Were it not for Uncle Sam helping the Taliban in the 80's, Afghanistan today could have been like Uzbekistan or Tajikistan - a second-world backwater with economic problems and dictatorial tendencies, but one where this kind of shit generally doesn't happen. Great job, America.

But our left loves these guys just like they loved the Sandanistas in Nicaragua. Remember the "Pinyata Revolution" - Sandanistas grabbing homes and entire businesses for themselves?

...remember Pinochet?

As long as this country remains stuck in a two party system, either party will have to mindful of swinging too far left or right. While it would be nice if all democrats felt the same way about all issues that I do, I think that is unreasonable.

This is precisely the kind of 2-dimensional thinking that Glenn has been railing against here. Either you are new to the blog, or his words have been completely wasted on you.

It would indeed be great if we could elect independent-minded people who could, as you say, "think for themselves" and carefully considered the issues on their own merit. But that is the opposite of what is going on here, which is the dogma that there is a "left" and a "right" and the truth lies in the 'bipartisan' middle. Thus, they don't even bother to provide actual justification for the positions they take - the fact that they are 'bipartisan' automatically makes them right. Nobody thinks to consider for a moment that politics is not some transcendent plane harmoniously balanced between two eternal poles, and that it may just be possible that when it comes to a given issue one "side" happens to be more correct than the other on a moral, legal, and Constitutional level. I really feel like I'm parroting Glenn here but I can't express it any better than that.

Tammy Duckworth seems by far the best pick for Illinois. She has the military cred, she is articulate in her opposition to the war and overblown defense spending, she's steadfast on abortion rights, and given that an African American has just been elected president, one could argue that Asian Americans are even more underrepresented on the national stage.

This is great. As someone who's into metal, I can attest to the fact that many metal fans (unlike people in the punk and hardcore scenes) are far from being progressive on many issues. This should be a good counterbalance to Ted Nugent at least.

Time traveling with your teacher to meet famous role models? If you make games that sound like lame Sesame Street episodes and ones that are blatantly designed to teach you "self-confidence", and tout them as "girl games" as opposed to those silly neanderthal "boy games", is it any wonder that women in the gaming world aren't taken seriously when you're basically insisting that they should be treated like little children with fragile egos?

Ask yourself this question: why don't guys feel offended and insecure at the preponderance of bare-chested, muscle-bound heroes? Certainly none of the male gamers I know bear any resemblance to Kratos or the dudes from Gears of War. What if girls approached games in the same way - instead of looking at the big-breasted female warriors in chainmail bikinis as some unfair demand on them to measure up or something offensive to their dignity, they could maybe learn to distinguish between fact and fiction and knowingly revel in being able to inhabit something so ridiculously and awesomely unrealistic?

The proportion of girl gamers has been drastically increasing in recent years, both in regards to inventive non-traditional games like Katamari and the Guitar Hero series, and believe it or not, the traditional "boys games" that Flanagan is so disparaging towards. But having oversensitive professors who clearly have a detached and limited view of the gaming world create lame, childish-sounding games with ham-fisted socio-political agendas and pronounce them as "girl games" is a step backward. Nobody wants to play games that preach at them.

Hah! Sounds like a perfect place to meet the douchy guy from your college class who wore a suit and tie to every lecture, constantly had an smugly superior look on his face, and only ever raised his hand to argue with the professor rather than ask a question.

If I'm not seeing anyone and need a one night stand once in a while, I might humor the guy acting like a caveman for my own purposes. In terms of relationship material, however, I require someone respectful knowing that I too shall reciprocate with the same respect.

Why do you do this? News flash: the assholes aren't interested in a relationship either. Don't you see that by 'humoring' them but reserving your relationship demands for nice guys, you're doing the assholes a double favor, and by fulfilling all their needs you're just encouraging the asshole behavior and allowing it to thrive in our society? Did it ever occur to you that 'nice guys' aren't exactly averse to random sex either, the difference being that they would NOT be averse to something more if you wanted it? Did it ever occur to you that guys don't have an equivalent choice, as they don't have girls hitting on them wherever they go? Did it ever occur to you that we might possibly resent the idea that you use us as a crutch only when you're feeling vulnerable and want some stability after you've already all worn out from your wild romps with the douchebags?

Whatever, this is pointless. No amount of yelling or argument will bring back my missed youth. You all just keep doing whatever the hell you're doing.