Thanks to this article we get insight into the potential for guilt that occurs regardless if a woman gives up her newborn to a stranger, as was common in the 50's and 60's, or has an abortion. In both cases, there is a loss that cannot be replaced, a sense of enormous guilt that gets worse over time because there is void that cannot be filled. If there is any consolation to the women of the 50's and 60's that they opted for life for their newborn. Those who chose abortion, have to deal with the loss of a child and the sick feeling that they were complicit with a destruction of a life.

The radical left has been unusually quiet this past week on Lebanon because they are measuring their response to the same events. Joe Conason is now coming out rather cynically that somehow the US's role in the region is the prism through which all events need to be viewed, and, of course, the US is either directly or indirectly responsible for the current crisis. What Conason and others in his camp fail to realize, due to their inability to see things other than through progressive, godless and secularist terms, is that the force driving Hezbollah and Hamas is religious fundamentalism and nothing else. This is not about a new Palestinian state, WMD, Abu Ghraib or any other such headline makers since 2001. This is all about the destruction of the Israeli state.

The Democrats will wish this thing never happened because most of the world has now been reminded of the sinister and evil intentions of Islamic fundamentalism.

The hip and ultra liberal feminists who run this blog have posted 2 items that are critical of the handling of women in certain Muslim countries. I am shocked because they usually give a pass to these guys because on the political front they are kindred spirit. Maybe these bloggers will finally get it: most of the Muslim world is "anti-everything we stand for" and they would delight in cutting our collective throats at the first chance.

Mel Gibson is an idiot but Neal Gabler launches into space by imputing all things evil in this country to GWB, by default, and then to conservative folks, in general. This hateful article relies on a high-brow argument in which the progressive types are somehow entitled to the high ground in the culture wars and everyone else resorts to deceptive tactics such as mislabeling Jews as liberals. But, with some minor exceptions, Jews are liberal. What is wrong with that assessment and why is knowing that fact so evil? Instead, a careful look at the past 25 years will reveal that progressives have been aggresively promoting a virulent form of secularism that is designed to replace the universal desire for a liberal and secular society in which religious and cultural views are equally respected. The root cause is simple: most progressives disdain any argument that is based on spiritual or faith-based values. Such matters are a threat to the ultra-rational worldview of secular humanism that dominate today's progressive mentality. Anything that reminds the progressive of his or her Judeo-Christian roots is attacked as "reactionary".

Neal Gabler is undermining the very foundation that he believes he is protecting and that is a consensus worldview that accepts a historical Judeo-Christian influence on our current thinking and that all sides have a stake in its success.

I sense that this was a godsend moment for those who have been patiently waiting to take a calculated swipe at the Catholic Church. Demonizing Catholics is politically correct in the U.S. because the Catholic Church is believed to be the intellectual source for the Christian Right's rise to influence and power over the past 30 years. But to characterize the Catholic Church as "bigoted" and "arrogant" based on the actions of one person over an 18 month period is to brush off 2,000 years of documented history, of which for 1,500 years, the Catholic Church held western civilization together.

On the subject of Islamic history, maybe the West should take note of "the bloody edges of Islam" around the world. The author dismisses this as wrongheaded but I am not so sure. The Pope is taking a very public whipping for his remarks but I am still waiting for Islamic apologies for what happened on 9/11.

Where does Lauren Sandler get off making such comments as "Jesus must be spinning in his grave, if he is still there". This is the kind of repugnant statement that must give the author a certain rush in slamming the religious beliefs of billions of people around the world. I then must ask what is the purpose of this article other than to infuriate people and attack their religious beliefs?

If you don't like evangenical types because they pack some political punch then say so, but don't ridicule someone's religious beliefs on spiritual grounds because then you are attacking their religion, not their politics.

I never find anyone of your ilk attacking African American evangelical types. Why is that?

If Hillary Rodham is to be elected president, the nation must accept the possibility that Bill Clinton would become the de facto vice-president with a status in the Rodham administration equal to or greater than the current vice-president, which is no small measure. Aside from being both unelected and with the ability to upstage a sitting president at any moment, I would suggest that the former president might be equally interested in protecting his own presidential record against attack while presumably promoting the best interests of the United States at a time of continuous crises. Although Bush #41 has been largely invisible and not really influential in the current administration, there is no way Bill is going to play a secondary role in the next administration. Is this something that the country should look forward to?