I don't care too much about the personalities involved, the important thing in a debate is the arguments made.

Sharpton lost this debate by miles, and Hitchens didn't even do that well. This was best illustrated by Sharpton's inability to answer the two excellent questions posed by the last audience member to ask. I was wondering myself why he chose Christianity if he had a personal experience when he doesn't necessarily agree with the dogma that is said to be the word of god. Because Christianity just happened to be there? And the best he could do the rest of the debate was to try to put the burden of proof on the other side to prove that god does not exist, insisting that the existence of god was what the debate was about. Well, if that is what the debate is about, please Mr. Sharpton offer some evidence, because the burden of proof is on you. You can't. No one ever has.

Hitchens missed driving home a central point--not just that we can come up with our own morality, but that pretty much every religious person does it all the time. Who do you know that follows religious texts (the word of god) to the letter? Anyone? If not, then how did they decide that, (one example among many) that stoning people to death for working on the sabbath was immoral? Did god deliver an amendment? To whom?

So, to summarize the general belief in the popular western religions:

1. Humans need an absolute moral code, because humans can't think for themselves.

2. The best absolute moral code that we know of were created when everyone believed the earth was flat. It must be accurate because it was cobbled together years after god's messenger came to earth from contradictory accounts.

3. The moral code comes from god, magical figure who we haven't been able to prove exists.

4. Many things that happened in the stories contained in this religious text have been proven to be impossible. In our lifetimes we have never seen these things happen. But the central message must be correct.

5. We don't actually follow all the rules. But you should follow all the rules because they are correct.

6. Killing is not o.k. according to our religious text. Except when it is.

These things aren't pointed out to be clever, but because people who question the existence of god see death, see killing, and want it to stop. It might sound condescending but we care about the species and would like the killing to stop. For that to happen people need to question everything, and put humanism and compassion before everything.

Hi:

As a Canadian, I never studied the American constitution in school, but is it possible to make an amendment that more clearly defines what is an impeachable offense? "High crimes and misdemeanors" seems to be the bit that baffles everybody, as it should, since taken literally it means "or other really bad crimes or really insignificant crimes". So murder or jaywalking, but not stealing someone's wallet.

Can some constitutional scholars explain the wording to me?

Victoria L:

Just want to clear up a point--you give the impression that multiculturalism necessarily confers victim status upon various multicultural groups, and is associated with guilt and a surrender to radical groups like the nuts who staged violent protests over a cartoon.

As a Canadian (Canada was the first country to make multiculturalism official policy and is probably the most ethnically diverse country in the world), and a strong believer in both multiculturalism as well as secularism, I feel no contradiction between supporting the multicultural ideal while speaking out against the radical factions that staged violent protests and demanded an apology from the Danish government (an apology which it had no reason to offer--the people who should be apologizing are the violent protesters responsible for the 250 deaths in the violence that followed...over a cartoon).

In the years since Canada adapted the multicultural policy in 1971, Canada has seen a slow decrease in crime, a strong economy, and frequently tops list of best countries to live in. In a multicultural country, no one group dominates and reason, logic and laws can rule the day. So please don't blame multiculturalism on the fact that some people do not stand up to religious nuts and radicals. If anything, multicultural societies by their nature demand that people play well with others.

Democrats will do their best to vote primarily not on policy (since no one pays much attention to policy, including Salon) but on electability, but will end up voting in the least electable candidate.

Want to win, and win big? Convince Al Gore to run, and convince Al Gore to make Obama his running mate. Al Gore has pretty much been right on everything (importance of internet, global warming, Iraq war, the dumbing down of the national discourse), and setting up Obama as VP now would be a good stepping stone for another Obama president run.

GoreObama would energize the progressives, women, minorities and pretty much anyone but the Bush dead enders/redneck/religious fanatic base.

America is doomed!

I'm going there tomorrow for about 10 days. Any restaurant recommendations for Siem Reap or Phnom Pen?

Another stellar Chertoff moment is his interview with NPR during the height of Katrina about getting supplies to New Orleans. Robert Siegel (of NPR) kept informing him that their veteran reporters on the scene were saying there were thousands of people of the convention center, (and CNN cameras at the time were showing the people who were trapped there) and in response Chertoff kept saying that he wouldn't respond to "rumors" of anyone being at the convention center (of course now we know he responds only to his "gut", like Bush and Colbert).

Even NPR's Siegel loses his patience with him during the interview. The clip is online on NPR's website if you care to listen to the sound of incompetence.