Connecting with Keith Knight's cartoon today, it's clear that neo-con foreign policy is sexualized in a cave-man sort of way: we get to say whom we want to fuck, and if they say no, then we move on to rape. Can't have us looking emasculated in front of our friends, unlike the small-sticked British. That's why conservatives love Newt - he knows how to dump a woman on her death bed and move on to the next conquest.

I'm curious why so many people seem to have it in for Ms. Anonymous. It's one of the great joys of the internet (where no one knows you're a dog). As long as people are having to register with a real email address, that will dramatically cut back on the trolls such as myself.

The final point of your update is one I wish the MSM would bring up more. It is MUCH more of an affront to international law to hold *diplomats* indefinitely, who were working in Iraq at the request of the Iraqis, who want us to release them. So, the US is saying it has the right to indefinitely detain diplomats in someone else's country, against that country's wishes, while it is evil and war-provoking for Iran to play their catch-and-release game on their own border. We torture, while they parade people around in tailored suits, the bastards.

I continue to be puzzled by the gap between people's general affinity for democratic policies, and their aversion to particular democrats. This is a gap that goes back a long way, not just a feature of the current slew of candidates. How is this gap manufactured? Clearly, the opposite phenomenon occurs for republicans (people dislike republican policies, but like the republican candidates). Is it the MSM? Are they just better politicians? Is it a psycological abnormality of the public (like people who are continually attracted to partners they know will abuse them)?

So, someone threw a rock through your window and you chase down the first guy you see, beat the crap out of him, and while sitting on him you figure out he's not the one who threw the rock. At fIrst you think your were just in your actions because he fought back when you attacked him. Then you think, I can't get off this guy or he'll follow me home and seek revenge. But, are either of those really reasons not to get off the guy and let him go, when it's clearly the right thing to do? To do otherwise are the true actions of a coward, a hypocrite, a thug. That's where we are in Iraq now. We screwed up badly and have done things that will likely have very bad repercussions for us when we back off. But it's still the right thing to do, if we have any honor at all.

The Shiites wanted us there at first because we would over-throw their oppressors and help them come to power. The Sunnis didn't want us there for the same reason. Now the situation has reversed. We are the only thing that stands in the way of the Shiites turning the country into an Iranian-allied theocracy, and the Sunnis see us as their protector. We are between two sides in a civil war that the Shiites will surely win. This has nothing to do with terrorism, or al-qaeda (except that our presence there poors energy into both). Iraq will become a totalitarian theocracy, and those marching today will not allow people to march against them in the future. It might be a democracy of sorts, like Iran, and will most likely hate the US. A few hundred thousand dead, a trillion dollers later...

People often talk about how their ancestors were immigrants, but they were legal, so that's different. Well, before the Chinese Exclusion Act, all immigration was legal. There was no such thing as an 'illegal immigrant' till we decided we wdidn't like the Chinese. And those immigrants coming from Europe were starting to be kind of swarthy, so we added them to the newly created 'illegal' category. So yes, racism was historically the root of our immigration laws. However, that doesn't necessarily still apply. I agree that there is a huge problem with wage-deflation. But when someone loses their job at a meat-packer (an immigrant-dependent industry for generations - ask Poles in Chicago) because the owner wants to pay less than $15 an hour, the person to blame is the owner, not the immigrant. If we had laws mandating a living wage, the jobs would not be here for illegal immigrants, and they wouldn't come. And if NAFTA required the same working conditions in Mexico as in the US, they wouldn't come.

The most likely cause of drunk driving accidents around where I live are teenaged drivers. Should they be deported?

I'm just too stupid to know how to begin a new sentence, so I say the same thing over and over again to give me some time to think.