee-jerk response is gonna be that burqas are inherently oppresive to a specific gender, to wit, women. Well thats merely the point of view of the moral majority. Nudists as a class feel oppressed by laws mandating certain levels of decency. They're oppressed by the moral majority too. Outlawing burqas, in short, is nothing more than the moral majority throwing its weight around and demanding conformity.

I think you may be missing the point, or at least that you don't appreciate the nuance of the environmentalist's concerns.

Yes, the water cycle is a zero-sum process. Water goes into cow (whether drunk or through eating water-intensive feed crops like alfalfa). Water leaves the cow as urine, dung, sweat. Yes, this water eventually rejoins the water cycle. Nobody is saying it somehow ceases to exist. The problem is that industrial farming extracts this water from the most convenient source available - from rivers and aquifers. Rain alone isn't always gonna cover it. For example, California, America's bread basket, is naturally arid. Pulling all that water out of the rivers and aquifers has consequences for the natural environment. Sure, the water cycle returns that water, but not necessarily to the same rivers and aquifers that were the source of that water to begin with.

To put it simply, if we could ensure that every drop of water pulled out of River/Aquifer X to feed Cow Y eventually returns to River X, no harm done. But we can't. That water is gonna end up somewhere else, maybe percolating into a different aquifer, maybe dumped (legitimately or otherwise) into a different river or sewage system or different part of the ocean. Maybe that water will be moved by different weather patterns to other locales who presumably would enjoy (?) higher rainfall. That, however, is of no assistance to the ecosystem dependent on the ever dwindling River/Aquifer X.

One of the few articles I've read that have inspired me to get a book! I'm gonna be ordering it off Amazon.

Frankly, its refreshing to hear an impartial voice who's willing to call a spade a spade. Everybody had a hand in this disaster - well intentioned activists, Democrats, Republicans, Main Street, Wall Street, YOU ...

I'm no defender of Wall Street's excesses (see my other letters), but its clear now that Wall Street's foray into sub-prime mortgages and CDOs was only the straw that broke the camel's back. Blaming Wall Street exclusively (which seems to be the knee jerk reaction) ignores the decades where everybody had a hand in inflating the bubble. Wall Street merely accelerated the inevitable. America needs to learn that stable increased prosperity must come from increased production, not asset inflation or debt-fueld hyper-consumption.