"First, Juliebird, you are wrong. The simplest solution is not convincing men. The operations/rituals are carried out with little to no male involvement, as might be expected from a female initiation ritual, ..."

Yes, I get that this is a mother-to-daughter practice (like foot-binding and whalebone corset-wearing). And, yes, educating the mothers is a key factor. But the *reason* behind the practice (which has nothing to do with Islam) is to make a girl more marriagable. A "circumcised" female is viewed as more pure, therefore more valuable. To put it crudely, she commands a higher price in the marriage market. And girls who are left intact are considered less attractive.

If prospective grooms say "No thanks" then there is no reason for the practice to continue. If an "intact" girl is considered more valuable, then there is no reason not to leave her thus. The men have the power to change the rules of the game much faster than the women. (And no, before anyone suggests it, I don't therefore men are evil. They're not. But' I'd like to see them step up to save their wives and daughters).

How could even the most delusional Bushie think a "terror attack" on American soil would strengthen their cause?

I've got my response prepared in advance:

"Excuse me, but you told us if we let you invade Iraq, increase the likelihood of WWIII starting in the Middle East this decade, spy on us, lock us up without warning or trial, make us the joke of the international community, occasionally use the constitution as toilet paper, and enrich your friends whilwe you trashed our planet and picked our pockets, THIS WOULDN'T HAPPEN!"

I'm pretty hopeful a second terror attack would bring riots the like we haven't seen since Bastille Day. Leastwise, I'll be storming the barricades. What would then be left to lose?

as the squeaky-clean alternative to the corrupt philanderer sitting in his congressional seat.

That's the hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Had he run on "hey, I can relate to what he's done, but I'll try to bring more money to this great district" then no one would be raising eyebrows. Had his wife not said those patently false hyperbolic threats in an interview, no one would care. And, by the way, public scrutiny is the price one pays for fame, hypcrisy and adultery (not to mention outright stupidity and hubris). Remember Hester Prynne and her scarlet letter? Were Vitter a non-politico, his wife wiould still have to endure the whispers and gossip of moms at the soccer games and dads at work. And while I agree, it's really tough on the kids, that consideration should have been made by Vitter before he called Palfrey. (Funny how one man's complete selfishness suddenly becomes our wrongdoing).

And please, give me a break about Clinton, already. The man was impeached. Time in the media served. Vitter (or anyone else on Madame Palfrey's list who claims to be saintly) deserves the same tme in the stocks.

Enough of the electorate chose security over liberty in 2004. Today we have neither, but we have "feelings." Was that a fair trade?

(And on a side note: could you imagine a Democratic personality talking bout "a gut feeling" on anything, without the Republican party putting them in curlers and bunny slippers? "Daddy party" indeed!)

but maybe to make a malpractice suit easier? Perhaps a birth-certificate allows suing for the baby as well as the parents? In which case, getting one for 20-weekersand yonger could be very chilling indeed.

But that's just idle speculation on my part ...