I find it rather ironic that when a newspaper prints a comic linking Islam to violence, the followers of Islam are so outraged that they are moved to threaten (and in some cases, carry out) acts of violence. Their actions only reinforce the point the comic was trying to make.

-Jeremy Friesner

Peter, you certainly have an interesting idea about when people should or should not complain. By your logic, Americans are never allowed to complain about any elected President, because they elect all of them. Fortunately, you are contradicted by the First Amendment (which specifically guarantees us the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances") and also by common sense, which says that the first step toward correcting a problem is pointing out that the problem exists. And if you think that complaining is never effective, take a look at what it did for Harriet Meyers, or the Dubai ports deal.

Patricia Schwarz wrote:

People get spiritual because there are emotional challenges in life. Sometimes the only way to rise above those emotional challenges is to imagine that the universe is capable of love, and you, a mere human being, deserve to receive that love.

Here you are agreeing with Mr. Wilson. To summarize both writers, religion is a psychological trait that people evolved in order to help them deal more effectively with the world.

The people trying to build a spirituality of science go on and on and on about their IMAX universe of awe. Love is a topic they can never broach.

It sounds to me that what you are objecting to isn't the argument, but rather the description of something dear to you in "sterile" scientific terms. What you call "love", Mr. Wilson calls "awe". Trying to describe things scientifically is just what scientists do -- they aren't trying to be dismissive or demeaning, only precise.

-Jeremy Friesner

Picture two scenarios:

- In Scenario A, a man and a woman are in an intimate situation because the man found the woman sexually attractive, and took the necessary steps to pursue her.

- In Scenario B, a man and a woman are in an intimate situation because the woman found the man sexually attractive, and took the necessary steps to pursue him.

In Scenario A, it is guaranteed that the man is sexually attracted to the woman, and therefore will likely not have problems maintaining an erection.

In Scenario B, the man may be sexually attracted to the woman, or he may just have went along with her advances because he felt like that was the role he was supposed to play, or he might have a misguided "any port in a storm" mindset about sex. In this case, there is a chance that the man simply isn't attracted to the woman (whether he wants to admit that to her or to himself, or not).

-Jeremy

All the blowhards pounding the table about the rule of law and "the right of the country to defend its borders against invasion" ought to reflect on how their own ancestors got here, how they ended up living on land that belonged to Native Americans, and how the Native Americans ended up corralled in "reservations" in the least hospitable parts of the country. Perhaps they should be asking for a little amnesty themselves?

Since few people like the president, who is it that continues to donate money when he makes an appearance?

I imagine that O'Reilly's sort of plan is how many evil dictatorships start: "We have no choice but to crack down hard for a few weeks, to impose order at all costs. Once our enemies have been defeated, then we can worry about niceties like 'civil liberties' and 'rule of law'". And inevitably the "few weeks" stretch on into months, then years, and eventually any initial impulse towards a democratic society is forgotten. Meanwhile, the combination of constant fear, daily violence, and absolute power makes the dictator's actions become more and more draconian, which fuels the chaos the dictator is ostensibly fighting.

It's quite likely that if you travelled back in time and showed the 20-year-old Saddam Hussen what he would be like later on, he would be quite shocked at his own future actions. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions and bad judgment.

So I'm glad that O'Reilly isn't in charge in Iraq. Unfortunately, I don't have much confidence that the people who are in charge are any better.

-Jeremy

Being attracted to fat women isn't so unusual... hell, look at most Rennaissance paintings. It also makes sense biologically; plump, well-nourished women are more likely to produce healthy offspring, so they should be more attractive.

Perhaps instead of offering up the same valid but apparently not effective arguments against this debacle of an amendment, we should provide some object lessons on its absurdity instead.

I suggest baking a nice big 4th of July cake with the flag on it, and handing out slices to all our fine Senators. Once they've had a slice, let them know they are all now criminally liable, since they've participated in the desecration of a flag (cutting it up, and then literally turning it to shit).

For those that sputter that that logic is absurd... well, yes. Yes it is. And that is exactly the problem with this amendment.

-Jeremy

In the spirit of putting my money where my mouth is, I've sent a nice gift basket full of American flag-cookies to Dianne Feinstein:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000DIU39/002-0558213-5594460?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=3370831

I included a note suggesting that she eat them quickly, since doing so may become illegal in the near future.

If anyone else feels like doing the same, her mailing address is:

Senator Dianne Feinstein

United States Senate

331 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510-0001

United States

Dunno what the chances are of this sort of package getting through to her office in a reasonable amount of time... probably not good. But I figured, what the hell.

-Jeremy